The Naval Yard Shooting

The Naval Yard shooting resulted in the death of 12 people, a devastating unexplainable act that is amongst a list of shootings that have happened in the past year. While our country is in mourning, many ask if this shooting was avoidable especially considering that it happened on a secure military facility.

As almost anything can be avoided in hindsight, I do not think this was something that could have been expected because “time and time again, Mr. Alexis’s behavior fell below a level that would have brought a serious response, like a less-than-honorable discharge from the military or involuntary commitment to a mental institution” (Gabriel 1). He was discharged from the military because of absences, etc. His offenses in the military were not something that screamed red flag or something that could in other words restrict him from purchasing a gun or deny him military access. However his episode with over firing the gun at tires and through his ceiling should have raised some sort of red flag towards his mental capabilities. This does not reveal a motive for his mass rampage, but should have raised some questions. I think the problem is that he was able to purchase a gun in spite of his gun violence, psychiatric issues, etc.  I also think a reoccurring theme in the devastating shootings lately is that it is so easy to have and walk around with a gun. This is because we would like to trust in the good of humanity, to the point where it is enough to not have to put a metal detector at every public place, but shootings have become “a ritual that we go through every three, four months” (Gabriel 1). We do not want to look at people and see a capacity of each individual to kill, we want to believe in the good of human nature.

Gabriel, Trip, Joseph Goldstein, and Michael Schmidt. "Suspect’s Past Fell Just Short of Raising Alarm." The New York Times. N.p., Sept.-Oct. 2013. Web. Sept.-Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/washington-navy-yard-shootings.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

Sympathy, Smith

Mandeville believes that we truly do not sympathize with others. He’s the dark horse that believes everything humanity does is out of self-interest that we’re all playing this “getting ahead” game, doing whatever it takes to put ourselves in the best possible position. Mandeville would say that one would pretend to have sympathy for another in order to advance their self-image. What I found strikingly interesting was Smith’s reaction to sympathy. In his writing “Of Sympathy” he explains the reason humans share pity. “As we have no immediate experience of what other man feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation” (Smith). The reason we have sympathy is not because of passion but because we see ourselves in similar situations (Smith). I found it extremely interesting when Smith said that sympathy does not arise from passion as that view is in a way a preconceived notion of the public. Smith even goes into how we sympathize with the dead. How can we sympathize with a feeling that no one on this Earth can actually describe? Well for starters we use our imaginations. We picture the darkness, lack of warmth, etc. The bottom line is that we do not like to see people in pain because us ourselves do not enjoy similar experiences.  

The imagination in regards to death brings Smith to his last point, humanity’s fear of mortality. Smith describes human’s dread of death as the most important principle of human nature. He says each individual’s fear of death protects the society as a whole. While reading this, I had to take a moment to really let what he was saying sink in. Society, the justice system in particular, is built around the idea of keeping people safe. It is ironic that our biggest fear is the driving force around a structured safe society. In a backwards way our society is based of the sympathy that derives from our own imaginations.

Smith, Adam. "Of Sympathy." Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments [1759] (1759): n. pag. Print.

My response to Hutcheson's ideas.

Out of everything I have read so far for this seminar, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Hutcheson’s response to Mandeville. I found it very intriguing when Hutcheson said, “the world is well provided for mankind, but men are capable of a great diversity of pleasures” (Hutcheson). It is a different way to look at the way our world functions. Lots of the people who surround you have their basic necessities covered. They have access to food, water, and shelter; everything they really need to be happy. But lots of the people who surround you are not truly satisfied with their life. They want affection, money, etc. Mankind wants so much more than what is already provided in the world we live in. That’s what separates us from other species, which Hutcheson in an indirect way contradicts Mandeville’s argument. Mandeville compares humans to animals saying that they both work for self-interest. However, the difference between an animal’s self-conquest and a humans is that humans have access to a greater diversity of pleasures and interests. 

I also found it very interesting when Hutcheson presented the ship-wreck scenario. He brought up the idea of good versus evil. The ship wrecked and killed numerous people but at the same time that same shipping company supports a mass of people through trade. While the wreck was a terrible event, the company was good for the whole meaning that the good weighed out the bad in this situation. It is a very different way to look at tragedies or "evil". If you were to take a similar situation today, and think in similar ways as Hutcheson, you would be criticized and judged for your selfish thinking. People tend to want to focus on the bad. 

Hutcheson, Frances. Remarks Upon the Fable of the Bees (1750): n. pag. Web. 9 Sept. 2013. <http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hutcheson/remarks.htm>.