The article examines five controversial views, expressed in Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer’s Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva’s “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, Julian Savulescu’s “Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children”, and the author’s “A rational cure for prereproductive stress syndrome”. These views have similarities and differences on five levels: the grievances they raise, the proposals they make, the justifications they explicitly use, the justifications they implicitly rely on, and the criticisms that they have encountered. A comparison of these similarities and differences produces two findings. First, some controversial views based on utilitarian considerations would probably fare better flipped upside down and presented as Juvenalian satires. Secondly, a modicum of humor or modesty could help presenters of controversial views to stir polite critical discussion on the themes that they put forward.

这篇文章探讨了五种有争议的观点，这些观点在乔纳森·斯威夫特的“适度提议”、Helga Kuhse 和彼得·辛格的“婴儿应该活着吗？”中表达。弱能婴幼儿问题，Alberto Giubilini 和 Francesca Minerva 的“产后流产：婴儿为什么要活下去？”，Julian Savulescu 的“Procreative beneficence：为什么我们应该选择最好的孩子”，以及作者的“生育前压力综合症的合理治疗”。这些观点在五个层面上有相同点和不同点：他们提出的不满、他们提出的建议、他们明确使用的理由、他们暗中依赖的理由以及他们所遭遇的批评。比较这些相同点和不同点会产生两个发现。首先，一些基于功利主义考虑的有争议的观点可能会更好地颠倒过来并呈现为 Juvenalian 讽刺。第二，