Empathy and Self Interest

Leave a reply

Writer’s Note: It is very hard to editorialize one’s own work, as there is a certain mindset, a certain set of experiences, with which the author draws. When the author re-reads his/her work, they often relate very easily to it, yet those connections are not so easy for anyone other than the author. I don’t have any editors proof-reading this, so I apologize if the connections span breadths as large as the Grand Canyon, but I’m more than glad to explain the connections. FYI, waving your mouse over the footnotes should display them, so you don’t have to click back and forth between the text and the notes.

Empathy is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” In literal terms, it is the ability to put one’s self in another person’s shoes; to understand a different point of view through the experiences that make up the lives of others. The shared experiences of societies help create systems of norms and values which many people support and maintain. These values can range from the most benign issue, like “chewing with your mouth closed,” to issues which impact our daily lives, like waiting in line. Though we are all busy and have things to do, we have an implicit agreement with one another on the importance of an individual’s time as it relates to others, so we wait in line. However, there seems to be a less implicit agreement over basic living conditions and lifestyles, and it seems to have begun with philosophers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), author of Leviathan, was one of the first philosophers to address the natural state of humans prior to the institution of governments and societies. Hobbes contended, without society or a social contract, humans lived in a perpetual state of war with one another, because the state of nature placed no moral or social obligations on individuals. Hobbes’ view of the natural state said, “two men who desired the same [property] would be enemies,”[1] and each man could act against the other without fear of governmental or contractual retribution. Hobbes’ explanation asserted conflict among humans could be boiled down to three reasons: gain, defense, and glory (reputation.) Each of the reasons presented by Hobbes connote a desire; the desire to possess more, the desire to defend one’s possessions from assault, and the desire to be treated with respect.[2] Essentially, Hobbes said, “the only inherent limit to the state of nature’s,” what Hobbes might call self-interest, “was the amount of conflict an individual could physically endure.”[3]

John Locke (1632-1704), a British philosopher and economist, refuted Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature being, “every man against every man.” Locke suggested individuals could not be free if they were unable to pursue their own interests, a notion included in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.[4] (Doernberg, 1985; p.64-66) According to Locke, everyone had a right to security in their self-interested rights to life, liberty and property.

Hobbes and Locke differed on a significant number of issues, but among the largest divides was the idea of self-interest. Hobbes suggested freedom could only be achieved in a state of nature whereby no law existed. Freedom, for Hobbes, could only be achieved with no social or governmental restrictions on individual behaviors. Locke, in contrast, believed freedom could only be established through laws which preserved and advanced the ideas that people, “[are] not subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow [their] own.” (Locke, 1690) Locke’s “freedom” was not Hobbes’ idea that, “everyone else is our potential master if s/he can become so through force,” (Ess, n.d.) but instead, Locke’s “freedom” was, “[...] to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not [...] a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?)” (Locke, 1690)

Adam Smith (1723-1790), a Scottish philosopher largely known for his economic work, most famously quipped, “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Smith continues, in a less-often quoted portion, “We address [self-interested individuals], not to their humanity, but to their self love, and never talk to them of our necessities, but of their advantages.” (Smith, 1776) The logic of Smith asserted individuals are guided by the self-interest of the highest wage rates and lowest prices for goods and services. Smith referred to the self-interest phenomenon as, “the invisible hand,” which today we might call, “the law of supply and demand.” The self-regulatory nature of the invisible hand as described by Robert Heilbroner: “a man who permits his self-interest to [become greedy] will find that competitors have slipped in to take his trade away; if he charges too much for his wares or if he refuses to pay as much as everyone else for workers.” (Heilbroner, 1999; p.55) Heilbroner’s context asserted a natural limit to the self-interest an individual could achieve, as it would eventually be checked by the relatively modest self-interest of another.

The innovations of Locke and Smith with regard to property rights and self-interest represented a paradigm shift from the relatively small-scale “tribal” agrarian and mercantile economies, to large scale economies found in the population centers of the time. Smaller scale agrarian economies operated on the group’s importance superceding individual importance, while larger economies relied on individual actors with specialized skills laboring in specific capacities. The density of population centers congregated a wide array of skills and talents necessary for the interests of commerce, and bolstered the mechanization of labor which made individual persons interchangeable within the context of employment. The idea of larger society was revolutionary in two ways: the first allowed individuals to establish “personal identities” with regard to their employment (butcher, brewer, baker), and the second revolution supplied business owners with numerous individuals to fill specific demands within the labor market. Heilbroner wrote of Smith’s self-interest motives in the market place, “[...] as shoe prices fall, [...] shoe manufacture will slump; workers will be released from the shoe business [...] [and] move into [other businesses] where business is booming.” (Heilbroner, 1999; p.56) The advancements allowed self-interest to be represented on both sides of commerce, the power of labor and the power of wealth.

Locke and Smith also explored “property” as it related to labor. Locke believed, essentially, “the sweat of a man’s brow is his property.” Smith shared Locke’s belief and extended the idea of labor to include, “[self-interest] acts as a driving power to guide men to whatever work society is willing to pay for.” (Emphasis mine.) (Heilbroner, 1999; p.55) Smith had described the mechanisms of labor from which self-interested individuals could forge their futures, whether economic success or ruination. Smith and Locke believed wealth could not be created from wealth, but from workers and their labor in pursuit of desirable, and marketable, goods and services; the belief it was in each’s self-interest to labor in return for wealth.

As a definition for “self-interest” is sought, a historical frame of reference is necessary to relate the beliefs of the philosophers with the social implications. Howard Zinn conveyed the lesser known stories of different groups and social movements in his work titled A People’s History of the United States, and often noted the interests of the groups involved. The narrative of Zinn suggested a constant tension between the self-interests of the politically powerful against the self-interests of the masses. Zinn provided numerous examples, including: Dorr Rebellion, Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, Shays’ Rebellion, the Regulators movement, and the Anti-Renter’s movement. Zinn continued to note voting rights (all groups except land-holding white males), women’s movements (multiple), struggles of African Americans (multiple), issues with Native Americans (multiple, and often pitted one group against another.) The overarching theme of Zinn’s work provided: political action by the wealthy, to the benefit of less-powerful groups, only occurred when required by the marginal actors of society.[5] In other words, political action occurred when wealthy individuals feared political ruination via the congregation of marginalized voting blocs.

Smith and Locke have been of particular importance in the history of the United States; each’s theories saturated the culture of a newly formed country. Howard Zinn noted of Andrew Jackson’s 1814 treaty with the Creek Indians, “[the treaty] granted Indians individual ownership of land, thus splitting Indian from Indian, breaking up communal landholding, bribing some with land, leaving others out — introducing the competition and conniving that marked the spirit of Western capitalism.” (Zinn, 2003; p.128) It was not from their benevolence, rather “of their advantages,” as Smith noted. Lewis Cass, Jackson’s Secretary of War, noted, “We are all striving in the career of life to acquire riches of honor, of power, or some other object, whose possession is to realize the day dreams of our imaginations; and the aggregate of these efforts constitutes the advance of society.” (Zinn, 2003; p.131) Thomas Jefferson, through Howard Zinn, believed “Indian removal was necessary for the opening of American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy.” (Zinn, 2003; p.126) Zinn continues later, “The forces that led to removal did not come [...] from the poor white frontiersmen who were neighbors [and friends] of the Indians. They came from industrialization and commerce, the growth of populations, of railroads and cities, the rise in value of land, and the greed of businessmen.” (Zinn, 2003; p.136) Zinn wrote of Locke, “Locke himself was a wealthy man, with investments in the silk trade and slave trade, [...] [Locke] suggested a government of slaveowners run by wealthy land barons.” (Zinn, 2003; p.73)

Though Smith and Locke largely defined self-interest as we know it today, it has also been influenced by other thinkers, such as Sigmund Freud and Charles Cooley. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Freud explored the mind in various and in-depth ways, including his most famous theories on sexual repression; however, he also discussed the conflicts within our own minds. Freud hypothesized conflict between, what he called, the id and the superego. The instinctual and primitive behaviors of the id, Freud characterized, operated impulsively, irrationally, and constantly pushed for immediate gratification; the superego, Freud continued, demanded individuals sought outcomes of social and moral acceptance. (Zimbardo & Gerrig, 2009) Freud based the conflict between the id and the superego on Hobbes’ “savage brutality” and “perpetual state of conflict,” yet he also recognized unique desires and “personal identities” within one person; an impulsive self, a moral self, and the ego as the arbiter of conflict between the impulsive id and the moral superego.

Charles Cooley provided a newer perspective on the self, as enumerated by Freud, but was not a disciple and released his own findings a few years later. Cooley’s ideas built upon John Locke’s notion of “personal identities,” but also significantly advanced the idea. Cooley’s beliefs held that humans acted like mirrors to each other, reflecting back to one another an image of themselves. Cooley’s insight provided the basis for modern studies of the self and underscored that humans are not immune to social and environmental pressures; society affects individuals just as individuals affect society. Cooley summarized his idea, “Each to each a looking-glass, reflects the other that doth pass.” (Ferris & Stein, 2010) Cooley refuted Hobbes’ notion that individuals have no social or moral obligations by suggesting we look to others (society) to see ourselves, and recognize the obligations on ourselves through one another.

Cooley suggested empathy may reside in self-interest, as if the two are different sides of the same coin. As one looks to find him or herself in another, he or she must intuitively determine whether an apples to apples comparison is being made in a given situation. (Does s/he accurately reflect my situation?) In the examination for suitable comparisons, individuals must put themselves in another’s shoes and experience a brief moment of empathy. The idea extends to reflect our own self-interest as we instinctively mirror the feelings of others.[6] Cooley summarily suggested, “to find our own happiness and self-interests, we must look to the image of ourselves we see in others.”

How do we incorporate the theories of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Freud and Cooley into a succinct definition of self-interest? Smith’s ideas, combined with Hobbes and Locke, suggest action by incentive; a shrewd form of cost-benefit analyses performed in specific situations to determine the best possible outcome for an individual. Economists, including Adam Smith, would refer to this calculation as opportunity cost involving an explicit listing of pros and cons to a particular action. The pros and cons list would then be weighed against one another to determine whether an action is deemed beneficial or detrimental to an individual. Cost-benefit analyses are common practice in privately owned businesses, as owners determine the least costly options available in a given circumstance, and also used by individuals in relationships.[7] Freud and Cooley (and partially Locke with “personal identities”) prescribed that individuals are consistently at odds, with both their public self and their private self; the idea each individual has numerous selfs to project to the world, whether empathic or notoriously self-interested. These ideas suggest we are not only multi-faceted individuals, but also that we have different mind-sets at different times depending on what an individual’s particular interests may be in a given situation, whether private or public.

How are the patterns of self-interest represented in today’s world? There is a conversation in the realm of public policy surrounding the idea of deficits and debt, and somehow if, “we just shave three percent from the budget, we’ll be all good.” The converse is that we might seek additional revenue to displace any reductions in budgets.[8] This puts public policy into an abstract nature, as it suggests we are self-interested statisticians equating human lives to line-items on a cost-benefit analysis. It gets to the crux of self-interest and the empathic deficit; the idea another person resides on the other side of a cost-benefit analysis. The dehumanization of budgets and public policy suggest people have been exchanged for numbers: numbers for economic input/output (efficiency), numbers for expenditures (costs) based on program eligibility, numbers for future liabilities (encumbered funds), numbers for benefit and service reductions (savings), numbers for growth (caseload), numbers for…

The patterns of self-interest and public policy connote a desire for the reductions of programs such that it might provide for, “a greater reliance on economies of credit and consumerism,” from those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder;[9] the self-interest of increased profitability. Have we reduced ourselves to, “projected revenue line-item #827168,” on a cost-benefit analysis? It appears the logic of economic “bean counters” have permeated the culture to the point the human aspect has been removed from public policy, such that public policy is no longer about the public, but about the economics of the public. The logic was dictated by Smith in his Wealth of Nations, an essay about how nations accumulate wealth, as opposed to individuals. Smith would have effectively conveyed, “It is not from the benevolence of [the wealthy],” to dictate a shift in conversation from the burdens of public program costs toward a conversation about the importance of social program reductions, but it is “of their own interests.”

The aforementioned thoughts were my own about how we consider self-interest in today’s world, but how do current cultural thinkers describe self-interest? David Harvey, in 2010, gave a lecture on the Crises of Capitalism and focused on the ideas of cultural origin from the United States. He suggested capitalism (and by inference, self-interest) was an, “anglo-saxon disease”, and created a United States fascination with home ownership. Harvey provided a stark contrast between the United States and that of Switzerland, and said, “sixty-eight percent of households in the United States are home owners, while only twenty-two percent of those in Switzerland.” Harvey further noted the self-interest of business/capitalism to push individuals into home ownership because, “debt incumbent home owners don’t go on strike.” Harvey continued, noting a significant shift in the “power of labour” over the “power of wealth” with the Presidency of Reagan and former Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher. Public policy, under those two administrations, shifted and gave benefits to affluent individuals associated with notoriously self-interested companies by providing access to the world’s labor supply, thus driving down wages and consequently making additional profit for investors. (It recognized the interests of one group over another; wealth over labor.) Smith’s market ideals of “supply and demand,” or “the invisible hand,” suggested wealth could be siphoned from labor as “capital” for the benefit of society.

Harvey discussed ideas about capitalism, and self-interest, but never addressed social empathy. Social empathy has been discussed by Roman Krznaric in his view of The Power of Outrospection. Krznaric discussed the necessity of empathy museums and a reformation of relationships via the recognition of individual plights across the world. Krznarnic suggested “the recognition of the person who picks the beans for our coffee, or the sweatshop laborer who makes our clothing,” and for us to understand our own grievances from a similar position; would we accept such conditions? It reminds us of, “[e]ach to each a looking-glass, reflects the other that doth pass.” In Krznaric’s assessment, an empathy campaign waged in the late 18th century led to petitions, protests, and the first major boycott of fair trade and sugar then eventually to the abolition of the slave trade in the early 19th century. The example Krznaric provided show the power of social change with regard to empathy: the culture’s decision of inadequate social conditions, as a result of self-interest, became unacceptable and agitated people toward change. The economic forces dictated by Hobbes, Locke and Smith (“economic enslavement”) had become unacceptable social values and society subsequently pushed for greater empathic relations.

Krznaric continued and discussed the impact of empathizing with a greater number of people, such as those in power. Krznaric suggested understanding the motives and values of wealthy, or affluent, people will help us to, “develop effective strategies for social, political, and economic transformation.” The implicit message is, “the values and motives of people in power are significantly different than those without such power.” Self-interest at the top-end of the socioeconomic scale differs because decisions must consider the best direction for a country or company as a whole, as in Smith’s “law of averages” for the wealth of a nation.[10] Captains of industry, and consequently Presidents of the United States, have different requirements while approaching decision-making: the requirement to consider the direction of a company or country which will most benefit its employees and shareholders, or the President’s decisions for the vast majority of people in a country’s economy. Self-interest for these people is not dictated by an individual life, (Joe the Butcher, Jeff the Brewer or John the Baker) but for the greatest number of individuals served by such a system. The shift in the decision-making dynamic suggests those at the top act not out of their own self-interest, but the greater interests of a company, or a nation; “for the benefit of all.” It is an economic approach to the world, filled with constant cost-benefit analyses on the decisions with large economic impacts, whether in the private or public sectors.

An illustration of the self-interest may help to convey its weight and importance. Consider the advances in production created through Henry Ford’s production lines, yet also consider the current implications in Chinese factories like FoxConn and Shenzhen. The monotonous labor patterns of some companies located in China required the installation of nets around buildings to catch workers who attempted suicide by hurling themselves from the rooftops. The working conditions suggested by FoxConn and Shenzhen relate to the Hobbesian (and Machiavellian) notion of self-interest; the [economic] ends justify the [social] means. Self-interest also appears in capitalism as a model of wealth redistribution; downward pressures exhibited upon employee wages and compensation through a “slack” labor market with a lot of unemployment, which are in-turn handed to private investors as profit. It might also be useful to consider self-interest as depicted on the silver screen with movies like Wall Street (1987) and the infamous “greed is good” speech, or Boiler Room’s fictional stock brokerage firm, J.P. Marlin, and the misdeeds of employees believing in a Machiavellian sense of “my benefit justifies the atrociousness of your life.”[11]

Initially, I thought about an essay on the idea of capitalism, but as I thought about the ideas embodied by such an economic system, I realized it was a much deeper cultural issue; self-interest. There are numerous incantations of capitalism, or self-interest, residing at the heart of decisions made by companies; the inherently influential decisions by media about the direction of public conversation or relatively benal decisions by natural gas companies.[12] We see the ramifications of these decisions on a daily basis from exemptions from the regulations of the Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, or Clean Air Acts.[13] We also see the media’s influence on the public, and consequently how a culture is constructed, by its decisions to provide both left- and right-versions of the news from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Each news network provides different information to its listeners/readers and compete against one another for the largest share of viewership. The two largest television news networks provide distinctly different political discussion, because advertisers want to broadcast messages to the largest populations within targeted [news] demographics. It is in the nature of the news media to operate on advertising revenue, which assumes the interests of the news media are to keep discussion away from the fundamentals of the self-interest motive because it would cut into the news media’s profitability by suggestively limiting revenue for would-be advertisers.[14]

Then, I watched Brian Solis’ recent TEDtalk in which he discussed the nature of social media as it relates to capitalism, (self-interest) then gave some interesting ideas about the future when applied with the principles of Cooley’s “looking-glass theory” of self-interest. Solis suggests “connected consumerism” will drive the economy in the 21st century. Talking too much, and failing to listen and learn, will cause companies to fail. (Solis, 2012) Solis’ presentation discusses the impact of social media on public relations strategies of large companies. The most powerful remark in Solis’ presentation was in reference to Twitter and FaceBook’s relevance when it came to “what [companies] say [in social media] is [their] social capital [...] what others say about [a company] is [the company's brand].” To illustrate his point, Solis shows a word cloud depicting the most-used words in social media about a particular airline company: fail, worst, waiting, delays, wtf, awful, and crappola were among the most prominent. Each of those words, when used in reference to a person or company, evoke emotional and empathic connections; a time we endlessly waited, a time we experienced a “fail,”[15] or a time we thought to ourselves, “this is awful.” Businesses know those sorts of emotions associated with their brands can have catastrophic effects in the minds of the public.

Solis’ ideas, if observed over time, could have far reaching implications in self-interest and empathy. Solis suggests social media could push business to accept self-interest and empathy as different sides of the same coin. (“What others say about [a company] is [the company's brand].”) How many Fortune 500 companies let themselves be branded by social media with words like: fail, worst, waiting, delays, wtf, awful, and crappola? Business strategies involving passionate and empathic recommendations from friends are among the most successful, because energetic suggestions from friends minimize the apprehension felt amongst potential buyers and viewers; trust becomes credibility. What happens to a company, whose description among the public, is associated with strongly negative emotions? Cooley, via Solis, suggest companies look to make people feel good via providing positive emotional relations.

We also see shifts toward more empathic strategies in the media, with the rise of commercials depicting human interest pieces and bearing the slogan, “Lean Forward.”[16] We see changes in programming toward emotion-based reality shows like The Apprentice,[17] , Wife Swap,[18] Undercover Boss,[19] Shark Tank,[20] Extreme Home Makeover,[21] The Biggest Loser,[22] The Big Bang Theory,[23] , The Hurt Locker,[24] The Help or Django Unchained,[25] Teen Mom,[26] CatFish,[27] etc. All of these examples bring about empathic feelings toward the plights of the individuals involved, and also proves “a market exists” for the media to satisfy its self-interest of profit motives.

As the world becomes more interconnected, and we empathize with those in far off lands through mechanisms like FaceBook, Twitter and Instagram; it begins to change the fabric of culture. Technology depicts the differences in life all over the planet, from the most atrocious acts reported by activists in war-ravaged areas through FaceBook, to the use of drone strikes and the collateral damage of innocent people via Instagram, to the civilian “reporting” of the raid on the compound holding Osama bin Laden via Twitter. These instances of “civilian reporting” are slated to rise as conditions of strife and conflict in countries continue over economic pain, or working conditions; and, as more people get access to cellular phone technologies.

Jeremy Rifkin recently talked of The Empathic Civilization,[28] and suggested as soon as we detribalized through larger societies, we created ties from affiliations, like: religion or location (nation-state.) We might also consider the creation of an empathic affiliation extended in other ways, like the lowest rungs on the socioeconomic ladder (which cross “cultural” boundaries.) As people began to group and form common interests of the self and the group, the wealthy began to empathize with the wealthy in the differences in decision making of “what’s good for all the people.” The middle-class families began to empathize with one another as people begun falling into poverty, and people in poverty continued to empathize with one another. As we think about what the Internet is, and is not, one might consider a level playing field with regard to a person behind a computer screen. The relative affluence of the individual does not necessarily translate through the Internet; each person is rated on their merits or ideas, not on wealth. With each period in time, Rifkin suggested, from “the tribalization to the society,” and from, “communications devices (written language, telephones) to the online support groups”; as communication expanded and the connections of self-interested groups extended, the revelation was an increasingly empathic civilization. Perhaps newer considerations of self-interest are occurring at this point in history, via the Internet, and [Middle-Eastern] social changes.

There are suggestions of Crises of Capitalism and Empathic Deficits; however, I posit a change in culture as self-interest and empathy are redefined by modern era psychologies, philosophies and technologies, not those of the 17th, 18th, and early 20th centuries. Just as Hobbes, Locke, and Smith indelibly influenced the then-new culture of the United States less than a hundred years after their respective writings were published; perhaps a new social revolution is coming which incorporate the ideas of self-interest and empathy into a single philosophy. The philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Smith did not include the radical changes in psychology as noted by Freud and Cooley, much less those of Harvey, Rifkin and Krznaric. Though Smith’s ideas were published the same year the Revolutionary War began, it shows the relative progressivism of the founding fathers through the adoption of such new thoughts at a crucial time in the development of the social fabric of the United States.

It has been more than 225 years since the last significant questions to our social fabric have been considered; perhaps this is a time in history where the social natures of psychology, sociology and technology bolster thought and empathic relations. As such, social growing pains are likely to occur as cultures attempt to shed older definitions of self-interest, in favor of newer and more contemporary definitions. (See Krznaric’s “Outrospection.”) Perhaps Marshall McLuhan’s “global village” will provide a definition of self-interest, which encompasses all cultures, as experiences become shared via the Internet. Perhaps McLuhan’s “global village” is the point at which empathy and self-interest meet; Smith’s “invisible hand” meets Krznaric’s, Solis’, and Rifkin’s ideas of empathy, emotion, and self-interest.

Writer’s Note: One of the issues I wanted to avoid was going off on too many tangents, which often confuses readers. However, sometimes those tangents are necessary to make the flow of information work for the reader who may not know or understand the author. During the writing process, I eliminated many of the connections, because I felt them unnecessary. I felt them unnecessary as the author, however readers will probably feel different. Please let me know if things do not make sense, I’ll be glad to add the connecting information. Please be brutally honest about the lack of connection, or how information may not relate. It is much more important to me to write something relatable/understandable, than my feelings about how I want readers to take the information. Please, brutal honesty.

I think there was a large jump made between agrarian/mercantile economies and those of modern-day “population center economies.” I need to fix this. I also should probably do a better job of explaining capitalism’s link to self-interest.

Again, I really don’t have any editors to tell me the connections aren’t made, which is a problem for me. It means I wrote an essay that makes sense to me, but nobody else. I need for people outside my “environment” to tell me which connections seem unlikely or implausible, so I may in turn explain how I arrived at them.

Footnotes

  1. [I]f any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end [...] endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. ^
  2. Hobbes noted the third reason for quarrel, after gain and defense, is, “for trifles; a word, a smile, a different opinion, [...]” These actions, like a smirk or a disrespectful utterance, would have been viewed by Hobbes as reasons for conflict suggested by self-interest. ^
  3. Conflict prone individuals might have considered, at the very least, his or her own health in the defense of property; thieves might have taken advantage of a weakened state, thus an individual would have considered constant conflict’s associated effects on health. (Fatigue, wounds/gashes, points of weakness due to fatigue/wounds/gashes.) It would not be desirable to enter conflict in a state whereby one participant enters the battle “unhealthy.” ^
  4. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” ^
  5. Zinn characterizes the marginal actors as those individuals content with their lives, but would seek “vigilante justice” at the slightest degradation in lifestyle. ^
  6. Roman Krznaric discusses empathy and the “mirroring of feelings” in a video included in this report, titled “The Power of Outrospection.” ^
  7. Consider an individual’s pros and cons listing about the particular “costs” and “benefits” to a relationship; whether a boyfriend or girlfriend is worth the time and effort. ^
  8. Effectively “raising taxes” versus “cutting services.” Raising revenue or cutting costs both achieve the same budgetary idea: balancing spending with revenue. ^
  9. No family likes to be “the poor family on the block,” thus attempt a facade of affluence by having new items. However, those families do not have the wealth to maintain consumerism, unless credit provides access to such a lifestyle; thusly reliance upon credit to essentially keep an economy moving. ^
  10. Smith’s logic dictated as the wealth of a nation increased, the nation benefited as a whole, even if the distribution of gains were skewed. It suggests if a nation goes from 100 persons each holding $10 (the total wealth is $1,000) to a distribution of 1 person holding $800 and the other 99 each hold roughly $2, the money in the economy remains the same. (About $1,000) However, if 1 person holds $1,000 and the other 99 each hold a dollar, the nation is better off because the total wealth in the economy has risen from $1,000 to $1,099. The law of averages suggests everyone in the economy is doing better, because the aggregate wealth had risen from $10 to $10.99 for the average person. ^
  11. Though I did not cite Machiavelli as a “great thinker,” his logic has been translated through time to equate to “the ends justify the means,” or “by any means necessary,” or “a few casualties don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.” ^
  12. The decisions of natural gas companies are not benal, as we can relate to those whose tap water is flammable. But in the whole of society, natural gas firms only operate in some of our backyards, such that the whole country is not exposed to the hazards of natural gas. The minority (of people experiencing natural gas issues) does not trump the needs of a majority in a relative “democracy.” (Consider people in areas who don’t have natural gas; do they care about the ramifications of the natural gas industry?) ^
  13. As film maker Josh Fox noted in Gasland, companies are not required to disclose the mixture of substances used in “fracking” (method of natural gas extraction) fluids. It is in the self-interest of these companies not to disclose the materials, because it might cause bad public relations pieces in the media, which harms a company’s public perception. ^
  14. Consider how an undermining of the country’s economic system might inhibit the profitability of companies who pay media companies for advertisement. Consider if the economic system were to shift to be more “socialistic” such that company profits are limited, thus the aggregate amount of advertising dollars available to media companies is diminished. ^
  15. “Fail,” as used in the word cloud, is a slang Internet term usually superimposed onto an image depicting an unsuccessful event, or a person falling short of expectations. More information can be found at Wikipedia’s “failure” page. ^
  16. Consider the commercials depicting Rachel Maddow at the Hoover Dam speaking about “the country that built this,” or the 9/11 Memorial speaking of our responsibilities to our troops; commercials of Lawrence O’Donnell and the children’s desks in Malawi, or O’Donnell’s “resources of children from poor families don’t match those of children from wealthy families. There is a disparity in access to educational ‘tools’ for those children.” ^
  17. Who doesn’t empathize with those issues during job interviews; the competition that ensues amongst potential candidates. Consider “show business,” and the competiton between actors/actresses. ^
  18. The merging of families from two vastly different backgrounds for a period of a few weeks. ^
  19. A wealthy and powerful CEO is put into the positions of ordinary “run of the mill” worker conditions. ^
  20. Shark Tank is a show about investors looking for investment opportunities. The program empathizes with the values of the American dream by starting a company and getting an investment in an effort toward success. ^
  21. If it’s still on the air, the images of a family in relative poverty gets a new house donated and built for the family. ^
  22. The idea of empathizing with those trying to lose weight. ^
  23. Empathizing with those who think of themselves in a different manner (egotistical, at some points; Sheldon), but also as social outcasts or relative “nerds.” (Leonard) (Sheldon and Leonard are the two main characters of the broadcast.) ^
  24. Military families and issues. ^
  25. Issues about cultural divisions over skin color. ^
  26. Mothers at a very young age, teen pregnancy. ^
  27. Empathy with those who engage/embark on Online Dating or online connections. ^
  28. Notice Rifkin’s association to Smith’s “invisible hand.” ^

References

  1. Ess, Charles (Unknown), Notes on John Locke (1632-1704). Drury University. Retrieved from Drury University: http://www.drury.edu/ess/alpha/locke1.html.
  2. Brian Solis (2012), TEDTalk: Reinventing Consumer Capitalism – Screw Business as Usual. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.briansolis.com/2012/10/tedtalk-reinventing-consumer-capitalism-screw-business-as-usual/.
  3. Kerry Ferris & and Jill Stein (2010), The Real World: An Introduction to Sociology. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc..
  4. Philip Zimbardo & and Richard Gerrig (2009), Psychology and Life. Allyn & Bacon.
  5. Zinn, Howard (2003), A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from HarperCollins: http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655.
  6. Zinn, Howard (2003), A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from HarperCollins: http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655.
  7. Zinn, Howard (2003), A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from HarperCollins: http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655.
  8. Zinn, Howard (2003), A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from HarperCollins: http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655.
  9. Zinn, Howard (2003), A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins.
  10. Heilbroner, Robert L. (1999), The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  11. Heilbroner, Robert L. (1999), The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  12. Heilbroner, Robert L. (1999), The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  13. Doernberg, Donald L. (1985, January 31), We the People: John Locke, Collective Constitutional Rights, and Standing to Challenge Government Action, 73(1), 64-66. Retrieved from California Law Review: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=californialawreview.
  14. Smith, Adam (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm.
  15. Locke, John (1690), Two Treatises of Government. Retrieved from http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/LocTre2.html.