Metaphors In Lifeboat Ethics

In Garrett Hardin’s paper, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Harden uses the analogy of a lifeboat being a nation. He intends to offer his opinion, while explaining why his theory, “Lifeboat Ethics,” is more accurate than a previous theory, “Spaceship Earth” (Hardin, 358). Throughout the paper he explains that by the rich supporting the poor, they are enabling the poor to continue in their destructive ways and to ultimately cause “environmental ruin” (Hardin, 366). Hardin’s work is persuasive, but can be perceived as harsh and confusing. He starts out with a metaphor, using it as an extended metaphor for the whole paper, but his metaphorical stance and his literal stance do not seem to line up. His extended metaphor …show more content…
Inside the boat are the rich, and outside are the poor. Because the boat can only hold so much, the poor cannot be brought into the boat, instead there has to be space left for emergencies and environmental well-being (Hardin, 358-359). Hardin mentions three of the ways to fix the problem of the swimming/sinking poor, but this is the way he supports: he says, “my reply is simple: “Get out and yield your place to others”’ (Hardin, 359). It is not simple, though. In real terms that would mean the poor should become rich and the rich should become poor, right? Which contradicts what he supports because Hardin says that a “wise nation,” or rich nation, will expect bad years and emergences, so they will set aside part of the production each year to make up of for them. However, “the great majority of governments in the world do not follow such a policy [because] they lack either the wisdom or the competence, or both” leaving the rich countries to have to “come to the rescue” …show more content…
Throughout the essay, Hardin starts with the opposing viewpoint, showing how it can be logical, then comes back and attacks it. Often he poses questions in his rebuttals that help reveal his opinion. For example, in “The World Food Bank” and “Extracting Dollars” sections, he starts out talking about up-standing groups that support the World Food Bank and for reasons like “Billions for U.S. Business” in the food industry and that the “special interest groups gain handsomely under the program” (Hardin, 361). Then, he goes on to talk about how taxpayers are “forced” to pay billions to the program because of “the combination of silent selfish interests and highly vocal humanitarian apologists” (Hardin, 361). Hardin’s choice of diction like “selfish interest,” and sentence and paragraph structure give the paper an attitude, or tone, through this section and the rest of the essay, that makes it seem harsh. He makes it feel as though he is attacking the opposing by saying they are smart, but he is brilliant because he thinks farther and his proposition is more likely to