Thomas Malthus’s essay, “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, and Hardin’s essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the poor”, are similar in the way that they both speak about the problems with the impoverished society. However, the two essays are also very different in the way that they approach the problem and the techniques they use to do so. Both of the authors, Hardin and Malthus, have a similar opinion about the poor, but they don’t voice their opinions the same way. After analyzing both of the authors’ essays, the reader can see that Malthus and Hardin are two very different people. Hardin seems to be an upper class citizen with very high status, unlike Malthus who seems to be middle class and only a mediocre status.
…show more content…
Hardin’s intended audience is upper class citizens who may not be aware of the dangers of sharing things with the poor. Unlike Malthus whose intended audience seems to be the general public. Hardin and Malthus are also different in the way in which they approach their audience. Malthus uses logos and ethos to portray his feelings to the reader and establish; Hardin simply uses logos. An example of Malthus using ethos to connect with the reader is when he writes, “For few persons will leave their families, connections, friends, and native lands…or the hope of some great advantages in the place to which they are going.” (554). This quote appeals to the audience because the reader can picture themsleves in the situation of leaving everything behind and can, in some way, feel the poor person’s emotions. Nonetheless, Hardin and Malthus do both use logos to establish their sense of reliability, such as percentages about the population, or the amount that the US has grown in the past year. Also, Malthus and Hardin are both successful in the way that they manage to appeal to the interests of their readers. Hardin knows that by using legitimate facts and statistics about the poor population, his audience will pay attention to him because they believe he is a credible source. Malthus understands his audience will not be interested in only facts that only apply to the upper class, but instead will want to …show more content…
They are also both successful because of the way they clearly articulate their ideas. Their approaches may be different, such as Malthus’s use of logos and pathos, but they were each able to convey to their readers, which was to show that the United States, or any nation, should not allow the poor people into the
Hardin’s intended audience is upper class citizens who may not be aware of the dangers of sharing things with the poor. Unlike Malthus whose intended audience seems to be the general public. Hardin and Malthus are also different in the way in which they approach their audience. Malthus uses logos and ethos to portray his feelings to the reader and establish; Hardin simply uses logos. An example of Malthus using ethos to connect with the reader is when he writes, “For few persons will leave their families, connections, friends, and native lands…or the hope of some great advantages in the place to which they are going.” (554). This quote appeals to the audience because the reader can picture themsleves in the situation of leaving everything behind and can, in some way, feel the poor person’s emotions. Nonetheless, Hardin and Malthus do both use logos to establish their sense of reliability, such as percentages about the population, or the amount that the US has grown in the past year. Also, Malthus and Hardin are both successful in the way that they manage to appeal to the interests of their readers. Hardin knows that by using legitimate facts and statistics about the poor population, his audience will pay attention to him because they believe he is a credible source. Malthus understands his audience will not be interested in only facts that only apply to the upper class, but instead will want to …show more content…
They are also both successful because of the way they clearly articulate their ideas. Their approaches may be different, such as Malthus’s use of logos and pathos, but they were each able to convey to their readers, which was to show that the United States, or any nation, should not allow the poor people into the