Swift justifies his primary claim, that cannibalizing children should resolve the poverty crisis, through a pragmatic discussion of its potential benefits. Swift estimates that “a hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents [are] annually born,” with each child selling for approximately “ten shillings” and “mak[ing] four dishes of excellent nutritive meat” (Swift 316), clearly delineating the financial and culinary benefits of his suggestion. He makes further appeals to logos, listing the positive impacts a cannibalistic market could have on England’s economy and Ireland’s population structure (Swift 317-318). In this callous discussion of his proposal, at one point even comparing children to “sheep, black cattle, or swine” (Swift 316), Swift purposely disregards the depravity of his suggestion, forcing the reader to attempt to find the act agreeable as well. In this cognitive dissonance, he subtly appeals to the reader’s pathos; as the reader struggles with feelings of outrage and disbelief at Swift’s primary claim, he then urges the reader to redirect these feelings towards English attitudes about Ireland through his secondary claim. Through his pragmatic, satirical presentation of the subject, Swift manages to achieve a sense of ridiculousness in the reader that transitions to …show more content…
In supporting most his argument through statistics and clear delineations of potential profit, Swift implicates that English attitudes of pragmatically ignoring social problems to achieve maximum profit exemplify the same moral degeneracy that a cannibalistic infant market does. His treatise, then, seeks to inspire a change in these attitudes and urges the English upper gentry to develop an increased consideration for benefitting people of all classes. Thus, the consequences of following Swift’s proposals become clear: should England put aside maximizing self-gain in order to give the Irish poverty crisis the attention it direly deserves, a true solution to the issues plaguing Ireland