Research Paper on:
Adam Smith and Aristotle on Social Relations and Economics

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
socially, politically and economically beneficial for the greater good, leaving little consideration for the remaining minority few. Indeed, adopting such a position has a great deal to do with  the idea of sacrificing a lesser being for the better of the superior being. The core of comparison for Smith is the fact that ethically speaking, a single entity  cannot begin to know what is for the good of the majority when it comes to the living world as a whole, since individuals perceive issues of control in significantly  different ways. If capitalism is, indeed, wrapped around the concept of emotion instead of common sense, then any form control that is  promoted by the capitalistic belief comes not from the desire to better the world for everyone, but rather to improve it as a means by which to appease the majority  (Smith PG). In its raw form, capitalism appears to have the peoples best interest in mind; however, that extension is limited to the number of people who stand to benefit  from its application. Smiths concept addresses minority views in such a manner that causes people to abide by the ideals of the vast majority simply because they deem it  as acceptable. If the issue in question happens to be acceptable to two-thirds of the population (upper class elitists), it is highly likely that the remaining one-third who voices  opposition (bourgeoisie) will not have enough force behind them to overrule the majority. In other words, while Smith believes that capitalism is in the best interest of all concerned,  others claim that such a system has lost sight of what is fair for all concerned. This is because a majority representation may reflect a sense of connectedness with