Undetectably Swift Meals
Looking for a new dish idea to dazzle your guests at your next dinner party? Please refrain from getting any ideas from Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay “A Modest Proposal.” If taken literally, it might leave a bad taste in your mouth and will probably scar your guests for life. Swift proposes to end the great suffering of the country of Ireland by putting the children, whom he states are of great burden to the poor, to some use by turning them into a product that will in turn resolve the issue of the country’s inability to be self-sufficient. Swift’s proposal is well thought out and detailed, but can we really advocate cannibalism as a solution to fix the crisis of this nation? Swift offers arguments that cover three main topics, the economic status of the nation, the welfare of the poor population and the overall happiness of the population. Although there is logical reasoning to support his proposal, efforts can be made into a more humane solution. Swift starts off with a claim that his proposal “would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation” (page 222). This falls into the topic of the welfare of the population. Reducing the poor population will then reduce those that are suffering. Swift uses a logos approach by appealing to the reader’s logical sense by providing deductive reasoning. Swift implies that if we eat a moderate portion of what we produce, it will indeed reduce our numbers or at least keep it at a sustainable amount. Getting rid of the superfluous amount of people being produced is not really resolving the issue. The people will continue to reproduce and if there were a time when the children were not selling as fast as Swift proposes, then there will still be an abundant amount of “papists.” Providing some education to the people about responsibility and being able to take care of the children they have and providing contraceptives would be a much more effective solution. Preventative measures will solve the issue instead of trying to solve it after the fact.
Along with this topic, Swift also suggests that the poor parents will no longer have the burden of taking care of their child, as he states “beside the gain of 8s. sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.” (page 222). With this statement Swift is assuming that since the poor parents will have money and no longer have to care for their children after the first year the parents will be better off. Although his logical reasoning is true, he totally disregards the emotional attachment that comes with being a parent. His proposal makes it easier said than done. I highly doubt that parents after spending an entire year with their child would be so willing to give it up.
Swift further supports his proposal by claiming that “This would be a great inducement to marriage” (page 222). By making this claim Swift removes the essence of what marriage is all about. He tries to support this claim by stating that “wise nations” have encouraged marriage by “rewards or enforced laws and penalties”. Swift calls to the attention that values of country should be called to question. He further questions the values by stating the proposal will “increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children” (page 222). Marriage and family should be something built from love, not from greed. He also mentions that when wives are pregnant, husbands will less like commit acts of domestic violence in order to protect the child which is profit in their eyes. Here he essentially uses the greed as the motivation for preventing bad behavior.
The next arguments cover the topic of the economic status of the nation. The proposal hopes to help alleviate the debt owed by people to their landlords, as Swift states “The poor tenants will have something valuable of their own” (page 222). In this argument Swift is calling to attention that the poor will be able to pay off the debts to their landlords and actually have property of their own, therefore will benefit the economy of the nation. But do the value of possessions and property really outweigh the value of a human life? The values of the people are again questioned with such a remark.
Swift further claims that without the liability of having to provide for these children, the expense that would have been used to care for them will then turn into a profit and therefore “the nation’s stock will be thereby increased £50,000 annum” (page 222). Swift makes a very reasonable claim here, as his proposal will indeed stimulate the country’s economy. But as will any product that will be a commodity where the demand is big and will turn a profit.
In this last argument discussed regarding the topic of the economy, Swift uses a syllogism to support his claim that the profit of the selling the children as food will stimulate the economy because it will increase business at places like the taverns. Swift states that if taverns have the best recipes for this new dish (major premise), the “fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves on their knowledge in good eating” (page 222) (minor premise), will be customers of the taverns because of they will have the best recipes (conclusion). An increase in customers means the taverns make more money and this increase in business will be good for the economy.
Swift makes the assumption that children will indeed be in high demand, as he states “ 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” (page 219). There is no logical reasoning at all to support this claim. His whole proposal is based on children being a profitable product, but shows now evidence that it will actually sell. His logical reasoning to the rewards of being able to sell a product that is in high demand, is all well thought out and sound, but the idea that a child is that product is one that needs some further revision.
Earlier in the proposal, Swift tries to persuade the audience with the use of ethos to show an ethical standpoint on abortion and baby murders by stating “another great advantage to my scheme, that will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children” (page 219). He tries to play on the emotions (pathos) of the audience by stating that “sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.” (page 219). This is before he fully provides the details of his proposal. This to me is a contradiction of his entire proposal. He states his proposal will help prevent abortions and baby murders, which result in the death of the children. His proposal is to sell the children to be eaten, which also results in the death of children. What difference would it then make if a child dies by abortion or by cannibalism? In the end the child dies either way so there is no difference.
Swift’s proposal crosses major ethical boundaries that should definitely not be crossed. Although his reasoning is sound in some parts, the proposal as whole makes too many assumptions and does not really provide a sound argument that it will resolve the issues that the country of Ireland is facing.