More handpicked essays just for you.
Discuss satire and irony in Swift's modest proposal
Discuss satire and irony in Swift's modest proposal
Discuss the modest proposal by Jonathan Swift as a satire
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Some would say helping the poor is not helpful at all. They would say that if you help them the poor will never learn to help themselves. While that may be true in some cases that is not always true. In the satirical essay “A Modest Proposal” Jonathan Swift tries to tell his audience how they should help the poor in Ireland; while in the essay “Lifeboat Ethics” Garrett Hardin tries to convince his audience that they can not afford to help anyone but themselves. Both of these essays have a similar topics and they both make good points, however, they are two very different essays. “A Modest Proposal” is a very satirical essay while “Lifeboat Ethics” is a more straight forward approached essay. Also the stances on the essays are complete opposite of each other one wants to help the other thinks it best not to help.
Jonathan Swift’s essay is satirical while Hardin’s was more serious. It is easy to tell that Swift’s essay was satirical even if the reader didn't know his background the proposal in the essay was obviously far to outrageous to be real. No one in their right mind would seriously suggest that eating babies is a good way of controlling the
…show more content…
Hardin says that people should take care of themselves because there are limited resources and people can only help a limited amount of people. As he said the lifeboat only has the capacity to hold 60 people and there are hundreds in the water(Hardin 171). Swift on the other hand thinks that people should show a bit of compassion to the poor and help as many as they can. He said he thought that landlords should have mercy on their tenants on page 392, “…teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy toward their tenants.” Swift wants people to be generous with who they help while Hardin wants people to be frugal and almost selfish about who or if they
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
How does Swift want the reader to view his speaker? That is, how would Swift want his reader to describe the persona he adopts? Swift wants the reader to view the speaker as a reasonable, compassionate and rational person who has a genuine interest in solving the problems of the poor Irish. In the beginning of the essay, the speaker appears to be a concerned person who demonstrates a keen insight into the issues he addresses. However, this is contrary to the fact that the speaker predominantly relies on random and absurd statistics and logic to present his solution. By acting as someone compelled to solve the plight of the poor Irish, the unknown speaker makes his words more effective and establishes himself as someone who would never make the outrageous proposal that follows.
The essay titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin, was very interesting. The first part of the essay used a metaphor of the rich people of the earth in a lifeboat and the poor people in the sea drowning. The rich people could only allow a few people in and if they let, too many people in they will sink the boat and all die. The best thing for the rich people to do is not to let anyone in so they will have adequate supplies and space for them to survive.
Imagine reading an anonymous work that promotes cannibalism! Swift eventually had to reveal himself and the purpose of his pamphlet, which was to exaggerate the steps necessary to stop the Irish famine and poverty epidemic. A Modest Proposal is almost a scare tactic. It brings attention to the distances people will go to stop hunger and homelessness. The audience of rich, land-owning men were expected to take the text to heart.
According to a memorable part of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Consequently, America invited immigrants to come. Yet, there is a manmade concern, “immigration could account for all the yearly increase in population. Should we not at least ask if that is what we want (Hardin, 1974)?” Well! The audacity in Garrett Hardin’s 1974 essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” is to ingeniously imply concern about the harm immigration causes, but in all actuality exposes the support of partiality to
Throughout Swift’s proposal, the proposer is created to both identify and ridicule the reader through his persona and tone. The reader becomes identified with the civilized, educated proposer only to be forced to reflect themselves as cannibals. Although the proposal is often viewed as inhumane, it reinforces Enlightenment ideals, including utilitarianism which concludes it maximizes happiness while producing the least amount of suffering. The irony throughout the proposal is, then, not that the landlords are cannibals but that the proposal is actually humane and rational, yet still unaccepted.
In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.
... Proposal as a Horatian satire. The tone is only good humored to an extent and is laden with sarcasm such as “therefore let no man talk to me of expedients: of taxing our absentees”, as well as absurd, morally distasteful logic. Furthermore, as construed above, the use of the urbane voice of the proposer is not a supplement to a sophisticated argument, but one cleverly used in unison with irony and sarcasm. This use of clever diction helps to promote effective discussion among aristocrats and peasants alike in the hope of deciphering the real meaning of Swift’s proposal. The point of the essay was to uniquely grab the attention of observes who have been indifferent to the plight of the lower class. Through the aforementioned reasoning, Swift does this through the clever implementation of Juvenelian satire in way that the straight forward Horatian satire could not.
Swift appeals to patriotism in the first paragraph when he references to the disloyalty of defending “the pretender of Spain”. He does this again by stating that anyone who can fix the issue of poverty will “have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.” This feeling of patriotism continues in paragraph 17 with the statement “very worthy… country”. He uses the patriotism appeal because the speaker wants to show the readers how the plan will build a sense of national pride. Swift then switches to thrift when he speaks about the economy and effective use of resources. He points out how his proposal will have money of their own and the economy will get better. He also uses the thrift appeal in paragraph 15 where he actually says the word “thrifty”. In this example he is talking about the skin. The purpose of him using the thrift appeal is because it shows the readers about how his theory will help the economy and the citizens of Ireland.
Swift begins his argument by stating his view on the situation and displaying his annoyance. He states, "It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country when they see the streets, roads, and cabin doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms" (Swift 1). He uses melancholic imagery for the readers to sympathize with the suffering children and to understand their situation. Similarly, Swift displays his disgust for the wealthy by stating that "There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children… which would move tears in the most savage and inhumane beast" (1). He talks about abortion and shows how ghastly and disheartening the practice is. Clearly, Swift makes use of pathos to slowly gain the reader’s confidence in preparation for his appalling proposal. He knows that many will be emotionally affected by his proposal because no one would want their own c...
One issue that we discussed in “Lifeboat Ethics” and in “A Modest Proposal” is whether or not the rich should help the poor and if the poor can contribute anything to society. Garrett Hardin and Jonathan Swift have different views on whether or not people should help the impecunious. Hardin, who has only been rich and never been poor, believes the starving don’t deserve help because it’s their fault that they are poor and that they are a waste rather than view them as assets. Swift, who has been rich and poor, believes that the poor can be salvageable and that the poor have a better chance at improving themselves.
This essay will have no value unless the reader understands that Swift has written this essay as a satire, humor that shows the weakness or bad qualities of a person, government, or society (Satire). Even the title A Modest Proposal is satirical. Swift proposes using children simply as a source of meat, and outrageous thought, but calls his propo...
A “Modest Proposal” is written by a man who had been exiled from England and forced to live among Irish citizens for many years during which he observed major problems in Ireland that needed a solution. The writer of this piece is Jonathan Swift, and in his proposal, “The Modest Proposal,” Swift purpose is to offer a possible solution to the growing problem of the homeless and poverty stricken women and children on the streets of Ireland. Swift adopts a caring tone in order to make his proposal sound reasonable to his audience, trying to convince them that he truly cares about the problems facing Ireland’s poor and that making the children of the poor readily available to the rich for entertainment and as a source of food would solve both the economic and social problems facing Ireland.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor,” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, Hardin argues that you should not help the poor because there are limited resources and if the poor continue to seek help they will continue to overpopulate, disrespecting all of limits. Hardin supports his argument by using the lifeboat metaphor while trying to convince the rich not to lend a helping hand to the poor. In the lifeboat metaphor Garrett Hardin uses the upper class and the lower class people to give us a visual of how the lifeboat scenario actually works. Along with the lifeboat metaphor, Hardin uses the tragedy of commons, population growth, and the Joseph and Pharaoh biblical story to persuade the readers.When reading “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against