Swift Verses Hardin

573 Words3 Pages
“Modest Proposal” verses “Lifeboat Ethics” First of all, making life decisions for others cannot manipulate the world to become equal. Society has moral obligations toward poverty. Usually the moral obligation to others starts with the intense poverty issue. By reading Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin’s articles, the solutions for poverty seem to be easier than ones’ expectation by slaughtering or leaving refugees behind the social norms. Nonetheless, both articles are idealistic. In another phrase, they are morally wrong. To get a true understanding of what an essay is saying we must concern ourselves with is what the author is truly trying to convey. There are often hidden messages in writing that inexperienced readers often look over and take for granted. This is the issue that is at stake with both readings of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics.” Hardin’s essay that is serious in tone, while Swift’s offers similar views appears to be poking fun by starting at in a serious tone at first glance but in reality is far from it. One illustration of this similarity can be found in the objections each makes in their actual quite differing arguments. Hardin argues against the ideas of “kind-hearted” and “well-meaning” liberals, and Swift says, “let no man talk to me of other expedients…” Jonathan Swift’s essay, “A Modest Proposal,” describes a satirically “fair, cheap, and easy method” to address the great amount of starving children in Ireland by fattening up these undernourished children and feed them to Ireland’s rich land-owners, but Garrett Hardin‘s concept is moral obligation is not a one way sacrificing to others; however, it is built on a foundation of sharing and cooperating. Throughout the article, Swift makes a motion for the prevention of the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their

More about Swift Verses Hardin

Open Document