Lifeboat Ethics Analysis

The article ‘Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor’ was first published in an American magazine Psychology Today by Garrett Hardin in September 1974. Hardin, a doctorate in microbiology from the Stanford University, has been regarded as one of the principal neoconservative intellectuals who tried to infuse the sense of science in the society through prognosis based on behavioral economics. He has lectured at various universities including the University of California besides writing scholarly articles and books on the synthesis of bioethics, economics and population growth. The article lifeboat ethics was published at a time when the United States experienced a political neoconservative movement that aimed at promoting the self-interests

Hardin adopted an extremely rigid tone but completely disregarded the fact that this poverty in which the developing countries were drowning was inherited by them when the developed countries started colonizing in search of gold and silver, and interfering in the political affairs. In addition, he failed to address how the US was conspiring against Iraq and planning a military invasion to usurp the oil reserves to nurture their own boat. Moreover, Hardin claimed that if the developing economies were to develop, they should learn by experience. However, he made a vague argument and contradicted his own statement by saying that the rulers are corrupt and incompetent, thereby, creating a logical fallacy and defending it in a superficial and controversial way by saying, “The concept of blame is simply not relevant here” (Hardin 20). Thus, Hardin overlooked the fact that how these developing countries would learn by experience when the corrupt leaders are not willing to

Although, the tone used by Hardin is extremely daunting but the significance of the article required a rigid tone, however, the lack of moral ethics and emotions portrayed an inhumane and anti-charity image of Hardin. Despite the strong claims made by Hardin, the one-sided nature of his article displayed the signs of biasness and selfishness without throwing any light towards the other side of the picture i.e. the developing world. Due to all these inadequacies in Hardin’s article, Hardin has been unable to put up a constructive argument despite the distinguished use of the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos. This article clearly demonstrates Hardin’s frustration towards the philanthropic humanitarians of the society but the unfair use of derogatory language and presumptuous claims on part of the developing world has aroused a sense of negativity in his article, which if avoided, would have helped the article to achieve its main aim of raising awareness and