Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In his satirical essay A Modest Proposal, Swift intends to showcase the absurdity of the economic state at the time, and the suffering already resulted from the income gap. At the same time, this essay can be interpreted as a metaphorical argument for veganism. However, with most of the population not adhering to vegan standards, it begs the question of which meat is worse to consume. Swifts suggestion highlights the obvious issue of choosing who is to be eaten. Since all people possess an equal right to life, cannibalism should not be a better option. Currently, humans and other animals enjoy different rights and human rights supersede others. However, this hinges on assuming that a human is inherently superior to other species. Placing humankind atop the species ladder seems unjust since it is remarkably anthropocentric. I believe that in a situation of a critical need, like being trapped in a snowed-in cave, cannibalism may be the only option for survival and, therefore, justified. In other situations, where a need is not as acute, I believe that killing animals is hardly better than cannibalism.
A second, more technical argument is that cannibalism is so intuitively horrifying because it goes against the innate, hard-wired evolutionary strive to survive and reproduce. The entire course of natural selection shapes the species for prioritizing those of the same kind over others the populational interest is at stake. A concept like cannibalism, which would naturally undermine the populations survival and the human species, decreases future chances. Hence, from an evolutionary point of view, eating other species is much better than eating ones own species.
Lastly, there is a question of conscience and the ability to feel and comprehend pain. The argument is that since humans are highly intellectually developed beings, they are entitled to various rights that exempt them from suffering. However, other animal species can feel and comprehend pain, too, to various extents. Perhaps, one can arrange a priority consumption ladder, where jellyfish are much better for consumption than apes, and so on. In this framework, cannibalism is worse than consuming other animals meat, but the difference varies. Overall, the questions of need, evolutionary advantage, and intellectual superiority create a mixed picture. My ultimate conclusion is that cannibalism is worse than eating other animals, but how drastic the gap is varies depending on the circumstances.
Work Cited
Swift, Jonathan. A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burden to Their Parents or the Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Country. The United Kingdom, for Weaver Bickerton, 1730.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.