Lingyuan's blog

The following is a letter I wrote addressed to the editor of the Jonathan Swift who wrote A Modest Proposal in 1729. The work is well known satirical critique of squalid conditions that the Irish lived in. The work takes a stance that is so dehumanizing of the Irish that it recommends the Irish be people be treated as cattle, and their offspring be sold to the rich and wealthy. I personally was quite taken by this work, and I found it to be very amusing. It can be read at this link from Project Gutenberg.

To be more specific, our assignment was to refute Swift’s proposal by breaking down and analyzing his rhetorical techniques. I thought this assignment was a lot of fun, so I would like to share it with you all.

Dear editor,

A few days prior I read an article in your editorial by Dr. Swift. I found his ‘modest proposal’ quite interesting and I agree that the state of the nation is regrettable. As you said, it is regrettable that the good men and women of Ireland must suffer through even the sight of these impoverished women and children. In light of this situation, something must be done. Though Dr. Swift’s proposal is not without merit, it possesses many flaws that I cannot overlook.

Dr. Swift begins his proposal with a series of rough calculations, outlining the logistics of the sale of children. While seemingly sound, the statistics he uses are purely speculative, and, for lack of a better phrase, complètement bidon (pardon my French). Be it the population of impoverished individuals, the market price of child meat, or the cost of raising a child, Dr. Swift makes no attempt to support his statistics with any sort of reliable evidence, preferring the standard technique of crede mihi, favored by speculators and ignorant commentators. What little evidence Dr. Swift cares enough to provide is dubious at best, citing “a principal gentleman in the County of Cavan” and “a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London”. Just as any proof is only as true as the postulates it rests upon, so too does Dr. Swift’s arguments depend upon the statements of these fine gentlemen (or women). In this case, I found Dr. Swift’s reassurance of their credibility rather insufficient. 

Furthermore, even if we assume Dr. Swift’s calculations to be completely accurate, (a statement I hold in much doubt), he completely disregards the ethical and moral implications of his proposal, speaking only in terms of economic benefit. Certainly, Dr. Swift’s proposal would generate a net positive for the parents, landlords, and the nation of Ireland as a whole. However, this is not accounting for the suffering and great tragedy leading to the deaths of a hundred young children per annum. Through such an oversight, Dr. Swift’s proposal is made to seem reasonable and honest while being barbaric in actuality. Any argument can be made agreeable if its flaws are made null. Dr. Swift applies a similar assumption, blatantly ignoring the perspective of the innocent children to be “seasoned with a little pepper or salt” and “boiled” as Dr. Swift suggests. These are human beings, however young they may be. Perhaps they may become a loving mother, good father, or kind coworker. Perhaps they are to become a dear friend or dearer lover. These things can all happen, if allowed to. Though they may be young and born into the deepest trenches of poverty, no less is their innate worth or potential compared to any other child. Far beyond the economic worth of their skin, flesh and bones, is the value in the gift of life: the value of which cannot be captured in mere currency. As such, no amount of profit, be it ten shillings, twenty shillings, or twenty thousand shillings, will match the value of the life that is lost nor offset the cost of the suffering created.

I hope, dear editor, you shall take these flaws into consideration, and make them known to Dr. Swift. However, I am no fool. I am fully aware of the satirical nature of this work. In fact, I applaud Dr. Swift in creating such a convincing proposal, so sensible I fear less empathetically (or intellectually) gifted members may be fooled by your guise. I only aim to correct such an event should it occur. Dr. Swift skillfully used clear logic and reasoning while avoiding mentions of the moral and ethical implications, only highlighting their significance. I hope my peers will be similarly moved as I was, such that we may see an increase in support for the impoverished Irish population and their plight.

Sincerely,

A modest onlooker