Amitav Ghosh's Sea of ​​Poppies follows the stories of a multitude of characters from pre-war India opium. Following the ship named Ibis, a former slave ship converted for use in the opium trade and transport of coolies, the reader becomes invested in the stories and decisions of the sailors and indentured servants. The widow Deeti and her lover Kalua travel to Mauritius to become girmitiyas alongside many other smaller characters the reader meets once they arrive on board. Another main character, American Marine Zachary Reed, rose through the ranks to the rank of second lieutenant with the help of the thugs, including their leader Serang Ali. Neel Halder, an opium dealer in debt to Mr. Burnham, is brought onto the ship as a prisoner with a Chinese opium named Ah Fatt. Benjamin Burnham's adopted daughter Paulette runs away from him and her home life to be free on the sea with her Bengali adopted brother Jodu and his love interest Reed. Through all the complex subplots and when going through the stories of the many characters in Ghosh's novel, there is an important economic connotation that is very important to explore. Embedded in the historical monetary context of the opium trade, lascars, and indentured laborers, this book is an important work for understanding the world order and economic markets of the late 19th century. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Adam Smith, father of modern economics, cannot be ignored when trying to discern why each character in Sea of ​​Poppies makes the choices they do. By examining two works of Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations and Moral Sentiments, the reader can observe that these works present a slight contradiction in the justification of human behavior in the field of economics. Werhane's commentary in "Adam Smith's Legacy for Ethics and Economics" perfectly explains the disparity between the two works by saying that "Moral Sentiments" describes people as acting out of sympathy while "The Wealth of nations” focuses on humans as selfish and self-interested. Sympathy, or rather empathy, is a more moral view of how people make economic decisions. An article reviewing the role of empathy and sympathy in economics defines them perfectly by saying: "Sympathy is generally considered to be the concern for the well-being of others" while empathy, "the ability to to put oneself in someone else's place and thus share feelings or sympathy. thoughts of this person” (Kirman, 1). Smith explains why people do things for others when he says that, no matter how selfish, they are invested in the fortunes of others even if they just have the "pleasure of seeing it." These two theories overlap in many cases, although in this book the emphasis is on cases where they overlap for the purpose of false justifications. In Sea of ​​Poppies, most characters are able to focus on their own interests, while keeping others in mind; sometimes even having positive benefits on other characters. Although explained in The Wealth of Nations by the statement that "each man, so long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way", the definition of interest staff can be clarified until better suited to the sea of ​​poppies. Smith not giving a clear meaning to the "laws of justice", it can be stated that in Sea of ​​Poppies, a character isfree to pursue his own interests as long as he doesn't hurt anyone or break any laws. A famous quote from Smith helps explain this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect a dinner, but from the respect of their own interest." » The baker makes bread not so that you can eat it and be full but to make money. The baker is free to make his bread for his own profit as long as it is legal and does not directly harm anyone. His bread is not only legal and harms no one, but also has a positive impact on people's availability to eat it. He is a perfect example of how Smith and Ghosh advocate the practice of self-interest. Understanding how self-interest is defined is essential to understanding Ghosh's views that he presents to the reader in Sea of ​​Poppies. The basis of this article is that these two ideas are linked, and Ghosh realizes this. Most of the characters in this book are able to pursue their personal interests while still being likable. These two ideas often work together in Sea of ​​Poppies. What Ghosh shows in Sea of ​​Poppies is that self-interest is completely justified and acceptable, but what is not acceptable is using the excuse of sympathy to justify a personal interest that harms others or violates laws. In this book, which emphasizes self-interest rather than empathy but shows how many characters incorporate both into their decisions, Ghosh criticizes the abuse of self-interest that Burnham justifies in claiming empathy, but supports self-interest that refrains from harming others. It does this with its formation of protagonist or antagonist characters depending on how they go about achieving their goals. Every character has a goal in this book. Whether escaping death or family life, each character has their own agenda. Most of their actions are rooted in self-interest, even if they benefit others. That's not to say they're bad, because as long as they don't have negative effects on other characters, Ghosh and Smith find no problem with their self-interest. Deeti and Sarju are the best examples. Most of their actions are a mixture of sympathy and self-interest, showing that these actions are combined and that anything is acceptable as long as it is respectful to others. A good example of this is when Deeti leaves her daughter. She can't worry about herself and her own daughter. This is evident when the narrator says, "She had no idea where her next meal would come from...At least with her aunt and cousins ​​the girl would be taken care of" (131). It would be a heavy burden to have to support not only himself but also his daughter. She is not able to take her daughter with her for her own sanity and for her daughter's benefit. Entrusting her daughter to loved ones is rooted in self-interest but also in a demonstration of empathy. She wants her daughter to have a better life and enjoy basic human necessities like a stable food source and shelter. She wants a safe life for her daughter, while freeing herself from some pressure. This example uses sympathy in conjunction with self-interest. She looks out for the best interests of her daughter and herself. It makes life easier for both of them and harms no one, making it an acceptable form of self-interest. Deeti uses a combination of self-interest and sympathy in her choices, and this is seen most clearly through her decision to leave her daughter. A lesser character performs an actionsimilar to Deeti: Sarju gifts Deeti with seeds which will not only help her. start his new life in Mauritius, but will give him a regular reserve of money for food and accommodation. It's an immeasurable gift, especially when everyone is stuck penniless on the ship heading toward a life of poverty and hardship. She and Deeti get along well in the book, and Sarju wants to give her last possessions to someone she actually has feelings for. While it may be a gift from the kindness of one's heart to thank Deeti for her friendship and leadership on the ship, an alternative motive is revealed. Sarju, who could have distributed the seeds among all the women to help more people, only gives them to Deeti because she knows she will get something out of it. She even says: “Don’t tell others. Don’t let them see these seeds” (310). Sarju, who is dying, shares the common fear with all those near death of being forgotten. She wants someone to remember her and perpetuate her memory on earth. When Deeti questions why she was given the seeds, Sarju says, “Because I want to be there too,” she said. I want you to be remembered in your sanctuary” (310). These characters are written in a way that the audience will love and support them, unlike the antagonist Benjamin Burnham. Because their actions are informed by self-interest and empathy, proving that you can both help others and help yourself, they are portrayed as protagonists, and Ghosh inspires the reader to feel positively for them . Their lawsuits and decisions never break any laws or harm anyone. Here it is clear that Ghosh supports self-interest as long as it is right. One character Ghosh describes as a negative light is Burnham, who chooses to participate in "unfair" forms of self-interest and even justifies his actions by trying to hide them in sympathy. He and Mr. Doughty are the only characters who show a lack of sympathy and deliberately choose actions that will harm others. Benjamin Burnham is in complete contradiction with Smith's Wealth of Nations. He pursues his own self-interest, but it usually comes at the expense of others. He also tries, in many cases, to use sympathy, as mentioned in Moral Sentiments, as an excuse for his unacceptable (if one follows Smith's definition) pursuit of self-interest. The clearest example of his negative impact on others comes when he judges Neel for forgery. Neel does not want to give up his land to repay his debts to Benjamin, so he offers: “I will sell my houses...I will sell everything I can” (127). Instead of indulging in sympathy, Benjamin focuses solely on self-interest, specifically self-interest at the expense of others, which defies Smith's laws about pursuing one's desires. He does everything possible to accuse Neel of forgery and arrange the trial so that he loses not only his property, but his entire life. Neel is forced to board the ship as a prisoner and loses his cast and family. Burnham collects his debt, but he does it in a way that hurts and negatively affects Neel's life, when he had other options. This not only hurt Neel, but also his family and everyone living on his property. The way Ghosh describes Burnham's character as the antagonist makes us see that he is against people using self-interest as a motive to harm others, which Smith agrees with. Another point Ghosh makes is his opinion on Burnham's use of sympathy. as an excuse for his hurtful actions while he never takes into account whatfeel others or what they might experience. This is evident at two main points in the book. He first justifies the opium trade to the detriment of China, then excuses his involvement in slavery as something positive when it is an unacceptable and oppressive system. When Burnham and Mr. Doughty talk with Neel, they attempt to use the Chinese people as an excuse for their actions. They justify their enthusiasm for the Opium Wars by asserting that it is not a fight for their right to trade, but rather for "the freedom of the Chinese people" (77). In this case, we see that Mr. Burnham and Mr. Doughty should not be able to express self-interest because their actions not only harm others, but break the law. Neel asks Burnham if the sale of opium is illegal in China, to which he responds: "Opium trafficking has been illegal there for some time" (118). Neel also raises the fact that there is “a large amount of addiction and intoxication in China” (117). This shows the men's indifference to the Chinese people and the wishes of the government. According to Smith, they should not be able to pursue their personal interests and they cover up their greed by using sympathy as an excuse. Being among the only characters to show no sympathy in the book, it's even worse that they constantly use it to explain their actions. Mr. Doughty uses concern for India's poor farmers as an excuse, saying, "What will become of him if his opium cannot be sold in China?" »(176). This was refuted in the beginning of the book when context was provided about Indian peasants and their interactions with the British. These farmers are controlled by the English and kept in poverty thanks to a system of loans and withdrawals of advances. Agents came from England “making them sign a contract…if you refused, they would leave their money hidden in your house or throw it out a window.” There was no point in telling the white magistrate that you had not accepted the money and that your fingerprint was falsified: he was getting opium commissions and would never let you go” (20). The sale of opium benefited neither the Indians nor the Chinese. Not only do they say that profiting from illegal opium sales helps the Chinese people gain freedom, but it also helps the peasants who are forced to cultivate it. It is common among upper caste characters who are so wealthy to only care about themselves, but to claim that sympathy is their motive. Mr. Burnham then reveals to Reed that he is going to turn the Ibis into a slave ship, yet another illegal activity. He even calls slavery “the march toward human freedom,” arguing that some people must suffer for the good of all. Of course, Mr. Burnham will never be the one to suffer. Neel is visibly uncomfortable and expresses that he is happy not to be in slavery as it does not feel like freedom to him. Mr. Burnham reiterates that "white man's mastery" over other races is freedom for them. He's trying to argue that he's doing something right. He talks so much about how he helps people rather than hurting them that he might actually believe himself at this point. After Burnham tries to convince everyone that he has sympathy for others, he admits it. On page 120 he acknowledges that "British rule would not be maintained in India without opium." The reader can finally understand that everything he does is aimed at maintaining his own position and helping to maintain British rule over India, and perhaps even move it to China. Captain Chillingsworth explains that men in power like to try to./179495.