Upon delving into A Modest Proposal, one can immediately tell that Jonathan Swift is a weathered writer. He takes his time building up his credibility and reasoning before even offering up his argument. For myself, by the time I actually got to the argument, I didn’t feel like it was an argument at all. In the way it was subtly posed, it felt like a valid statement, getting ready to be followed up by reasons that it is such.
The ideas presented in Swift’s essay are presented very logically, although cynical and satirical at times. Throughout reading this piece, the thought never crossed my mind that this man is suggesting that we eat helpless infants. Being a big believer in logic, it makes perfect sense from a monetary standpoint to sell young, money-sucking babies for the sustenance of others. It seems as though it would indeed help the economy, reduce overpopulation, and ease the burden of young mothers who were not intending on being in their position.
After I had completed reading this essay, my mind began to think ethically about the situation presented. What would Kant do? On one hand, the lives of one-hundred thousand innocent children would be taken, without their respective consent. On the other hand, roughly four times as many people would benefit seven-fold from the lives lost. Is this indeed for the greater good? There is no doubt that this is a huge debate. I have settled somewhat on an opinion through self-debate over the course of an evening; since the life of a human animal capable of feeling joy and pain, showing emotion and compassion, thinking for itself, is no different on those levels than that of another animal, it would be unethical to take the life of either. Some argue that taking a human life is the highest rung on the ladder of unethical behavior, while some would say that if it is for the greater good, it must be done. When it comes to the topic of life, I must confess that I side with the former. The difference between humans and other animals in this respect does not exist in my mind. If I would not agree to the taking of the life of an animal in the bush, I would certainly not agree to the taking the life of an animal in a house.
Book recommendation:
Cottom, Daniel. Cannibals & philosophers : Bodies of Enlightenment. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is interesting that you bring up the issue of animal rights with this article, because serveral times in the article humans are compared to animals in a provoking manner. Infant babies are compared to being served the way a pig would be, and pregnant women are compared to cows at market. People generally value themselves as higher than animals. But I have to wonder if deep down the shock and dismay these comparrisons bring up for most people, is influenced somehow, deep down on the pity of how these animals are treated.
Post a Comment