Monday, February 24, 2014
The Choice of Sympathy
In section 1, chapters 1 and 2, of Adam Smith's, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith discusses at length of how we imagine and sympathize with other people's emotions, pains, pleasures, passions, and so forth. On page 13, he regards, "By the imagination we place ourselves in his situation...we then tremble and shudder at the thought of what he feels."And then on page 21 states, "On the contrary, it is always disagreeable to feel that we cannot sympathize with him, and instead of being pleased with this exemption from sympathetic pain, it hurts us to find that we cannot share his uneasiness."While I recognize that the sympathy that arises in the bystander is true in many circumstances and towards many people, especially friends and family, it is hard to see Smith's view on sympathy being universally held by all people. What comes to mind, specifically, is more of Hobbes' view of selfish human nature, where there is little room for such sympathy because one is so focused on their own gains and setbacks. Smith says that we can imagine to put ourselves in someone's pain, but he does not necessarily talk about if we chose not to imagine. If we chose to not to imagine someone else's pain, would we still feel sympathy, or are we so self-focused that we see one person's struggle as a "survival of the fittest" moment in one's own life? Smith continues in saying that we are in despair if we cannot understand the pain one is going through, yet, I feel Hobbes would again see this as an advantage for coming out on top in never having to experience a certain difficulty, and thus one would choose not even to imagine such a circumstance, hence feel no sympathy. So, is is always true that humans are inherently sympathetic toward one another, or can we choose to suppress sympathy at the advantage of remaining the stronger?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, I think humans are not inherently sympathetic toward one another and I don't think we can choose to suppress sympathy just to be stronger. I think humans can only be sympathetic when a certain situation affects them. I wish Hobbes' view of selfish human nature was wrong, but by looking at the world history and the current world events, it is hard to say that we have sympathy for one another.
ReplyDeleteHumans are sympathetic toward others because they feel like they need to or they feel like it is the right thing to do. We all live under social guidelines. There's a social cloud over our head telling us what to do and how to feel. Social norms prevent us from doing deviant behaviors in public places. Thus, when someone commits a certain act that is not accepted by the society, that person eventually gets punished by the public. I do think that deep down we all can be sympathetic toward one another, but because there are so many rules and social norms in our society, it is impossible for us to truly be true to ourselves and to others.
It is interesting to see Smith's view of sympathy directly following after Rousseau's writings on pity, as well as your mentioned Hobbes and the lack of a corresponding trait. Rousseau viewed pity as being capable of tempering humans' self-interest, which meant that in his state of nature humans were still able to coexist with one another. Pity was a very natural trait in Rousseau's thinking. Smith's sympathy can be seen as very similar -- all men have it, even the most cruel. Perhaps Rousseau's pity could be an element of Smith's sympathy? They do however imagine their functions to be very different, but I think that in response to your thoughts on Hobbes and the potential advantage of avoiding sympathy (or pity), they both play into the dynamic. Humans still have the capacity to be selfish as in Hobbes' conception -- Smith's sympathy is dependent on a lot of factors, like seeing the other person physically or by their emotions being conveyed vividly. We could say that rather than being incapable of the volatility Hobbes imagined, they are more balanced -- either is possible, given the right factors. Meanwhile, Rousseau's are farther out on the spectrum, being if not 'good' than the most easily willing to think of others. There is at the very least a common theme that how men treat each other on a personal level is indicative of a larger mindset, which brings us to the states of nature. I imagine that regardless of which philosopher, we could agree that humans do have the capacity to suppress sympathy -- but they would disagree for what reasons or on how easy it would be.
ReplyDelete