During the 1970's, the Emeritus Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, who has a Ph.D. in biology and is the author of several books, Garrett Hardin, wrote the essay Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor response to how rich, developed countries should go about providing foreign aid to more poor, developing countries. This essay appeared September 1974, in the magazine Psychology Today allowing everyone to see his ideas on how to handle the situation and argued against the ideas that he didn't agree with. Around the time he decided to write his essay, the United Nations were debating on whether they should create a World Food Bank to help out those in need or not. Once Hardin heard …show more content…
To understand how Hardin did not appeal logically, you must understand how writers use logos appeal: "Writers use a logical appeal (logos or "word" in Greek), to appeal to the reader's mind or intellect. This appeal relies on evidence that is factual, objective, clear, and relevant." This analogy compares rich countries to a lifeboat and undeveloped, poor countries to people drowning in the water. He discusses their three options as to what they should do about the people in the water: They could rescue them all, rescue only a few, or rescue none. With a lifeboat capacity of 60, 50 spots already taken, and 100 people in the water, if you rescue everyone your boat will sink and then there will be no chance of survival. With the second option, if you only select 10 more people to come aboard, you have to question who it should be since everyone is looked at equally: This will cause us to lose our "safety factor" which is of critical importance, according to the text. The end result of this option would also end in disaster because if some random disaster occurred we would have disastrous consequences and be in the water as well. Finally, you can allow no one to come aboard and suffer in the water, and since the other two options could not possibly work,