Jonathan Swift's proposal was anything but modest. His purpose was to have the audience thing of its role in the Irish Famine. The audience was the upper-class men and women of England. One might argue that this prose couldn't possibly be aimed at them because Swift's writing focused on the monetary benefits of his proposal. The noble men and women weren't traditionally supposed to focus on money. One of the possible outcomes to his solution was that there would be fewer beggars to bother the wealthy.
Near the end of his argument Swift restates the points about why his solution is so great. A lot of his focus is in the point that the upper class will have a new dish to dine on. He does not fully focus on the fact that the starving families and single mothers of Ireland could also eat children. The fact is that eating children is reserved for the nobles of England. How many fairy tales have we heard where ugly old women try to eat children? How much of the witchcraft phenomenon was based on the killing of children? This story is trying to paint the nobles of England as Ogres. They are the rulers and the people in power. They are the landlords that take their crops and their cattle for rent and leave the people of Ireland poor and starving. This story is saying, "If the English take our land and our property, why don't they just go ahead and make our situation even more deplorable.
Jonathan Swift uses the defense that if the people who read this writing ask the parents of these children how they feel the parents will say it is a good idea. The truth is that parents would not stand for this. This is an absolutely logical solution that does not take into account emotion. The love parents show for their children will deter any implimintation anyone has for this plan.