Is the ability to relate to others in this way, to be able to put yourself in a position when you can arguably feel their pain at times, a sign of weakness? Are modern political decisions based on leaders having this type of feeling, or do they for the most part try to be emotionally removed?
Monday, February 24, 2014
Is the "fellow feeling of the misery of others" really that detrimental?
In part one Smith says that, "The mob when they are gazing at a dancer on the slack rope, naturally writhe and twist and balance their own bodies, as they see him do, and as they feel that they themselves must do if in his situation." He then goes on to say "Persons of delicate fibres and a weak complain, that in looking on the sores and ulcers which are exposed by beggars in the streets, they are apt to feel an itchy or an uneasy sensation in the corespondent part of their own bodies."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's a really interesting question. Based on Smith's words, I would argue he claims they are weaknesses. "Persons of delicate fibres" doesn't exactly seem like a compliment. To some degree I think that modern political leaders follow this model. That is, they try to at least appear emotionally removed from political decisions.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an idea in modern society (I don't know if this was true for Smith's time) that reason and emotion are, in a sense, opposing forces, with reason being the more worthy of the two. I'm not sure how I feel about this necessarily, but I think a strong argument can be made that you don't want people who are extremely emotional making important decisions for the future of a nation. In a sense, I think that determining outcomes based on your own feelings regarding them can reek of selfishness.