The Navy Yard Shooting

The recent shootings at the Navy shipyard in Washington is unfathomable. What would bring a man to murder innocent people—individuals whose professions are to maintain the liberty of Americans upon the call of duty, at that—is beyond logical understanding. While people around the world attempt to explain the origin of this tragedy and how this madman was allowed to do what he did, I believe it is important to “consult” Adam Smith and Karl Marx on their takes on the situation.

Adam Smith, in both his discourse on morality and economics, made it clear that he believes in personal responsibility. He found that one should fail or succeed on their own merit and should be held responsible for their actions. I believe he would condemn this man for what he did and merely place all blame on him for what he did to innocent Americans. Marx, on the other hand, is a proponent of community and would most likely argue that we are to blame for this catastrophe. He would probably say that the burdens society put on him provoked this and that we should have made more preventative provisions, which would have, in theory, kept this maniac from access weapons and the shipyard itself.

Whether the man who committed this heinous act was truly insane or not is irrelevant. Something like this, at a military base no less, should never happen. I, personally, see this incident from the points of view of both Smith and Marx and agree with components of each. While I, like Smith, believe in personal responsibility and that this man should be held accountable for his actions, I also find that Marx’s sentiments on communal preparedness hold water, as well: the government should have tighter gun regulations (more specifically, more thorough background checks) that would not allow such a madman to have access to powerful weaponry. In the end, though, whose fault it is or what could have been done to prevent this blasphemy is important. We can only hope that measures be taken to stop incidents like this to occur in the future and that the families involved will be consoled.

Syria, America, and Morality

Over the past few years, Syria has known little other than upheaval, chaos and anarchy, only further perpetuated by dictator Basshar al-Assad. As a result, population has diminished due to Syria citizens fleeing in search for a better life, while crime has sky rocketed because of short-handed law enforcement. Likewise, Syria’s been reduced to 45% its original economy, as its agricultural, construction, oil, and tourism industries plummeted drastically. It appears that until peace is restored in this unsettled nation is restored, any chances of growth are minimal.

America, being the superpower that it is, has chosen to step into the civil war. The government aims to behead the current Syrian regime and to provide its citizens with a chance to operate under democracy, not unlike it did in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. There has been extensive speculation as to what the American government’s motives are in intervening—whether President Obama is attempting to distract the American people from the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, etc. or if we are simply trying to not look weak in this situation.

Though I generally side with Smith, Hume and company on the morality argument—that people generally do good selflessly for the sake of others—I believe that America’s involvement with the Syria conflicts is mainly done through self-interest, as our man Bernard Mandeville would likely suggest. Perhaps the government is seeking to resolve this in an attempt to minutely work towards world peace; regardless, America benefits from being involved in foreign affairs. Syria has a number of desirable commodities (which is presumably the reason we pledged an alliance with the Middle Eastern nation in the first place), and protecting the nation from itself will economically promote us domestically. Conversely, the alternative—to stay out of the Syria conflicts—would also be done out of self-interest by these standards, as the United States would save money and avoid casualties, while Syria burns. It is difficult to identify the government’s true motives, but regardless, assisting another country in need is America’s humanitarian duty, and the world will be better off with a more peaceful Syria.

Week Two Post

            The debate over morality—its function, its origin, its purpose, even its very existence—is timeless and has been held by a variety people and cultures. Oddly enough, some of history’s leading Economists have held such a discussion. Those like Bernard Mandeville find that good morals such as selflessness are upheld for selfish motives themselves, meaning that “morality” not truly “moral” itself. However, those like Adam Smith, David Hume, and Terrence Hutcheson dispute this viewpoint, claiming that morality is something given to us by God and serves to further the greater good of humanity.

            So far in Blogging with Adam Smith and Karl Marx, the most interesting readings I’ve undertaken were those of Mandeville and Hutcheson. Mandeville, as it pertains to human morality, describes it as little more than an instinctive impulse, comparing humans, in this sense, to animals, consumed by “self-conquest.” Though there is a degree of reason and sentiment put into human morality, man’s main motivation for being “good” is simply for personal gratification; as a result, there is no set ethical code among humans, but rather a holier-than-thou competition held among all people. Hutcheson, on the other hand, argues that humans, who share a number of commonalities (that cannot be explained by rationality or necessity) such as appreciation for beauty and yearning for a greater good, act righteously to advance the social community and honor their God. As a result of this observation, from Hutcheson’s point of view, good-doing is more a cooperative effort to further mankind for its sake as a whole, rather than a self-interested contest (and ultimately points to the existence of a greater overseeing being, though that is food for another discussion).

            Morality is a concept that no human truly understands. A universal, metaphysical ethical code undeniably exists among man, and many viewpoints have been brought to the intellectual table. Both Mandeville and Hutcheson bring up interesting perspectives on morality (as do Smith, Hume, and a variety of others, for that matter), and I aim to take their opinions into consideration and form a more concise and educated estimation of my own.

I am excited to continue learning about this ongoing debate and how it ties into the economic realm. Morality and those who study it, much like economics and economists, deal with ambiguity in their research and discourse, and I believe that understanding both will give me the comprehensive understanding of human tendencies I am seeking in taking this course.

Cullen Cosco

Mandeville, Bernard, and F. B. Kaye. "An Enquiry Into the Origin of Moral Virtue." The Fable

of the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. N. pag. The Online Library of Liberty. Web.

Hutcheson, Francis. "Concerning Our Reasonings about Design and Wisdom in the Cause,

from the Beauty or Regularity of Effects." An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. New York: Garland Pub., 1971. N. pag. The Online Library of Liberty. Web.