So I walked out of class Tuesday with a huge sense of depression. I got an interest in economics with the idea of trying to find a way to help those in need, particularly the poor. So with our readings into the fundamental motivations of human actions I have to say I was a little crushed to find that the arguments presented to us really both relied on the sense of human selfishness as the reason for doing good deeds.
The arguments varied in directness, with Mandeville being as straight forward as possible saying that humans only act if they can get something in return. Smith countered by trying to provide evidence for humanity by stating that humans sometimes do good for others by putting ourselves in others shoes. This still conflicts me because its still relies on self service as the mechanism for aiding others in need. It's like saying that if we didn't picture ourselves in that position, if we couldn't imagine the pain felt by others then we would not be able to feel empathy.
None the less, on my way back to my dorm I thought a little deeper on what Dr. Herron told me on that idea. He said that the very idea of putting ourselves in others shoes, of being willing to step out of ourselves was human. That the senseless and irrational action of being willing, and sometimes wanting to feel the pain of others erases the cold heart rationality o simple actions for return and instead presents the element of humanity.
I think the whole question is whether Smith thinks empathy really is selfish. The readings for today contain interesting clues that suggests why that probably isn't possible. Part of the problem is the vocabulary. One way of saying that we empathize is saying that we "put ourselves" in a different position. That makes it sound self-centered, but it is still an act of transcending the self, of using our own experiences to look beyond our narrow interests.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you aren't demanding too much of human nature and secretly falling prey to Mandeville's expectation that we be totally unconcerned or unconnected to our own feelings in any way in order not to be considered selfish. For example, you say, "this still conflicts me because its still relies on self service as the mechanism for aiding others in need. It's like saying that if we didn't picture ourselves in that position, if we couldn't imagine the pain felt by others then we would not be able to feel empathy." Empathy is indeed based on picturing ourselves in another's position--that's it's very definition, in fact. That it involves seeing ourselves as connected to the process seems to me not inherently selfish. Is there a Smith quote that seems to make you feel he is making an argument for selfishness? That would help to make the sense more concrete.
Nonetheless, I think you are right that Smith's theory is not always as laudatory as Hutcheson's. Both Hutcheson and Mandeville have very one-sided views of human nature. Like Hutcheson, Smith sees people as primarily sociable and usually benevolent, but he admits a much wider variety of feelings and tendencies, not all of which are either simply selfish or selfless.
Jose, I very much enjoyed reading your blog post. After hearing and learning about what both Smith and Mandeville think about human nature, I agree with Smith more so then Mandeville. Once again, I thought this was a well written and well thought out post. Well done.
ReplyDeleteJose, I kind of had the same feeling as you did after my first class. Realizing that this class is more about philosophy than economics makes me confused and a little bit worried. But, honestly, I haven't taken any philosophy class before, no matter in China or in America, so I think maybe this is a good chance for me to walk in a new field, although it means that I need to use my broken-English skill to understand some mysterious language which is much harder than daily-life English. Don't be depressed, I believe we can find something inspired and interesting in this class.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your idea that putting ourselves in others shoes "still relies on self service as the mechanism for aiding others in need." I feel sorry for your depression, but I am sure that I am not being selfish. Since I am still confused about the ideas made by Smith and Mandeville, I don't want to talk much about them to mislead you. What I really want to say is that I like the way you use English. It's easy for me to read and understand your post. I appreciate your concise language and ideas, because I think that's what a good writer supposed to have.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up so interesting points in your post. Regardless of what one's motivations are, it is undeniably important to help the poor. I believe that all of the economists/philosophers we have studied to date would agree with this notion, whether the subsidization be provided through the private sector or the government, the poor being lifted into the middle class is positive for the country as a whole, and for each donor on an individual level. I understand your discouragement regarding man's intrinsic selfishness, but I believe people like you can make a difference in supporting the entire nation, both financially and morally.
Cullen Cosco