Help for someone people is second nature. Helping others no matter what the circumstances may be is just instinct for them. While for others help is something they approach more cautiously it’s something they choose to do if it does not negatively impact them in the process. Help is complex and confusing. Should it always be given to those who need it? Or should help only be offered if we can offer it without risking ourselves? For some the answer is clear we should all strive to help as many people as possible. While for others it 's best to focus on our own issues and well-being instead of involving ourselves in others. Garret Hardin addresses this concept of help in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics”, he discusses several subjects such as foreign
…show more content…
Hardin knows that the audiences main concern are the people who will suffer if foreign aid is no longer given. He refers to the audience as “some kind-hearted liberals” who will argue that it is not the fault of the people who inhabit these countries (Hardin 3). They will wonder the following “How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?” yet instead of focusing on their concerns the author dismisses them (Hardin 3). He responds that “The concept of blame is simply not relevant here.” that the real issue is the consequences that will arise from a world food bank he attempts to convince them that the real issue is something else entirely but it does not work (Hardin 3). The audience are people who are deeply concerned with helping those who are in need of help so even if the author tries to shift their attention to another issue that is not relevant or at all effective. All that Hardin has accomplished is ignoring the audience 's concerns and demonstrating that he does not know how to address their concerns of how the people living in these countries in need will suffer. The author continues to do this in his counter points in another paragraph he …show more content…
The author used numerous statistics to support his claims against the world food bank and foreign aid in general but also to increase his own credibility. He felt that if he used statistical data when asserting his claims, it would result in the audience viewing him as a credible source for information on this subject matter especially since he is not exactly an expert on the subject however it did just the opposite. When Hardin introduces his claim that “Each American would have to share the available resources with more than eight people” he chooses to support this claim with statistics and facts however the problem begins when he fails to mention where this information originated from (Hardin 2). He claims that “…the ration would be after 87 years, by which time the Americans would have doubled to a population 421 million.” while that of the following countries the Philippians, Columbia, Thailand, Morocco, Ecuador, Venezuela who are expected to receive foreign aid have a combined population of “210 million people” with an “increasing rate of 3.3 percent per year” (Hardin 2). The author never mentions where these numbers came from if he did his own research and these numbers were the result or if he got them from another resource he just throws these numbers in to build his credibility when
Hardin knows that the audiences main concern are the people who will suffer if foreign aid is no longer given. He refers to the audience as “some kind-hearted liberals” who will argue that it is not the fault of the people who inhabit these countries (Hardin 3). They will wonder the following “How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?” yet instead of focusing on their concerns the author dismisses them (Hardin 3). He responds that “The concept of blame is simply not relevant here.” that the real issue is the consequences that will arise from a world food bank he attempts to convince them that the real issue is something else entirely but it does not work (Hardin 3). The audience are people who are deeply concerned with helping those who are in need of help so even if the author tries to shift their attention to another issue that is not relevant or at all effective. All that Hardin has accomplished is ignoring the audience 's concerns and demonstrating that he does not know how to address their concerns of how the people living in these countries in need will suffer. The author continues to do this in his counter points in another paragraph he …show more content…
The author used numerous statistics to support his claims against the world food bank and foreign aid in general but also to increase his own credibility. He felt that if he used statistical data when asserting his claims, it would result in the audience viewing him as a credible source for information on this subject matter especially since he is not exactly an expert on the subject however it did just the opposite. When Hardin introduces his claim that “Each American would have to share the available resources with more than eight people” he chooses to support this claim with statistics and facts however the problem begins when he fails to mention where this information originated from (Hardin 2). He claims that “…the ration would be after 87 years, by which time the Americans would have doubled to a population 421 million.” while that of the following countries the Philippians, Columbia, Thailand, Morocco, Ecuador, Venezuela who are expected to receive foreign aid have a combined population of “210 million people” with an “increasing rate of 3.3 percent per year” (Hardin 2). The author never mentions where these numbers came from if he did his own research and these numbers were the result or if he got them from another resource he just throws these numbers in to build his credibility when