Week 3 -Phillip
Warning: Undefined variable $comments in /home/idemborg/paigemorgan.net/teaching/engl200d/wp-content/themes/inove/single.php on line 18
Leave a comment Go to comments
It is clear that John Locke places great value on labour. To him, labour is how an individual is able to acquire property. Lock also believes that trying to obtain more than is necessary to survive is harmful to society. Mandeville, in his poem “The Grumbling Hive” also discusses labour. He mentions that a great number of the bees are employed and work hard. Also, he describes another group of bees, a more successful group of bees, that profit on the work of others. Mandeville contends that greed and selfishness is a necessary part of an economic society.
If these two met, I believe that they would easily agree that labour both holds and creates value. It is one of the key points of Locke’s writing, and is necessary in Mandeville’s poem. Where I think the real disagreement would occur is on the issue of greed and taking more than what is needed to survive. Clearly Locke believes that greed doesn’t help a society in any fashion, while Mandeville takes a completely opposite stance. He even goes as far as to say that deceit is key to a successful economy.
Due to the fact that these two men hold such opposite opinions, I’m not sure they would be able to come to any sort of an agreement. Depending on when this discussion occurs would happen however could be interesting. More modern societies resemble Mandeville’s hive much more than Locke’s society. Due to this fact, Mandeville, using his description of the demise of the honest bees, may be able to change Locke’s opinion of greed.
Another place they would disagree: in Mandeville’s poem, the greedy and lazy bees live well, whereas the working class bees are poor. This would contradict Locke’s theory that more labor means more riches.
You make a good comparison of the two authors, I think the only agreement they would comfortably be able to come to is that you have to work hard to get what you need. Their interpretations of what is “needed” might be different, but they both agree that some form of labour is necessary to achieve what is needed to sustain a decent life.
A really good start, Phillip, in that you lay out the particulars of Locke’s and Mandeville’s views on labour, and on greed/selfishness — but in each paragraph, I kept wishing you’d extended your analysis to the next step. “Mandeville contends that greed and selfishness is a necessary part of an economic society,” you write — but why? What purpose does it serve that labour doesn’t? I’m struck by the fact that labour is about producing, but greed is often about consumption. If we understand that, does that help us learn more about Mandeville and Locke’s difference opinion? Does it help show how Mandeville might be able to change Locke’s mind? I’m not entirely convinced that Mandeville would be able to change Locke’s mind just by explaining that the honest bees found it harder to survive — but maybe if you take your ideas further, you can convince me.
You do a great job explaining your point and showing that your argument is important because of how the Locke and Mandeville’s theories affect modern societies. Thereby bringing your point into the now and making us care about it more. I think that you could elaborate a little bit more about how they would agree and disagree on certain points, quotes would be very valuable.
Your post is very informative and well written where I can see your argument clearly. The beginning two paragraphs explain the writers’ ideas on labour and property; If someone read your post for the first time without reading about Locke and Mandeville’s they would understand this through your post. When I get to your 3rd paragraph you are doubt of what will happen if Locke and Mandeville come to an agreement. What do you think will happen? You may not know but inform us of what you think will happen.