In the essays “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin and “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift similar subject material is used. The essays both discuss what should be done with the poor. In “Lifeboat Ethics” Hardin discusses how poorer countries should not be assisted by the richer countries. In his essay Hardin is very cold, and logical with his approach. Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” uses satire to help argue his points. In the essay he uses a fake speaker that proposes eating babies is a good idea. To examine the arguments to see which is better the Latin terms logos, pathos, and ethos will be used. Swift uses these three ideas more effectively then Hardin does to argue Essay. The essay’s logos aspects are both fairly strong. Hardin’s argument relies heavily on logic. In his essay Hardin uses a lifeboat as an analogy as to why not everyone on earth can be saved. Trying to fit everyone in a lifeboat won’t work if there are too many people. He applies this analogy to resource management. Resources can bot be equally shared because it will sink the boat. Hardin calls this idea the tragedy of the commons. One of his first arguments is that the rich countries cannot help these poor countries forever because they are growing at around three times the rate. Hardin sees Institutions like the world food bank to be a waste of resources. Rich countries will not be able to one day feed the faster growing poor populations. He also has issue with the world …show more content…
His essay is almost devoid of any emotion. It is a little forgivable since this was done on purpose. Lifeboat ethics are hard and emotion is only going to make it harder. It still makes his argument weaker by not using pathos effectively. Swift’s argument on the other hand shines brightest in this area. What could appeal more to emotion than children? The answer to the question is not very much could. So when Swift recommends to use babies as a food source everyone gets