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…
population. Swift on the last page of his essay states his true thoughts on what he would like to see the British do to help solve all the issues. Swift had to go with a satirical essay to get his point across to his audience that they were acting foolish he wanted them to feel bad for the poor. Hardin on the other hand went with a more straight forward fact full essay. He wanted his audience to know the cold hard facts. In the start of his essay Hardin even starts using actual numbers such as, “So, here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. …assume it has room for 10 more,….us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission…”(Hardin 171). He is bringing out these numbers to make the reader actually think about the limitations of how many people they are capable of helping. Not only is their angle of getting their message across different from each other but their stance on whether to help or not are different.
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
help. In conclusion, yes both of these essays have some similarities such as their subject matter, but they are both very different essays. The question is what side do we side with? Do we trust the cold hard facts of Hardin, and believe in survival of the fittest and limited resources? Should we have compassion like Swift believes and help all the people we can?
At what point in the essay did you recognize that Swift’s proposal is meant to be satiric? Do you think a modern audience would get the joke faster than Swift’s contemporaries did? It becomes obvious that the author was employing sarcastic and humorous ideas in his proposal when
The point where you see that Swift’s proposal is meant to be satiric is when he starts to talk about the economic gains of selling poor children. It is meant to be a point to address the exceeding amount of poor children that are being sold to slavery rather than an indication to cannibalism. A modern audience
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.
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.
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.
Even though the sarcastic tone isn’t always explicit, a reader who knows the intended purpose of the essay is able to find examples. For starters, in line 28 Swift writes about the horrors that overpopulation causes. He says, “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, alas! Too frequent among us, 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.” This line is written as serious. It calls the death of babies a crime, and describes the “savage” and “horrid” infanticide; yet the thesis of the essay is about the systematic murdering and consuming of one year old children. The sarcasm in this line is that it intentionally misses the point of the thesis it supports, in a way that is almost
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
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.
...ture the attention of the audience by means of “political pamphleteering which is very popular during his time” (SparkNotes Editors). The language and style of his argument is probably why it is still popular till this day. By using satire, Swift makes his point by ridiculing the English people, the Irish politicians, and the wealthy. He starts his proposal by using emotional appeal and as it progresses, he uses ethos to demonstrate credibility and competence. To show the logical side of the proposal, he uses facts and figures. By applying these rhetorical appeals, Swift evidently makes his argument more effectual.
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...
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 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
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 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.