最新糖心Vlog

1. “A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness” (Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 1).

2. “There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm” (Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 33).

3. “[S]ince we are all rational beings so the law which governs us must be universal...we are all fellow citizens and share a common citizenship...the world is a single city” (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 4.4. 65).

4. “[T]he good is preferred above every form of kinship...if the good is something different from the noble and the just, then father and brother and country and all relationships simply disappear” (Epictetus, Discourses, III. iii. 5-9).

5. “You are again insisting to me that you are a nobody, and saying that nature in the first place, and fortune in the second, have treated you too scurvily, and this in spite of the fact that you have it in your power to separate yourself from the crowd and rise to the highest human happiness! If there is any good in philosophy, it is this, - that it never looks into pedigrees. All men, if traced back to their original source, spring from the gods. You are a Roman knight, and your persistent work promoted you to this class; yet surely there are many to whom the fourteen rows are barred; "the senate-chamber is not open to all; the army, too, is scrupulous in choosing those whom it admits to toil and danger. But a noble mind is free to all men; according to this test, we may all gain distinction. Philosophy neither rejects nor selects anyone; its light shines for all” (Seneca Epistle 44).

6. "How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity rather than by craftiness, everyone understands; yet we see from recent experience that those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily. In the end, they won out over those who tried to act honestly" (Machiavelli, The Prince, XVIII).

7. “One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours… Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so’ (Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII).

8. “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short …To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII).

9. “‘After this I flatter myself to have demonstrated that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society: but that what we call evil in the world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception: that there we must look for the true origin of all arts and sciences, and that the moment evil ceases the society must be spoiled, if not totally dissolved… Private Vices by the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician may be turned into Publick Benefits.” (Bernard Mandeville, ‘A Search Into the Nature of Society’, 428, p. 369, F.B. Kaye Edition of Fable of the Bees).

10. “If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainly, that it had an architect or builder, because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect”’ (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion II.144).

11. “All the members of human society stand in need of each others assistance, and are likewise exposed to mutual injuries. . . But though the necessary assistance should not be afforded from such generous and disinterested motives, though among the different members of the society there should be no mutual love and affection, the society, though less happy and agreeable, will not necessarily be dissolved. Society may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility, without any mutual love or affection; and though no man in it should owe any obligation, or be bound in gratitude to any other, it may still be upheld by a mercenary exchange of good offices according to an agreed evaluation. Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another. The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bands of it are broke asunder, and the different members of which it consisted are, as it were, dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections. If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least, according to the trite observation, abstain from robbing and murdering one another. Beneficence, therefore, is less essential to the existence of society than justice. Society may subsist, though not in the most comfortable state, without beneficence; but the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, II.ii.3.1−3).

12. “All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain publick works and certain publick institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, IV.ix. 51).


MAJOR ESSAY: Worth 60% of overall grade.
Length:  3000 words.  
Due date: Monday June 15 by 5 pm.  
Hints:
A good essay will: Not be full of padding and unnecessary detail
                            Be informed by a substantial number of authoritative secondary sources (if all your sources have URL's this is a bad sign).
                            Be well presented and well written
                            Actually address the question
                         


ESSAY TOPICS
1. Why was the Fable of the Bees significant? What was its effect?

2. Do you agree with Hobbes that law without sanction is vain? What was Mandeville's position here? What do anarchists believe? Are they right?

3. Compare Smith and the Stoics on the problem and nature of needs.

4. Explore the Stoic conception of ‘corruption’. Compare it with modern conceptions of corruption.

5. What, for Ferguson, were the chief problems of modernity? Were they the same for Weber and Marx?

6. Why does Benjamin Franklin figure in a course about the rehabilitation of greed? What does he represent?

7. Compare Ferguson and Marx or Smith and Marx on the effects of the division of labour.

8. What is a luxury good? Is luxury bad?

9. What is conspicuous consumption? Can status envy or ‘invidious comparison’ be in any way useful?

10. Is there a contradiction between Books I and V of the Wealth of Nations regarding the effects of specialization?

11. What is 'Das Adam Smith Problem' and why has it been labelled a 'pseudo problem'? Is it? If so, Why?

12. By what means did Smith attempt to legitimate self-interest? If you like, talk about how he adapted Stoicism to this end?

13. Compare Marx and Smith on the notion of 'class'.

14. Is economics really subject to laws of nature? Is it a science?

15. What is libertarianism? What is individualism? What are their political implications?

16. To what does the term 'spontaneous order' refer? Briefly explain how spontaneous order models work and outline why such explanations herald the beginnings of social science proper. What explanatory power do they have?

17. Compare Marx and Weber on the origin, nature and effects of capitalism.

18. Why did John Stuart Mill value freedom so highly? What kind of freedom was he interested in?

19. What is the relationship between the liberal principles of freedom and equality? Is there a problem?

20. What have Stoicism and Epicureanism got to do with the history of the legitimation of greed?

21. Illuminate the following concepts using specific examples from popular culture (e.g. advertisements, films, television programmes, magazines etc): false consciousness, reification and commodity fetishism.

22. What is utilitarianism? What, if anything, is wrong with it? What, if anything, is good about it?

23. What is rationalism? How has its meaning changed through time and how has this affected its political and economic implications?

24. Is greed good, morally indifferent, or bad? Should we distinguish between greed and enlightened self-interest?

25. What is individualism? What, if anything, is wrong with it? What, if anything, is good about it?

26. Define and explore critically the dilemma of wealth and virtue in eighteenth century political and moral discourse.

27. ‘Karl Marx offers no useful insights for today’s world’. Discuss critically.

28. What is ‘beneficence’ and what is its role in Adam Smith's system of ethics? Do you think he was right? If so, why? If not, why not?

29. Does Smith have an early theory of alienation? Is it the same as Marx’s?

30. How effective are markets at delivering human flourishing? Do planned economies have any advantage over markets? 34. Critically evaluate Philippe Van Parijs’ idea of a guaranteed basic income.

31. How compelling is the utilitarian case for foreign aid?

32. Critically evaluate the value and effects of the Grameen Bank.

33. Outline and explore the tension between Mill’s utilitarianism and his views on individual liberty. Can it be reconciled?

34. Is Capitalism inherently exploitative? Under what circumstances, if any, does capitalism work best?

35. What it the proper relationship between the market and the state? In your answer, you may wish to canvass different schools of thought and assess their different strengths and weaknesses before coming to a conclusion.

For readings see 'Recommended Resources' and ‘additional reading’ indicated in tutorial reading and the extended list posted on myuni. Further readings can be suggested to students on an individual basis (See your tutor or Professor Hill).