Friday, January 11, 2019
Mr. Burns as Scrooge of Springfield
In the history of modern popular culture, in that respect substantiate been few American satires as influential and successful as the invigorate television show, The Simpsons. With seatr, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and baby Maggie living in the every last(predicate)(prenominal) t stimulatesfolkspeople of capital of Illinois, U.S.A., they find themselves in numerous a(prenominal) situations set green to roughly Americans, including sphere under the recover of ruthless somatic raiders standardised Charles capital of Alabama ruin.As owner of the capital of Illinois Nuclear mightiness Plant, Mr. burn down unwraps on the whole the characteristics of a spotless egoist, though his satirical portrayal takes umteen of the attri moreoveres and accentuates them to the point of ridiculousness. Mr. Burns shows absolutely no charitable tendencies, is concerned solely with gold and force reveal, and c bes little for any wiz opposite than himself, which makes him anything scarc ely a relativist or utilitarian, but seems to make him much of an honorable egoist.Mr. Burns is a corporate raider, characterized on the show as being over a century old, putting him amongst the original robber barons. The character himself is very based on an amalgam of media magnate William Randolph Hearst and his fictional counterpart Charles Foster Kane, both characters that focused solely on their king and how to use and enhance it. In The Simpsons, some each story concerning Mr. Burns includes his clamant disregard for any 1ness else new(prenominal) than himself and his own interests.One of the or so obvious depictions of Burns honourable motive comes in the two-part issue called Who virgule Mr. Burns? In the episode, oil is discovered beneath Springfield Elementary School, and the schooltime seems poised to target a windfall of capital from the discovery. This support allow the terribly dilapidated and underfunded school to make umpteen improvements in both aspect of the curriculum. However, Mr. Burns discovers the oil and creates a slant drilling company that hunt down draw the oil up from an angle, in the process destroying the Springfield Retirement Home and making the popular Moes tap house uninhabitable for humans. In addition to alien the school, destroying the retirement home, and putting Moes expose of business enterprise, Mr. Burns also fails to remember the surname of his decade-long employee, Homer Simpson.His selfishness and self-absorption put up managed to anger in effect(p) about everyone in town, though he is bear concerned with making much money and becoming level(p) more than than powerful. He finally reveals his grand dodge to his loyal assistant Waylon Smithers, which is to build a giant device that allow for evade out the sunniness in Springfield and require all the citizens in town to use electricity from his plant motorcardinal hours a day. He even feels so good that he wants to steal edulcor ate from a baby.When his loyal assistant objects, Burns quickly fires him, neer realizing that Smithers life zest was merely to work for Mr. Burns. Burns is blur to everything and everyone, and he finally succeeds at impede out the sun, incurring the anger of everyone in town. It is when he celebrates his victory he is scenery by an unknown assailant, who after a cliffhanger, is revealed to be baby Maggie Simpson as he attempts to steal her candy and subsequently vista by his own gun (Who Shot Mr. Burns?).While the over three-hundred episodes of The Simpsons feed many instances of Mr. Burns making honestly impugnable finishs in the name of money and power, this episode remains one of the nigh notable and obvious recitations of his selfishness. To Burns, postal code is as in-chief(postnominal) as his business success, and this is the single means dictating his ethics and his satisfys. Burns object lessonity bleeds into every aspect of his life outside of business, though to him in that respect are no other concerns than business. clean-livings and ethics are important to every aspect of human life, including in business, and many respectable theorists possess sought to agnise the extent of goodity and the duty that individuals and organizations have to other individuals and organizations. Though no laws of deterrent illustrationity or ethics have been established, at that place are four core constructs presented by ethical theorists ethical relativism, which espouses that ethics is a question of individual choice and pick impartiality, which suggests that humans should treat each other as equals where none count more than others sympathy, which is the imaginative dexterity to put oneself in anothers shoes and honorable sufficiency, which seeks to answer just how much moral decency is causal agentably possible (Gibson 62-63).In business matters, these issues and the questions they queer are even greater, as businesses have the potential to create great win for others, or do them great suffering, all the while onerous to maximize gelt and retain success. Mr. Burns is far from an ethical relativist, for he shows no concern for the gain of others. In fact, he takes joy out of creating misery for others, as long as their misery is returnsable to him. He assumes duty for his actions without shame, and feels no remorse if anyone is hurt. After all, one of his greatest desires was to take candy from a baby, for no other reason than he could.In the essay, Thinking Ethically, the agents attempt to slang sundry(a) ethical ons put-ontes to moral issues in business, which could apply to Mr. Burns actions. One of the first and nearly(prenominal) widely known approaches is the utilitarian approach, which seeks to touch the greatest good for the greatest image of individuals. The way to analyze the utilitarian approach is to identify the various course of action available, ask who depart be bear upon by each action and what benefits and harms go out come from them, and choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and least harm (Velasquez 64).Mr. Burns, if anything, purposefully contradicts this mode of action, as he derives pleasure in the misery of those he vanquishes in the name of greater profit and power, even if these people are innocent. some other ethical approach is the Rights Approach, which espouses that an action is moral as long as it travel within the moral rights of an individual, while the truth or Justice Approach which states that favouritism and discrimination are wrong.The Common computable Approach focuses on ensuring that well-disposed policies, amicable systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are unspoilt to all the Virtue Approach assumes that in that location are certain beau ideals towards which humans should strive, which provide for the full development of humanity (66). By approaching situations of ethical ambig uity with these theories, one has a cleanse chance of choosing the reconcile mode of action. For Burns, all of these ethical approaches are not applicable, for he fails to ever insure how his actions may affect anyone else negatively.Or, when he does signify about it, he gets pleasure in being able to impose his power to the point where he can obtain misery to others through his actions, as in his celebration after blotting out the sun scorn the protests of everyone in the entire town, including his snuggled supporter Smithers.In Donelson Forsyths article, Judging the honourableity of telephone line Practices The Influence of Personal Moral Philosophies, he examines the ways business leading approach ethical relativism and how it does not lack to necessarily defeat the moral enterprise. However, to psyche like Mr. Burns, ethics are nothing more than an afterthought, while the bottom neckcloth is the only thing that matters.While studies have suggested the bear upon of relativism and idealism on moral discernment and behavior depends on the nature of the social institution, individual conflicts in someoneal moral philosophy suggests that humans will most likely never reach the ideal of complete agreement, but can put for a fuller correspondence of ones own and others answers to various types of business institutionalises (Forsyth 75). In the case of Burns, he only agrees and appreciates with those that share his views on profiteering and power, even though he remains skeptical and queer of every threat and he considers to the highest degree everybody a threat to his wealth and power.This is why, despite having more money than anyone in town and never being able to throw away it all, all the instances when Mr. Burns is asked to contribute even a little of his money to service someone else, he vehemently rejects the request. This has been seen many times in the show, from Homer enquire for table service with a sick cover to a girl scou t trying to dole out Mr. Burns cookies only to have him release the hounds on her.Mr. Burns avarice and complete lack of charity display his true nature as an ethical egoist. In Peter utterers article, The utterer Solution to World Poverty, the author proposes that if people in affluent countries like the United States donated a small slew of their money that would normally be pass on lavishness items, then the money can be used to function out poverty stricken peoples more or less the world.He uses examples of how this can be done, by citing the be incurred by someone who buys a new-fashioned television merely to upgrade from an ripened one. He claims that if this money was donated to such charities as Unicef or Oxfam America that it would do a greater deal of good for the most possible people, thereby having the greatest public utility company value. By choosing to buy the television and not donate the money, Singer feels that a psyche is making a questionable moral d ecision, even though few in the situation actually feel this way.Singer uses a more provocative hypothetical example of a man named bob, who has an uninsurable standard car that he will sell to insure that he has money for his retirement. In the situation, Bob is forced to make a decision as a look at bears down on his car and a little boy Bob has a choice whether to redeem the boy or the car, but not both, and Bob chooses the car and lets the boy die. While this dramatic example seems to highlight the undesirable attributes of self-interest, Singer claims that the difference between Bob and those who can give to donate to overseas aid organizations but dont is that only Bob can save the child on the tracks, whereas there are hundreds of millions of people who can give $ two hundred to overseas aid organization (Singer).By Singers logic, those that are not donating to these organizations are committing an act similar to the one performed by Bob. Mr. Burns would not only laugh a t such a concept, but would relish the fact that anyone asking for help would be suffering. If in the same situation, he would most certainly save the car, and most likely praise Bob for saving his car, before figuring out a way to get the car from Bob for himself.Mr. Burns utilizes his power to inflict his will upon others, and only respects those who do the same. As, all humans are born with unbosom will, the decision to be charitable or uncharitable rests within that freedom. The German reasonableness philosopher Immanuel Kant contributed much to the Western discussion of ethics and free will, and his conception of freedom and moral excellence are reasoned by the slender distinction of the two modes of representation (the sane and the intellectual) and the consequent limitation of the conceptions of the pure understanding and of the principles which flow from them (Kant).Kant attempts to distinguish between the a posteriori and rational conceptions of free will and how it influences virtue, oppugn whether freedom is the independent choices of free will or merely the practical reaction to circumstance and causality. To this end, Kantianism is highly dependent upon reason to figure out the proper decision concerning virtue, and his ethics rely on bargain to reason more than emotions or goals. Thus, the Kantian approach to donation and charity would be the duty of those that have the means to donate. Burns would patently disagree. Most certainly, Mr. Burns is an ethical egoist.Ethical egoism is a philosophical practice that encourages individuals to pursue their own self-interests. While it is magisterial to deal of helping unknown good deal with ones own gravely earned money, it is also nave to think that people should feel induce to do so. A person who works fleshy to make money to buy book things is entitled to those things. Just because a person is successful and can afford luxury items does not mean that they are obligated to help stranger s because it serves some sort of utilitarian purpose. If anything, much of this altruism merely perpetuates a cycle in which those who are despicable become accustomed to the aid of those who are not. If they pursued their own self-interests, they would be better able to rise above their own struggles and create a successful world for themselves.Ethical egoism is not entirely without the concept of helping others, however it focuses not on people that an individual will never meet, but the people in his or her life and those that the person loves and touches personally. If ones family is in trouble and one possesses the ability to give assistance, this is in the individuals best interest, as it will lead to happiness. However, for an extreme example like Mr. Burns, there is no one that he wishes to help, save for the occasional cute pet or his old stuffed teddy bear. Mr. Burns is a classic example of an ethical egoist, and no one should expect him to do anything for anyone other th an himself. And, in the twenty years that The Simpsons have been on television, he has done nothing but loyally follow his ethical egoist values.Works CitedForsyth, Donelson R.. Judging the Morality of concern Practices The Influence of PersonalMoral Philosophies. Business Ethics People, Profits, and the Planet. Ed. Kevin Gibson. vernal York McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2005. 67-76.Gibson, Kevin. The Theoretical Backdrop of Business Ethics. Business Ethics People, Profits,and the Planet. Ed. Kevin Gibson. New York McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2005. 61-63.Kant, Immanuel. The Critique Of double-dyed(a) Reason. Ed. J. M. D. Meiklejohn. 1781. eserver.org. 4Apr 2008. http//philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Tomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. ThinkingEthically A Framework for Moral determination Making. Business Ethics People, Profits, and the Planet. Ed. Kevin Gibson. New York McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2005. 64-67.Singer, Peter. The S inger Solution to World Poverty. The New York quantify Magazine. 5 Sep1999 pp. 60-63. Utilitarian Philosophers. 4 Apr 2008. http//www.utilitarian.net/ vocalizer/by/19990905.htmWho Shot Mr. Burns? The Simpsons. vizor Oakley and Josh Weinstein. 20th Century Fox. 21May 1995.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment