1

Jenny Smith English 1010 Christie Bogle

Life boat Ethics

In the 1974 article, Life Boat Ethics the Case Against Helping the Poor, Author Garrett Hardin, who has considered himself to be a human ecologist compares Earth to a life boat that has a limited capacity, the rich being those in the boat while the poverty stricken are floating in the waters outside of the life boat wanting to be rescued. Hardin strives to explain his very controversial view on our worlds overpopulation. His article appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. During the 1970s over population had become a widely discussed topic of interest, provoking several writings done on the subject. This article was written to inform the general public and also his fellow ecologists of his concerns. Hardin tells us we are Adrift in a Moral Sea, our morals and beliefs tempt us to reach out a hand to those drowning outside of the life boat, it is our duty to watch out for our fellow man. We have limited resources and because of this we should govern our actions by ethics of lifeboat and not share our resources. The poor will suffer if we do not help them but according to the lifeboat ethic we should not help the poor. He states that the reality of the matter is that by helping these troubled individuals we begin to sink our own boat. Hardin explains this further by telling his readers that the rich individuals in the life boats double every 87 years while those outside of the boats are doubling at twice that rate only to create more poverty. Hardin reminds the readers that the US taxpayers were forced to contribute 7.9 billion dollars in 1960s to the

Food for Peace program, this program helped those struggling and they gained handsomely while those who contributed the money gained nothing, is this fair? He asks if this does more good than harm if it costs the rich more to help out the poor. Hardins harsh tone is apparent when he states how he would approach our problem with overpopulation. He thinks that if we do not help the poor countries they will suffer from poor crops and ultimately die from starvation or famine which helps in population control, making them less of a burden on our country. I find Hardins idea that moral people need to set aside their morals to save themselves unrealistic and this appeals to both Pathos and Logos, if we stop being moral and caring we begin to lose what makes us human. If we take away morality we raise children who only care about themselves and develop a me mentality we will not second guess robbery, lying or even murder resulting in more contention and maybe even war and whose pocket does money for war come out of? I dont see how losing our morals will be cost effective. Hardin states that the poor are multiplying at almost double the rate of the rich which is true but the rich need the poor and middle class to purchase goods to keep that money rolling in it is documented that poor people spend more than rich people during difficult economic times. According to a report done for NPR by Jacob Goldstein the poor and middle class spend more than the rich on food, housing, clothing, and even health care. If the poor stopped multiplying it would result in a huge financial loss for the wealthy people in turn lowering their incomes. Hardins idea is flawed we need all social classes to keep our world running. He suggests that the money given to the poor from the government is also coming out of the richs wallets, implying this is where our tax dollars are going but according to the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities the majority of our Nations tax dollars are going to Defense and International Security assistance, Social Security, and even interest on the National debt this proves that our tax dollars are not only used to support the poor. Garrett Hardin is a widely known Ecologist who spent a good portion of his life focused on the science of relationships between organisms and their environment. He spent 15 years as a professor of Human Ecology in California. He has contributed several books and articles conveying his strong message of the devastation of overpopulation thus making him a credible source and while he does make an occasional good point I could not agree with his argument when I considered those people that do work hard but are affected by tragedy for instance hurricanes that can ruin a whole community. How does one recover from such damage? Even those who are wealthy would have a hard time rebuilding their lives. I would like to ask him how he feels about helping those who are victims of major disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, and other natural disasters. Everyone I discussed this article with agreed that the one great thing about being human is being able to feel empathy and the need to make this world a better place, you can never trade more land for less caring people. It is priceless to see a group of volunteers out helping rebuild a community after tragedy has struck. I wonder if his views would change if he was one of the poor people or someone living in a third world country. Even with all of Hardins good points and his lifeboat analogy I did not find his argument persuasive.

Works Cited

Ede, Lisa S. The Academic Writer: A Brief Guide. Second ed. New York City, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. Print. "Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. - A Retrospective of His Life and Work." By Richard Lynn. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013. Goldstein, Jacob, and Lam Vo. "How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013. Hardin, Garrett. "Life Boat Ethics: A Case against Helping the Poor." Psychology Today (1974): n. pag. Print.