Write a critical analysis by identifying and assessing the argument in the following passage.
We in the rich nations are like the occupants of a crowded lifeboat adrift in a sea full of drowning people. If we try to save the drowning by bringing them aboard, our boat will be overloaded and we shall all drown. Since it is better that some survive than none, we should leave the others to drown. In the world today ‘lifeboat ethics’ apply. The rich should leave the poor to starve, for otherwise the poor will drag the rich down with them.
Thank you for using the Jiskha Homework Help Forum. Wow! This is a powerful passage and the image it presents is horrific. Unfortunately there is truth in the statement that everyone can not be saved. Perhaps you are familiar with the statement "If you can not feed a man, at least teach him how to fish." Implying that the rich should do nothing will not even attempt to address the problem!
The argument used is metaphorical logic, likening the actual to an imagined situation. The situation is chosen to provide the emotional response desired.
The analogy you are using presents the situation as "either-or." It is suggesting that this is the situation, and there are no other alternatives. The following article might make you a little more cautious in accepting the validity of the presentation.
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/DecisionTrap.html
I hope this helps a little more. Thanks for asking.
In order to provide a critical analysis of the argument in the passage, we need to identify and assess the main points being made.
The argument in the passage is that people in rich nations are like occupants of a crowded lifeboat adrift in a sea full of drowning people. The analogy suggests that if the rich nations try to save the drowning people by bringing them aboard their boat, the boat will be overloaded and everyone will drown. Therefore, it is better to leave the poor to starve in order to ensure the survival of the rich.
Assessing the argument, it is important to note that this is a metaphorical logic being used. The author is using the lifeboat scenario to make a larger point about the relationship between rich and poor nations. The analogy is meant to provoke an emotional response and make the argument seem more urgent and compelling. However, it is also important to remember that metaphors are not necessarily accurate representations of reality.
The argument raises ethical questions about how to address issues of poverty and wealth inequality. It presents a stark choice between saving some and leaving others to suffer. However, it overlooks other possible solutions and alternatives. It assumes that the only way to address the problem is through leaving the poor to starve, without considering other options such as redistributing wealth or exploring sustainable development strategies.
Overall, the argument in the passage presents a pessimistic view of the relationship between rich and poor nations. However, it is important to critically analyze the assumptions and limitations of the argument and consider other perspectives and solutions to address global poverty and inequality.