Wendell Berry expands on a fundamental point from Adam Smith’s work The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is also reflected in his work, The Wealth of Nations. That point is the concept of sympathy and why humans experience it and how it impacts our society and economy. Berry discusses sympathy in his lecture and concludes that sympathy is found in a certain type of person and that sympathy is based on a connection to one’s surroundings. Berry and Smith both share a similar understanding of human nature and what values are the best for individuals and society. Both Berry and Smith believe a society’s strength comes from an individual’s value of community and respect for others.
The unique difference between Berry and Smith’s work is that Smith
…show more content…
Smith and Berry both realize the importance of sympathy in building a strong community. Smith believes sympathy although helpful to a community, is self-interested. While Berry believes sympathy comes from feeling connected to one’s location and community.
Smith argues in both Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations that humans are naturally sympathetic to one another, and this sympathy comes from, an individual's desire to have a happy community, therefore seeing others in a bad situation brings us down while seeing others in a positive situation improves our mood. Smith also labels the ideal individual for a successful society and economy as the prudent man, meaning a person who stays within his financial means and is not an extreme risk taker, he is happy with his living situation and is honest, and he has no anxiety to
…show more content…
Berry also discusses sympathy in his lecture “By that local experience we see the need to grant a sort of preemptive sympathy to all the fellow members, the neighbors, with whom we share the world,” (Berry 3). Like Smith, Berry also sees how personal virtues impact the economy, “As imagination enables sympathy, sympathy enables affection. And it is affection that we find the possibility of a neighborly, kind, and conserving economy,” (Berry 3).
These two men are connected through their idea of human virtues and caring for others around you and how that caring Berry’s argument seems to strengthen Smith's, by providing evidence from other intelligent thinkers and by providing anecdotal proof of his concept of stickers. He compares the life of his grandfather, who lived a modest life, with the life of James B. Duke, who lived a much more prosperous, but not necessarily pleasurable.
Berry says the strength in an economy based on stickers is much more stable and natural. Smith also believes that steady growth is necessary for a healthy society and a strong government. However where Berry contrasts from Smith is when he defines a successful economy one that is sustainable and has an emphasis on protecting nature.
Both Berry and Smith seem to agree on the virtuous middle class. Berry in particular frowns on the super rich, when they achieved their wealth with Boomer values.
Often times, many forget to be kind to one another. When we are performing out our daily activities we forget to think about other people. Individuals can be naturally selfish or self- centered. There are multiple obstacles working against our being kind to one another. Our own success being one of them. We must remember to put ourselves in the shoes of the other person, in order to understand the issues in front of us. It is not easy to become detached ourselves from how we usually are nor how we are born, but it is imperative that we try to ensure a brighter future.
“The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss (...) These people have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen” (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross). Compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern make mankind beautiful, but it also makes it defenseless . When one has concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others, he takes sacrifices, risks, and lives with uncertainty. When man is compassionate, he lives a vulnerable life. Love and compassion bring out the beauty in mankind, but they can also bring out its weaknesses. Because of man’s compassion, he
Called the Father of Modern Economics, Adam Smith was an enormous advocate for private markets. He supported an economic system based on the decision making by individuals instead of the government. Smith felt that no one person or a group is fit to make decisions for a whole population of people and that the population knows how to make decisions for its welfare. In Smith’s mind, people work to supplement their own lives, and when people seek individual economic gain then they unexpectedly promote society and stimulate the economy subconsciously. If people earn more money by working harder then almost all people will work harder. Smith insinuates that people are naturally self preserving and by default selfish; but to a point. Everyone has something that they want and in this world most things can be obtained if a person has enough money. Smith believes that every man should be free to
The purpose of this essay is to question the readers. Ascher wants the audience to analyze themselves to determine the reason behind why people show kindness, whether it is out of fear, pity, or compassion.
Smith believed that self, self-interest, and self-determination, all were mechanisms where individuals are motivated to gain wealth and power for individual gain and group gain. Smith believed that self' is a matrix of reason and passion (Levine, 1998). Furthermore, Smith believed that sympathy leads to empathy, and our individual self-determination leads to accumulation of wealth that benefits others as well as us (Levine, 1998). Examples of this concept are evident in our current economic society today. We see Bill Gates and Microsoft providing technology to communicate more efficiently, Henry Ford's posterity changing the transportation market, and many others who impact man with their accumulation of wealth.
At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the
One example of this belief is when smith declared “...people that have small wealth to live on, here by their labor [they] may live exceeding well.” Overall, Smith’s piece is an extremely persuasive piece that hopes to convince potential settlers to move to the “New World” by portraying early American life as a place for great opportunities to start over, live easily, and to turn small fortunes into a great wealth.
Franklin, himself climbed the ranks society “having emerged from the poverty and obscurity in which [he] was born and bred to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world” (Franklin 27). He had been raised by a humble middle class family, not being promised much wealth or land, forcing him to make a name for himself. Franklin, a man of the enlightenment,
Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the
Benjamin Franklin and Henry David Thoreau have been thought of as two powerful philosophers in history. Both men were alive centuries ago, but their unique ways of life and ideas still exist in some of history’s most admirable figures. Each man had a judgment that went beyond the era they existed in, but is still obvious in today’s culture. Even though both men are credited for their wise principles, their beliefs do not always coincide with one another. However, one thing they do have in common is that they both revolutionized America through their thoughts, actions, and distinctive opinions on how to improve the world around them.
American success history recognizes the contributions made by two of its renowned leaders. The two are regarded as heroes despite the obvious differences between them abound. The two figures are regarded with comparable amounts of reverence even though they lived their lives in different ways. Nevertheless, both Benjamin Franklin and Fredrick Douglas gained their status through treading pathway of hard work. This paper, therefore, seeks to discuss the experiences that shaped the lives of both Franklin and Douglas. It also seeks to analyze the life of Fredrick Douglas as presented by John Stauffer. In comparing the two personalities, I will lay much emphasis on the role education played in making
“Compassionate people are geniuses in the art of living, more necessary to the dignity, security, and joy of humanity than the discoveries of knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein
The true nature of human action remains as an enigma for many and it is question whose answer is everywhere in the civilization that we have all collectively built. The author Jane Austen in persuasion believes that each person is self serving and kind when it 's in their best interest. Contrary to Austens’ belief, Mark Twain with“The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” shows a more optimistic view of human nature where the guilt and sense of sympathy are the driving emotions behind every action. Similarly, in the novel A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith identifies the empathy and duty as a primary cause for the kindness in each person. Every person is hardwired to be a social and inherently good person driven by the emotional consequences and
Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. By evenly distributing food, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist. However, while both utilitarians promote selflessness as beneficial, they do so from different angles. Singer does not advocate unselfishness to increase our happiness, but because it is morally right. While Mill labels selfishness as the root of unhappiness in humans, Singer states instead that absolute poverty is “the principal cause of human misery” (Singer 220). Thus, Mill encourages unselfishness to end the suffering of the one who gives while Singer encourages it to end the suffering of the one who receives.
Pity is a most misunderstood concept in the modern age. It is commonly termed a virtue, which enables one to properly sympathize with his fellow man and take the just actions he feels demanded of him to better the state of his pathetic peers. However, it seems that there is a more decent way of conducting one’s affairs in all aspects of life, as Ayn Rand demonstrates through her characters in Atlas Shrugged. Ragnar Danneskjold, for one, despises the ideal of needs-based rewards that Robin Hood embodies in favour of the “Trader Principle,” which urges men to hold their own minds as the ultimate standard and driving force in their economic life and their handling of love.