Ayse Meryem Gürpınar Akbulut October 11, 2016 SPL 501 / On Adam Smith and Karl Polanyi Adam Smith and Karl Polanyi are philosophers of two different eras, 18th and 20th centuries respectively. While the former witnessed early periods of the capitalist system with the emergence of the industrial revolution, the latter had opportunity to analyze the consequences of a mature capitalist system. Since both of them believe in social being of humans, they differ in methodological terms while analyzing the human beings. Smith, as employing the methodological individualism, focused on the human nature and human behavior. According to his perspective, a socio-economic system emerges through individual tendencies, intentions, and behaviors without
However, this very principle of utilitarianism also faces criticism in later time for the fact that it cannot adequately safeguard the rights of every individual person and that happiness depends on many other things other than based on this principle. It is also as against the extreme form of individualism that many thinkers stand opposed to the same. Many thinkers fear that the practice of individualism may bring the organic social order and harmony of the society into jeoparady. Edmund Burke (1729- 1797) is of the view that liberalism which is identified with modern notion of individualism has no positive influence on the society if exercised alone. In such a case, it may give rise to unruly behaviour on the part of the individual in the society.
At one point the idea of natural selection could be seen as a desperate attempt to uphold the economy, as a way of survival, but its disregard for those less fortunate is what raises controversy. According to the concept of “survival of the fittest”, assisting those positioned below you would upset the balance and would work against upholding the moral standard (Klein 393-394). Although the idea derives from Darwin’s theory of evolution, many evolutionists are opposed to Social
Spending their wealth on luxurious items was seen to be disrespectful to God and as a result people expected to pour their earnings into their callings. This has close ties with the capitalist ethic. From this ethic, according to Weber, a system of capitalism emerged that no longer required ascetic values to sustain itself. These became the capitalist spirit. Working hard and worshiping, activities held in high regards by Protestants contributed to what we seen in contemporary society as being the capitalist ethic.
Limitless illustrates this essence of individualism quite well – it is all about me. Just like Eddie, regular people in our culture are seduced by emphasis on self-worship and narcissism, material wealth, and attention seeking. Oddly enough, the individualism (which leads to selfishness) is a product of both modern and post-modern cultures. Even though modern individualism has fostered the opportunities for economic prosperity and political and religious freedom through individual accomplishments, its achievements are ambiguous. It encouraged people to become selfish and self-centered, unwilling to contribute to the common good in a community, thus leading to loneliness and alienation.
Yet the attempt to maximize profit has nothing to do with capitalism’s origins. For one thing, unlimited greed for personal gain is not capitalism-specific – it can be found in feudal and ancient civilizations as well. Furthermore, although capitalism begets instrumental rationality, instrumental rationality does not explicate its origins (Ibid: 30-31). Indeed, Weber posits that the origins of capitalism required an ethos to specifically refuse to enjoy the product of one’s
I say that most forms of universalised hedonism lead to an emphasis on unselfishness, because there is one obvious exception. It has sometimes been held that the greatest general good results from everyone pursuing his own interests as hard as he can without any regard to anyone else's. Clearly such a view leaves room for unselfishness only in a very paradoxical sense. The only way in which I can display unselfishness, in the sense of a proper recognition of other people's interests, is by behaving in the sort of way normally regarded as thoroughly selfish. Unselfishness in the ordinary sense is for such a view as this not a virtue but a vice.
Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two
Humanists emphasize free will and our ability to choose to have a more meaningful and peaceful life. They stresses upon human strengths over their weaknesses, and focuses that human beings are not victims of deterministic forces. The Humanists optimism reaches its peak in the theories of Carl Rogers. Taking a look at Waiting for Godot, this paper investigates the humanistic concerns expressed in the course of the play that is of human nature, suffering and relationship, and analyzes them so to reveal whether or not Beckett’s portrayal of these humanistic concerns is in concern with the basic premise of humanistic theories manifested in the work of Carl Rogers. Based on the optimistic view of Rogers, free will is an crucial part of human nature and man can himself determine the path of his life.
Universal morality and cultural relativism Student X University of the People PHIL 1404 Introduction In some cultures, whenever we try to put in place procedures that allow the population to be regular, we find ourselves confronted with certain people who feel attacked because they are simply not in order. One can take as an example the case of Mordidas in Mexico City, where it is possible to take the money in the city, and then redistribute the money back. Goes straight into the officer's pocket. Based on what we have learned in this unit, we will try to answer the following questions: 1. What is cultural relativism, and how does the vision of ethics associated with it diverge from the traditional