Thursday, February 21, 2019

Rhetorical Anaylsis

Jorden House-Hay Rhetorical Analysis- Lifeboat Ethics The Case against component part the Poor I chose Lifeboat Ethics The Case against Helping the Poor, by noggin Hardin, to discerp because, out of all the readings I have ever do for English, this particular one is by farther the most memorable. It is also suddenly suited for my line of resolveing, because it is appropriately as come toensive as it is logical. The analyze, in short, is a rhetorical line of products that claims that boostering the despicable or unfortunate concourse of the world-though it is considered the make up-hand(a) thing to do- is, in exis ten dollar billtity, harmful to the in truth future of our species.The veritable message of the stress, however, is non what I want to endorse. When this essay was assigned to my sieve junior year, the almost overwhelming reaction was immediately a chemise of the essays content, heretofore though we had only so far been given the title. This crumb be attri unlessed to the modern sense of exampleity regarding charity, or what the politically right thing to do is my classmates were so outraged by the idea of not serve hygienicing the deplorable that they formed their trust originally even out being presented with the transmission line.This reaction- sensitiveness to begin with rationality- is what I wish to manage against. I debate that this takes place a lot in society, with national support unanimously given to the general agreement of what is morally right, even though what is considered morally right today may not actually be a heavy thing at all, and is dogmatic at that different generations and societies over time- and even different cultures in the resembling time period- can have totally different views on what is moral and what is not.Therefore, there should always be, for the sake of intellectual purity, a detachment of sensibility from logic, especially regarding major decisions that can affect the entir e country, or even the entire world. The essay is crude in terms of the modern western sandwich sense of morality, yes, but it is also very logically sound in a lot of ways, and worth at least dissection for truth before dismissal. So my purpose, or what I want to demonstrate in my analysis, is to lay down that undecomposed because something is offensive does not mean it is automatically incorrect.In regards to the essay, I am qualifying to be analyzing the ways the argument against helping the poor is constructed, and why it is written at all. For my purpose, it is essential to my come in- that something morally wrong can still have merit- that I demonstrate clearly that the argument Hardin makes is considerably thought out, written for a legitimate reason, and, above all, logically sound. In order to make my case, I think it is necessary for me to prove that Hardin did his research, and is compose the essay not just to offend concourse or endure a reaction, but out of g enuine concern and actual feeling in what he is saying.This is important because when the essay was released in 1974, it did indeed provide a public reaction, and was published in a rise- hold outn magazine, psychological science Today, so the argument can be made that Hardin wrote the essay for the left(p) reason of getting attention and provoking people, which, if true, would debase everything I am trying to prove in regards to its robustness. My mark in analyzing, accordingly, is to provide becoming rhetorical evidence of the legitimacy of Hardins argument that my own argument is subsequently well supported.To prove that Hardins argument- and therefore my argument- is legitimate, I am going to analyze four major rhetorical devices he uses to help deliver his message. The first, and arguaptly most prominent, of these devices is metaphor. Hardin constructs the world in terms of an ocean, with its people floating in it. Wealth, in this metaphor, is a lifeboat, or safety, whi le beggary is being stranded in the ocean, unprotected from almost certain death.The scrap device is logos Hardin uses fact found evidence and logical raise in his argument as opposed to emotional appeal or personal accreditation. A third major device found end-to-end the text is refutation frequently, Hardin addresses opponents arguments to his own menstruations, and thus ably refutes them. The final major device I will describe that Hardin employs is special example instead of just talking in general terms, Hardin uses particular examples of policies and perceptions that were current at the time of the essay.I chose these devices to analyze in the essay because I think they atomic number 18 the most prevalent, and that together they provide very solid evidence that Hardin makes a sound argument. The first device, metaphor, is brilliant in the respect that it takes a complicated, general principle, and simplifies it down to a specific and easily understandable scenario, w hich in turn makes the point Hardin is trying to make to a greater extent easily grasped.Hardin sets up the metaphor as this a lifeboat has a capacitance of sixty people, and this safety is related to wealth. So, a lifeboat is the rich nations, and all well-nigh it in the water atomic number 18 the poor people of the world. There are fifty people in the lifeboat, according to the metaphor, so that leaves room for ten to a greater extent. The dilemma, however, is that there are significantly more than ten people that assume to be saved.This is the prat of Hardins whole argument it is considered morally right to help the people in the water, or the poor people in the world, but given the situation helping them all is just not possible to do so would mean the demise of us all, just same(p) letting one hundred people on a lifeboat that can afford ten, at the very most (Hardin actually demonstrates that even this is too much due to the need for excess capacity as a safety measure ag ainst disease and famine, but for the purpose of the newspaper I will not go into too much position about that), will inevitably swamp it and save no one.Thus, Hardins argument is made clear if we help the devoid, we will all occur in the long run, and in the short run suffer resolution consequences. This metaphor is used throughout the paper in addition to Hardins support to make the message perfectly clear for example, in addressing the guilt factor of ignoring the needs of the drowning people, he memorably nominates Get out and abide your place to others. The point he makes is that short of switching places with a poor person, there is almost nothing we can do to help people that will not do more damage than good, so for reasons of positive necessity we must be, to the appropriate extent, callous. While metaphor serves to make his argument clearer, Hardins other devices work to give it logical and fact based support. The next device, logos, is a prime method Hardin uses t o support the essay.He argues from evidence, and logic, not emotion, and thus his information, which relies on the established credibility of others, cannot be refuted on basis of opinion, as the essay without evidence would almost certainly be handled that way. For example, in arguing that the population of poorer nations is increasing much faster than the richer nations, he uses actual data amongst his argument As of 1973, the U. S had a population of 210 cardinal people, who were increasing by . 08 percent per year poor nations are increasing at a rate of 3. 3 percent per year. Using real evidence, he makes his point that poor reproduce faster in modern times, supports it with evidence, and then logically feeds the information stern into his argument, again using the metaphor for clearing not only are there more people in need of help-getting on the life boat- than we can afford to help, the poem of the needy are creasing substantially faster, and the amount of people we cant afford to help is growing, making it necessary to become even more callous, or as Hardin puts it The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher.Another example of this is in compose to an actual quote made ironically by a occasion senior member of a corporation Hardin is criticizing. He laces the specific point he is trying to make at the time with evidence from a author that can hardly be called unfairly biased, and thus sets up the same dynamic he states his point, backs it with evidence, and logically ties it back to his thesis, which is a unspotted and textbook application of logos. By constructing his argument from logic, and fact logos-, and not just opinion, Hardin makes it significantly more reliable.The next device, refutation, is extremely important given the mise en scene of Hardins thesis. Stating a case against helping the poor is understandably going to cause controversy, as it goes completely against the politically correct system of beliefs that state the oppo site helping those less fortunate than you is moral, and admirable. So, because of the touchiness of the subject, there is seeming to be no shortage of counter arguments- by addressing some of what he probably considered the major ones, Hardin reinforces his case to some of his critics before they even branch criticizing.A prominent example of this is when he addresses an argument he know will arise against his point of limiting immigration. He imitates an opponent and describes their argument You say that immigrants should be kept out. But arent we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? Having addressed his opponents case, Hardin then logically defeats it he states that if we are to make for out of an inherent sense of guilt and pure justice, then it follows that in the case of America, we must return all land, as well as all the assets and profit gained as a core of it, back to what natives remain.It would be very hard to find even the most big(a) opponent who wou ld endorse this solution, thus Hardin shows that we have to operate based off real world situation, and must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point we are today, essentially refuting the refutation and logically demonstrating that argument from aspect of absolute justice is absurd, and irrelevant. Through employing this method of refutation here, and also at other particularly controversial points in the text, Hardin shows conclusively that his argument is well thought out, and also defends it in the process, adding yet another level of validity to the essay.Finally, in order to avoid being abstract and opening the room access wide for ontogenesisd criticism and skepticism , Hardin uses specific, real word examples to go along with his general statement. One of these is The World victuals Bank, an organization in the process of being established during the time of the essays publication. The goal of the organization, in short, was to provide food for people in countries tha t had a deficiency of it. This is, of course, completely in opposition to what Hardin argues we should do, and so it is a very good example. To demonstrate why a global food bank is a bad idea, Hardin attacks it from several angles.First, he debases its intention, stating that while it appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses, it is not as pure of motive as its lobbyists claimed it to be. He outlines that an organization like that would mean Billions for U. S Business, using the past example of the Food for peace program that did indeed, in historical fact, profit its creators much more than its supposed benefactors. After showing corruption in modern psychiatric hospital of charity, Hardin then defeats it in its own terms, or in other nomenclature he argues against it as if it was in reality pure in its intentions.He argues that helping the overpopulated poor only leads to more overpopulation, and therefore a greater demand, that defeats possibility and would ultimately d eplete the worlds resources, leading to the torment of our posterity. Here, Hardin thoroughly defeats the advantage of charity in a specific scenario relevant to his time, which solidifies his thesis and makes it much harder to refute then if he had stated it as opinion the argument was made relatable to the current political system and carrying into action that Hardin wished to criticize, and by doing so he criticizes much more effectively.Reading this essay geezerhood later gives us the advantage of analyzing his statements for truth, and subsequently having a split idea as to whether his argument was a valid one or not. One particular piece of assumptive data that jumped out of me was Hardins prediction that Indias population would increase from what it was in his time, 600 million, to 1. 2 billion in a mere 28 years. Today, 37 years later, Indias population is estimated around that number.This gave me pause because, while it didnt increase quite as fast Hardin claimed, it w as close enough that it proves the population numbers he was working with and the predictions he made were fairly accurate. I do not know the extent to which Hardin was right, and how much we should trust his solution to overpopulation, but I do know based on this evidence along with the clarity of his logic and the completeness of his argument that it certainly should not be discharged without giving what it proposes careful consideration.The reaction of my class, then, in rejecting it immediately was ill advised, and if that is at all an indicator of the habits of people in general, it can be a very dangerous thing what Hardin claims will be a result of ignoring his advice is the suffering of our posterity and, eventually, the demise of our race and ruin of our environment.As a concerned member of an overly sensitive society, I want to stir with this essay that we consider all proposal given from every source with each sort of legitimate or fact based ethos, and that we utterl y must take on this intelligent and logical consideration in order to avoid the mistake of disregarding something that could be as wicked as the subject addressed in Lifeboat ethics, especially for the poor reason of adherence to arbitrary, current morality. The fate of our country, of our children, and of the world itself could depend on it.misprint application of this essay is tricky, because it argues for a general attitude more than a specific action, and an attitude is something that you apply constantly. A great example of a way this attitude can be applied, however, is in an election of any kind, obviously including the upcoming presidential one in 2012. A existent application of this essay would be to encourage people to really analyze what the country needs and what a nominee offers without including personal and irrelevant opinion into the decision, such as whether abortion should be legal or whether the candidate offers support or disapproval to gay marriage.I understa nd that these are powerful issues to people, but given the state of the country I think there are definitely more important things- foreign constitution and financial plans for example- that deserve more consideration. This encouragement could take place in a campaign to convince people of the necessity to logically and intelligently evaluate campaigns, or something of the sorts.

No comments:

Post a Comment