The Humanity Theory In The Article How And How Not To Love Mankind

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Humanity Theory In The Article How And How Not To Love Mankind

In the article How-and How Not-to Love Mankind, Theodore Dalrymple interprets and explains the welfare of humanity and how philanthropic sentiment takes a variety of forms. Dalrymple introduces his argument with two nineteenth-century writers, Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx. Although some aspects of Turgenev and Marx’s lives were usually similar to each other, the two shared distinct views on human behavior, nature, and welfare. For instance, according to Theodore Dalrymple, Marx viewed human beings as ‘snowflakes in an avalanche,’ or ‘general forces.’ Turgenev perceived humans as individuals who embodied feelings, character, moral strengths, and consciousness.

Marx focused less on the lives of individuals and more on vast numbers because he felt focusing on men was more interesting rather than observing individuals. The difference in the ideologies and beliefs of Karl Marx and Turgenev supports the argument that intellectuals can have different viewpoints and perspectives on the welfare of humanity. Dalrymple uses the articles, Mumu, written by Turgevev and Communist Manifesto, written by Marx, to help differentiate their views about humanity.

In his article, How-and How Not-to Love Mankind Dalrymple mainly argues individuals claim to care for and possess the welfare of humanity, but in reality, sometimes that is not true. To acquire the welfare of humanity, people must truly serve humanity with a pure heart and true nature. Although people serve humanity differently, one must be sincere, loving, and dedicated, to possess the welfare of humanity. Dalrymple supports his idea by using the stories Mumu and Communist Manifesto. First, Dalrymple introduces the story Mumu written by Ivan Turgenev, to represent the ideologies of Turgenev’s views of human beings and humanity. The story Mumu depicts the purest form of love between a man and his dog companion, Mumu. Mumu narrates the absence of love that’s driven by a selfish, manipulative human being out of spite and jealousy. A deaf, serf, by the name of Gerasim, seeks love throughout the story. Gerasim undergoes the cruelty of serfdom due to arbitrary power. His wicked, manipulative, landowner seeks to abuse her power and destroy everything that makes Gerasim happy. The selfish landowner deprives Gerasim of his lover, a peasant named Tatyana, and his companion, a dog named Mumu. The story Mumu revealed the dark cruelty of arbitrary power and the reality of serfdom. Whether the classes are different, the absolute power over one person or another leads to cruelty. The story Mumu aligns with Turgenev’s belief that humans are hopeful, saveable, and humanity will be blissful without selfishness, absolute power, and serfdom.

In the next story, to support his argument, Dalrymple uses Communist manifesto written by Karl Marx. Unlike the compassion depicted in the story of Mumu, the Communist manifesto represents hatred, anger, bitterness, and encourages violence among humanity. One distinct difference between Marx and Turgenev is the interest in the lives of individuals. Marx, according to Dalrymple, in Communist Manifesto, does not mention the individual lives of humans. Instead, Marx speaks only in categories. For instance, he uses words such as bourgeois and proletarian, because he believes vast numbers share the same relations in the economic system. In How-and How Not-to Love Mankind, Dalrymple uses Marx’s quote from the Communist Manifesto to support this idea. In this quote, Marx stated, In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.’ This quote written by Karl Marx means, the ‘bourgeois society capital,’ is supposed to serve the interest of the people, by giving it ‘individuality.’ A person is dependent on the capital because it fulfills interest. For instance, it provides the working class with jobs due to ongoing production. There is no’ individuality’ of that person because the capital shares the common interests of the capital bourgeois. Marx mentions individuality because he believes the working class should unite and overthrow capitalism by replacing it with communism. Like Marx, I also disagree with the ‘bourgeois society capital’ because it exploits the working class for wealth and production. The capitalist bourgeois uses the power of labor to expand their businesses and production by paying the working class little wages. If people were to make their own decisions, there will be more satisfaction, than perhaps depending on the ‘bourgeoisie society capital’ because not everyone’s interest becomes fulfilled. In some aspects, I agree with Karl Marx’s beliefs. For instance, capitalist bourgeois exploits the working class, however, I disagree with some factors in production and economic equality. Because of his beliefs, a tremendous amount of people hated Marx because of his lack of sympathy towards humanity. The remaining people found his beliefs interesting and beneficial and would go on the spread them. According to Dalrymple, hardly anyone came to Marx’s funeral, while thousands mourn the death of Turgenev. To many people, Turgenev was well-respected because of his love, hope, and respect for humanity. Although Marx and Turgenev’s ideologies and beliefs differed and were extremely distinct from one another, they both have impacted the world.

Overall, I agree with Theodore Dalrymple’s article How-and How Not-to Love Mankind. As seen with the evidence Darymples used to support his claim, individuals do claim to care for and possess the welfare of humanity, but in reality, sometimes that is not true. Sometimes people serve humanity differently because philanthropic sentiment takes a variety of forms. I agree with his statement because he supports it using the evidence of two nineteenth-century writers with similar yet distinct paths. I agree that the world needs to treat humanity with a pure heart. We must be sincere, loving, and dedicated, and then we shall possess the welfare of humanity. As said by Thomas Hobbes, we must seek peace and follow it. We can not always rely on violence because we need to respect and love each other. Hobbes is relevant to the topic How-and How Not-to Love Mankind because to obtain the welfare of humanity, we must first seek peace with each other. We must prevent violence and love each other regardless of our economic class, race, gender, and, etc. We should treat each other fairly and as individuals. According to Marcus Aurelius,’ in the second discipline of stoicism, ‘our nature is fundamentally unselfish,’ and we must treat people with respect and dignity. If we put aside our differences, we can learn to love humanity.

Click Here To Order Now!