Similarities Between Mcginn And Adam Smith

Contemporary economics are best explained by comparing two foundational thinkers that have contributed to the better understanding of liberalism, one being its proponent Adam Smith and the other being its most significant critic, Karl Marx. Both thinkers are profoundly important in locating and investigating the roots of neoliberalism as well as exploring alternatives ways to challenge neoliberal economics in the face of its post-cold war expansion as the inevitable and only alternative to redistribution and economic justice. This essay traces the emerging ideas of classical liberalism as articulated by Smith and their subsequent deployment in the debates that produced neoliberalism. In this context, Marx and Marxism are utilized to expose and deconstruct the shortcomings of both liberalism and neoliberalism and their limits in providing solutions to the structural symptoms of liberal and neoliberal capitalism.

In some cases though, that’s not always true. Ender’s Game, a science-fiction book by Orson Scott Card, extremely contradicts it. The main character, Ender is manipulated into many terrible actions, while he has good morales and never intended to do these terrible things. He is portrayed as a good kids and one of the underlying themes convey that intentions mean everything, not the action. This has caused many controversial debates with many different views. For example, John Kessel has written a critical essay, Creating the Innocent Killer, about Ender’s game. Kessel’s essay works on all angles of Ender’s morality. The good

The Jamestown landing in 1607 was the first English settlement to be established in North America. In the movie “The New World” Hollywood attempted to tell the story of the Jamestown settlement and the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas. The movie’s portrayal of their relationship was one of two people falling in love. The historical facts of their relationship, however, paint a completely different picture. Hollywood failed to represent the truth and romanticized their relationship which was not one of love, but one of an acquaintance or friendship.

The different lives and experiences of William Bradford, John Smith, and Olaudah Equiano show how there are many ways to be adapted to a new world. There were many struggles that each of them faced, and each had different motives when writing their experiences. In some way, there are all connected to one another, with some similarities, but there are differences also.

Even though the human nature is evil, but human has the good plasticity, that’s why we need the teachers to guide us, to lead us into a good way. Like we have the nature of the fondness for profit, so we need to know how to get a profit, but not do the things illegal or hurt others’ profit; and we learn to respect the ugly thins even though we don’t like it; and we learn to control our emotions, we learn to restrain, and express in a right way. As a baby, we don’t know what is the respect and what is the courtesy and humility, after we learn, those are all the things that we developed from our nature evil, like the article said: “Now it is the nature of man that when he is hungry he will desire to rest. This is his emotional nature...And yet a man, although he is hungry, will not dare to be the first to eat if he is in the presence of his elders, because he knows that he should yield to them, and although he is weary, he will not dare to demand rest because he knows that he should relieve others of the burden of

The idea of striving for goodness has always been something that has been instilled in our minds since birth. We were always taught to the do the right thing. But why? What are the benefits of being a good person versus being bad? This is question that Colin Mcginn tackles in his article, “Why Not Be a Bad Person?” In it, he explains why he think virtue is the more intriguing moral standard, and explores why some people may disagree with him.

In colonizing the New World, Captain John Smith and William Bradford were both significant figures. Smith was an explorer and solider known for establishing the first permanent English colony in the New World at Jamestown, Virginia. Bradford was a Puritan who was fixed on setting up a colony where people could practice their religion freely. What makes them so alike and different?

Would you rather spend your entire life being good and caring about others, or would you rather be evil and care less about others and only care about yourself? In the novel, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde written by Robert Louis Stevenson in the Victorian Era, also known as the era of pure good, which many people tend to behave with manners to be accepted in societies, but Stevenson wrote this story to demonstrate how we're all evil in some way and was probably the best way to act. Freud’s theory of human psyche is that we all have inner evil and it's up to us to choose if we wanna be id or superego. As for myself, I choose Id because being careless and rebellious can lead you to get what you desire, despite the consequences. For example, you can be a rude and violent person and get away with it, commit a murder and get away with it, care less about what people think about you, and show your true feelings about certain things can make you feel free.

Elaborated on when Casy states, “There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do. It's all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say.” (Steinbeck 32)

Throughout the “Genealogy of Morals”, Nietzsche challenges preconceived notions of the society’s moral concepts and their origins. In the first essay, he inquires, “Under what conditions did man invent the value judgments good and evil? And what value do they themselves have?”, as well as outlining the dichotomy between ‘good and bad’ versus ‘good and evil’ (5). According to the ‘English Psychologists’ mentioned by Nietzsche, the “good” was initially referenced by the beneficiaries of altruistic or useful actions, under the assumption that the idea of “good” and “useful” were one in the same. According to Nietzsche, this belief carries a historical inaccuracy, and he argues that the utilitarian use of “good” has only arisen relatively recently,

In this sense, a person can do the “right” thing, but if it is not done by his own will or choice, it is not morally virtuous. The claims of Books II and III directly contradict each other. The former argues that force must play a part in the development of moral virtue, while the latter explicitly states that what is done by force is not at all morally virtuous.

    It is our desire as humans to be good, sure there a couple of that are jerks thrown in there, but that inevitable. Those who actually do good will go on to be admired by others, they will be seen as heroes, the ones who were raised right, they will be praised. Sure most people want to be good. But what about those who don’t ? What if the bad people had every intention of being bad and causing pain. What if the bad people think that what they’re doing is okay because they were never cared about enough to be taught otherwise. I have stayed up countless nights thinking about what a bad person could be doing to someone at that exact moment. Who is being raped? Who is being beaten? Who is being starved? Who is being murdered? All questions that pass through my mind as I lie sleepless in a quiet dark room that seeks peace of mind and lead me to the conclusion that we are truly born with luck. As a matter of fact we are so lucky that most people kill to be in our positions. If you truly think about it you will realize that we’re all lucky we are to be living the lives that we’re living, or to even be alive at all. The fact that we can drop dead at any second if truly astonishing and I wish I could say that no one in my close family has experienced any of that pain, I wish because someone really close to me already has, my mother.

There are always two sides to every coin. For example, without evil, there can be no good. Is being a good person all about the things one does or is it about the reason one does the things they do? There 's good and bad in everyone. Humanity isn 't perfect, and our lives are so complex. In the film titled Nightcrawler, Louis Bloom shows viewers first-hand what it is like to be a journalist in the fast pace city of Los Angeles. Throughout the film, Louis attempts to manipulate the other characters and uses their weakness against them to get whatever he desires. Even though a person may be considered as a bad person they still could possibly commit actions that a good person normally world and vice-versa. For many people, it may be easy for them to characterize Louis as a bad person, due to the choices and decisions he makes through the movie. After watching the film several times, I am still pondering over what exactly it means to be a bad or good person. Everyone makes mistakes; it is inevitable. But the thing that separates a good person from a bad person is that a good person learns from those mistakes and never repeats those same mistakes again. Making mistakes is part of what makes us human. They not only help one learn from our experiences, but they also help shape one into the individual they would like to become. A good person is comfortable with both their strengths and weaknesses, treat others with respect, and are aware that their inner intentions are truly what

This idea of goodness and virtue goes anything beyond worldly values and ideals. "A good man cannot be harmed either in life or in death"(41d), says Socrates further explaining that no matter what, "a better man [cannot] be harmed by a worse"(30d). Having virtue gives you a certain happiness that is well beyond life or death or worldly values and goods.

The human race, Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli describes in his work, The Qualities of the Prince as, “they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger greedy for gain (46).” From this analysis we can see that we all have our less than admirable qualities, some people are greedy, some egotistical, and others envious. I confess that I have dealt with these and I know that I am by no means perfect. So, where do these feelings stem from? It is from our natural born instinct of self-preservation, it is what brings out the drive in us all that causes us to take any measure to keep our well-being protected and in our best interest. We are capable of committing so many types of atrocities, we kill, we steal, and we cheat, though there is many more that could be named, I believe that these are the most apparent sins that stem from our instinct of self-preservation and previously mentioned less admirable qualities. And sadly, the truth is that any average person is capable of committing these horrible sins not just criminals or the outcasts of society. But there is hope for the human race, because someone one is capable of committing great evil is also capable great good, and even in the most horrible of places, there is good to be found. An excellent example of this can be seen in William Wordsworth’s poem “Among All the Lovely Things My Love Had Been”, Wordsworth describes a scene while riding his horse on a stormy night, “A single glow-worm did I