The theory of moral sentiments and the poem ‘A Mouse’ talk about the sentiments of human beings. The two writers have different views on human feelings. In the theory of moral sentiments, Smith believes that other people's sentiments drive a person's sentiments. According to him, human beings are driven with sympathy. They tend to be touched by others sad moments rather than the happy moments (Zhang, 33). When someone is sick people will feel sympathy towards that person but when they are in their happy moments, other people are most likely not to share in with the happiness. People become sympathetic for no apparent reason. It’s a force that cannot be explained it just happens. While in the poem To A mouse, the writer describes how an individual feels pity for a mouse after destroying its nest. The individual further tends to think that he should not feel bad when the mouse starts fidgeting since naturally mice are afraid of human beings. The mouse reacts in that manner due to fear that has been instilled in them with humans.
Comparison of the theory of moral sentiments and the poem To ‘A Mouse’
The two writers are analyzing the feelings of human beings, and they take into consideration the fact people care about other people’s feelings. When the speaker destroyed the nest, the response of the mouse is what moved her. The mouse looked frightened, and the speaker starts apologizing to the mouse and telling the mouse not to worry. This also seen in the theory as Smith says that human beings are driven by feelings that he refers to as being sympathetic.
The writers are in agreement that people derive pleasure out of sympathizing with others. If someone does not feel sympathy for a sad situation, they feel guiltier unlike when they do not feel happy when one is a good mood. Individuals feel like it is important to share the feelings of other people going through sad situations. They feel responsible of people’s feelings, mutual sympathy is crucial for companionship and friendship. In the poem, it is evident when the speaker compares her problems to those of the mouse. She tries to put herself in the situation of the mouse and feels pity for it. She identifies with the problems of the mouse and gets pleasure out of taking the mouse feelings into consideration. Soothing the mouse and assuring it that everything is okay shows how much she cares. Living the mouse in despair would have left the speaker feeling sad. In the theory, the writer greatly describes how human beings highly take into consideration the feeling of others. This is a similarity that exists between the theory and the poem they all support the fact that human beings get pleasure from sympathizing with other sad situations (Smith, Adam, and Knud Haakonssen, 65).
Human beings are conversant with mutual sympathy according to Smith. This brings in a sense of belonging since individuals can relate with each other on mutual grounds. The opposite is true as described in the poem since the speaker feels sorry for the mouse, but the mouse cannot feel the same way about the speaker. She even talks about the mouse stealing for her which means she does not have the same interest at heart. The mouse is more concerned about its affairs and afraid of the speaker. This makes the speaker rethink about the sympathy she felt towards the mouse. She considered the mouse a threat and not a friend. This made it impossible for her to compare herself with the mouse. This means that since there is no mutual sympathy the speaker gets less pleasure from feeling sorry for the mouse. The speaker even goes to the extent of describing the mouse of having less trouble as compared to the human. The mouse only thinks about the present but humans have the past, present and future to be worried about. This puts the mouse in a very different position and does not deserve sympathy from human beings. The mouse is instead cruel since it steals from the speaker though that is not a spot of bother.
Approving or disapproving with the feelings of others is solely determined by whether we feel sympathetic or we do not sympathize with the emotions of others. If individuals sympathize with other people’s feelings then, they will tend to feel that the feelings are justified. However, in a scenario where there is no sympathy for your situation then, they will judge your feelings as being unjust. In the poem when the speaker considered the mouse as a thief and considered the mouse as having fewer responsibilities, then she did not deem it important to feel sorry for the mouse. The feeling of fear and sadness portrayed by the mouse is unjustifiable. The mouse should not exhibit those feelings at all since she further considers the mouse as being blessed. Smith states this in his theory, and Robert burns also explains it in the poem using the change of mind that the speaker had in regard to being sympathetic to the mouse (Burns, 53). In addition, the poem relates to other literary works that have been done by Smith. For instance, sympathy that is the main theme in the poem is also illustrated using other literary works such as “A Man's a Man for A' That” where he shows how individuals sympathize with the poor.
In the theory, the person exhibiting the emotions aroused by an object has different virtues to those of the spectator. The individual principally concerned portrays a character of self-government and self-denial while the spectator displays a reaction of wanting to put herself in the shoes of the affected individual. In the poem, the speaker has the desire to feel sorry for the mouse and make things right by trying to solve the problem. Smith considers the action of the person concerned unjustifiable and those of the spectator admirable. The spectator has the feelings of other at heart and follows the principle of love your neighbor a little more that you love yourself. This is admirable of the spectator since it show great concern for others and brings in a feeling of love and care. In the poem, the mouse was the concerned individual while the speaker was the spectator (Smith, 81). The speaker and the mouse have totally different virtues. They have different thinking and a different way of doing things. In the poem, the concern of the however cannot be reciprocated by the mouse, making it different from the theory discussed by Smith.
In the theory, Smith describes it as being impossible to sympathize with the bold states; this is because their origin is in the body. However, one can sympathize with the passion of the imagination, for instance, loss of ambition and passion. One sympathizes with the feelings of the others if it’s possible to relate with what the person is going through. If one is hungry then, an individual cannot relate with the feeling hence impossible to sympathize. Individuals can relate to the loss of an individual since one can be able to picture himself in the same position (Burns, 92). In the poem the same cases apply, this is described when the speaker states that she has no problem with the mouse eating his food since he does not consider that a feeling she can relate to. When she accidently destroys the nest of the mouse, she imagined that the mouse had probably prepared it for the winter and felt sorry for it. This is because she could relate to the troubles that the mouse would go through during that period.
It is evident that feelings are crucial between human beings and the easily relate to each other. Smith and Robert in their discussions critically analyze the manner in which people relate to different emotions.
Conclusion
Adam Smith and Robert Burn evaluated the issues surrounding emotions and feelings. They narrow down the feelings into those that one can sympathize with, and those that people do not consider as being sympathetic. Individuals get much pleasure from mutual sympathy; this is when the feeling of sympathy can be reciprocated between the individuals. In this situation, a feeling of contentment will be achieved. The spectator is always happy of the character and virtues since they lead to the fulfillment of one’s desire. The poem mostly describes what Smith discussed, but it has been done in the form of a story. Analyzing the story internally brings out the same principles evaluated by Smith. In conclusion, the sentiments of human beings affect the manner in which they relate with each other. It may result in harmony or disunity between individuals relating with each other.
Works cited
Burns, Robert, Charles L. Hanson, and Thomas Carlyle. Representative Poems of Robert Burns: With Carlyle's Essay on Burns. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1899. Print 56-52).
Burns, Robert. The Collected Poems of Robert Burns. Wordsworth, 1994. Print (80-100).
Smith, Adam, and Knud Haakonssen. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print (50-67).
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. United States: Filiquarian Publishing, 2007. Print (76-94).
Zhang, Wei-Bin. On Adam Smith and Confucius: The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Analects. Commack, N.Y: Nova Science Publishers, 1999. Print (30-43).
