Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, had a theory of trying to simplify the task of arguing by dividing and classifying arguments into three types. The three types are called Logos or logic-base, Pathos or emotion based, and Ethos or credibility based. The two classic essays, “Life Boat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin and “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift, the writers make good suggestions with these types of arguments over world population and world famine. While Hardin relies strongly on his credentials as a source of knowledge for him to be an expert in human population.
For example, Hardin refers to questions of who do we save, when do we save them, how should we save them, and why should we save them. He uses this as moral and ethical standpoint in this situation. Like Hardin, Swift also realizes this same dilemma, but about a few centuries before Hardin. Swift shows that not all “experts” are credible sources. In his version he uses the example of “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled … Now to me, these two essays are a bit extreme, but they bring up some interesting ideas on population control and world famine.
Hardin came up with his essay to help people to understand that the world population may get out of hand both with immigration and lack of natural resources, and we as the people of the world may not know how to deal with this dilemma. Hardin suggested a “world food bank” to supply food equally to every nation as a means to counter the famine issue. He makes examples of how Overloading the Environment may be in danger.
Hardin says “Food can, perhaps, be significantly increased to meet a growing demand. But what about clean beaches, unspoiled forests, and solitude? If we satisfy a growing population’s need for food, we necessarily decrease its per capita supply of the other resources needed by men. ” Hardin also refers to an essay titled Chinese Fish and Miracle Rice saying, “as an ancient Chinese proverb goes: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days.
Another essay on this topic of Hardin’s discussion was, A Nation of Immigrants, where he was asking the nation of the United States if they really wanted the nation to be built by foreign immigrants who are using up their natural resources. He was saying that future foreign immigrants will take over as the populous rather than the resident “natural born. ” Hardin’s final statement was “Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible.
For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less”. Swifts version of population control or natural resources was simply to find a way to employ all the beggars and panhandlers so that they could be a part of society. He uses this not only as an idea but also a suggestion because all the foreign Irish immigrants in the eighteenth century England.
He felt like if they could become productive that they too could help pave the way to ending the possible famine they faced in the near future. Now another idea of Swift’s was more extreme than Hardin’s. Swift uses the suggestion of eating the children of the weak, the less fortune, the “lesser class”. He uses this as a mere joke, but nevertheless the point of the intent to grab the attention of the eighteenth century acrostic Society of England worked.
He discussed much like Hardin’s theory of the “world food bank”. Swift uses his purpose as menses to enlighten people to think. To think of other solutions to starvation of the over populous world. He wants people to take charge in a rational way to control the worldly epidemic. He also like Harding’s discusses about immigration. He says that the Irish will take over the country, and run their natural resources dry. This would cause a complete meltdown of their country’s social stand point.
When Swift suggests that his fellow countryman should pursue the thought of eating the less fortune children or the immigrants of the time (Irish) as means not only as a population control, but also as a way to defeat possible starvation due to lack of natural resources. He says this to again get his fellow countryman to think. Swift’s thinking is if there is a way to figure out any ssible solution to the country’s issues. He can ask for the help of his fellow countryman in resolving this matter.
You can tell that the genuine expression of help is given by Swift when he states towards the end of his essay, “I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner | prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed forever.
Then at the end he states that, “I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing. ” So therefore in the end, l’ve come to concluded even though these men are from different eras in life, both share some of the same thoughts, ideas or morals, and standpoints. With Swift poking fun at the idea of eating young small children of the less fortunate would be a solution to end world hunger. Then with Hardin’s examples of questioning the moral standpoint of the world. As well his suggestion of the creation of one united food bank to help supply the world with even and fair amounts of food. Both of their examples and thoughts on immigration and the justification of their ideas were interesting.
Hardin sources were out of a book, and Swifts were of his own experience. They both felt like if they didn’t suggest or try to provide some insight on these topics in their own special way, that we all would be doomed in the foreseeable future. Now to me they both sound like the politicians of today, with discussing topics of immigration, third world aid, and way to fix the problems in their own way. Always trying to prove the age old question of “what can we do? ” Now with that said I ask you the readers to ask yourselves this question to find some common ground and ask yourself the same question. If you come up with a better plain these two men then you should find yourself a job in international politics.