Compelling Logic for Moral Degradation
Thomas Malthus and Garrett Hardin, both of whom argue strong opposition to the continually expanding world population, present compelling logic in favor of their point using distinct styles. Malthus, in his paper, “An Essay on the Principle of Population, determines by the use of mathematical evidence that natural disasters are a positive check on human population and that an increase in human population correlates to a decrease on the moral quality of current life (556); using similar forms of logical evidence, Hardin concludes in his essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, that humans are innately fallible and are therefore unable to provide the resources necessary to uphold subsistence (585). Though it seems as if both Thomas Malthus and Garrett Hardin express similar assessments of, and goals for, world population, each man approaches his own solution with a unique view using various rhetorical strategies.
Thomas Malthus addresses his academic audience in a logical and consequent manner; by providing multiple claims, and subsequent evidences, Malthus effectively conveys his views. Additionally, the economist provides potential scenarios and their outcomes. In this way, Malthus effectively covers all points of view while surreptitiously directing his audience to approach the seemingly natural and logical conclusion which he presents. Being a former Anglican pastor in England, economist Thomas Malthus also …show more content…
Malthus is as successful in repetition and joint writing as Hardin is in his use of logical analogy and real-world illustration; however, both economists artfully convey their points of discussion and leave their audiences to ponder if there really is any moral or sensible way to alleviate poverty and the world’s population
Thomas Malthus and Garrett Hardin, both of whom argue strong opposition to the continually expanding world population, present compelling logic in favor of their point using distinct styles. Malthus, in his paper, “An Essay on the Principle of Population, determines by the use of mathematical evidence that natural disasters are a positive check on human population and that an increase in human population correlates to a decrease on the moral quality of current life (556); using similar forms of logical evidence, Hardin concludes in his essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, that humans are innately fallible and are therefore unable to provide the resources necessary to uphold subsistence (585). Though it seems as if both Thomas Malthus and Garrett Hardin express similar assessments of, and goals for, world population, each man approaches his own solution with a unique view using various rhetorical strategies.
Thomas Malthus addresses his academic audience in a logical and consequent manner; by providing multiple claims, and subsequent evidences, Malthus effectively conveys his views. Additionally, the economist provides potential scenarios and their outcomes. In this way, Malthus effectively covers all points of view while surreptitiously directing his audience to approach the seemingly natural and logical conclusion which he presents. Being a former Anglican pastor in England, economist Thomas Malthus also …show more content…
Malthus is as successful in repetition and joint writing as Hardin is in his use of logical analogy and real-world illustration; however, both economists artfully convey their points of discussion and leave their audiences to ponder if there really is any moral or sensible way to alleviate poverty and the world’s population