This post will examine the main concept of the essay by Dr. Jonathan Swift: A modest Proposal and indulge to skip details of whether he was being sincere or not about his points of view or if this modest proposal was the consequence of too much whisky and an empty stomach. The essence of this text is what turns a modest proposal into a philosophical proposal.
Jonathan Swift tries to tackle poverty and famine in 18th century Ireland by suggesting that the families should eat their children, specifically (if possible) infant babies of approx. 1 year old.
There is no need to go into more detail than this, whatever other information provided such as the way to cook children or what time of the year they will be at the prime of their taste is irrelevant to me; what I consider interesting is the mere proposal...
I try to see this as rational as possible, I try to get rid of the emotional and ethical attachment and try to create from this 'outraging' or 'ridiculous' text something that I can investigate with philosophical theories and possible outcomes. A journalistic interpretation. Nothing else.
If we spoke of Human Rights, this would be considered cannibalism, a moral obscenity that jeopardises the institution of 'family' and degrades (Irish) society into an animalistic and uncivilized barbaric pseudo-culture. However, the laws of nature beg to differ, the only preserving human instinct is survival: the attachment to life, geographical and intellectual expansion and procreation. We indulge ourselves to be men of principles because we assume that our lives are not in jeopardy, once our only true possession (life) is under threat we do anything to hold it with us, ANYTHING and anybody who interposes Morality before life is an idiot.
We look at Lions for instance, dominant species of the Sabanna; When the mother Lion has more cubs that she can bare to take care she eats the weakest ones, those that would not survive the winter or shortage of food for several days, she makes the decision of selecting an amount that she knows she can take care of and from that number pick the strongest cubs, the weaker ones die and with the energy she obtains by eating the weaker cubs she is able to protect and feed the living cubs more efficiently. This instinctive choice is made in order to survive.
Jonathan Swift's idea does not deviate very far from the very concept I just illustrated.
If we step aside from the controversy, the sarcastic and dark sense of humour and the ridiculous 'bonus' to eating children (turning their skin into gloves for the ladies) we can recognise a possible solution to starvation.
Once again, our moral values are not something we are born with, the seeking of values is. I have witnessed 'cannibalism' myself. In India I saw a 'saddhu' religious aesthetic eat a dead man's flesh while he was being incinerated; grotesque as this may sound the 'saddhu' was performing a religious ritual, something that was asked by the loving family members of the diseased one.
In 1986 (I believe) A group of Argentinean athlete's plane crashed in The Andes, a mountain range with a very hostile weather, they had no food and they were starving to death, they survived by eating the corpses of their dead friends and colleagues.
Some of my fellow seminar mates said that this was just a joke by Swift, that he was not being serious, how could he be? - Personally, I don't care. Not to disrespect their opinion but simply it makes no difference whether he was joking or not, he stated a clear point, and if it wasn’t because of people’s moral fibre, this would be an absolute remedy.
A Journalist is not a moral guide, an ethical instructor of the masses nor should he aspire to be. Simply narrates facts interpreted by his own conditioning.
If we become dis- attached from this conditioning (emotions, moral values, insecurities, confusion, doubt) and we are able to observe, we can find clarity.
The Irish people had been presented with an offer to solve their huge famine and starvation problem, whatever they decided to do it was their choice and hopefully most of them found a way out of their terrible condition without having to eat one of their family members, but if the time came when they were about to starve to death, let me tell you that it was not because of a lack of choices, but because of a lack of rationality. Your attachment to morality can never be stronger than your attachment to life, since morality is your interpretation of how a righteous life should be and what’s a righteous life without life? An illusion.
Needless to say I enjoy controversy.
