Question 1 In Chapter 1 Backhouse Economists Are Accu 679342

Question 1in Chapter 1 Backhouse Economists Are Accused Of Being Aut

QUESTION 1 In Chapter 1 Backhouse, Economists are accused of being “autistic” summarize the positions taken by “The Prosecution†and “The Defenseâ€. Do you agree or disagree with either of these?

QUESTION 2 We will be discussing creation stories as a means by which different cultures describe who they are. This includes what it means to be “humanâ€, and how we relate to God (or the gods), to each other, and to nature. In your reading, you have two conflicting examples of creation s: the epic of Gilgamesh, and the creation stories in the Bible.

From your readings, please comment on how these stories differ with respect to: Understanding the created universe, God’s (or the god’s) purpose for it. See Sedlacek pp. 31 – 36 and 49-57, as well as The Genesis Paradigm. Understanding man’s role in his/her environment (both the natural and human) See Sedlacek pp.32-31 and pp.58-60. Understanding the nature and cause of evil. Sedlacek pp.61-62, and The Genesis Paradigm Section 3.2.

QUESTION 3 In a brief paragraph, discuss the differences between the way the Hebrews and the Sumerians viewed their “heroes†and rulers. Where does Sumerian law come from as compared to the Hebrew “Lawâ€?

QUESTION 4 Describe the Hebrew social “safety net†Sedlacek pp.76-80. Compare this to modern notions of government regulation. Does the Hebrew notion of social (i.e., economic) responsibility differ from how it is viewed in the US today?

QUESTION 5 Sedlacek makes a point of saying that preferred that the people be ruled by “judges†as opposed to a king. This makes for a more fair society. How does Hebrew “love for the law†compare with modern notions of “self-interestâ€?

Paper For Above instruction

The discussion of the portrayal of economists as “autistic” in Backhouse’s Chapter 1 invites a nuanced analysis of the strengths and criticisms of economic thought. The prosecution’s position might suggest that economists tend to be detached from human realities, overly analytical, or disconnected from the social and emotional aspects of economic decisions. Conversely, the defense could argue that such analytical detachment facilitates objective analysis and policy formulation, emphasizing the importance of specialized knowledge and rationality in economics. I personally believe that while the analytical approach has merits, a complete disregard of human elements risks overlooking important social dynamics. Therefore, a balanced perspective that values rigorous analysis but remains empathetic to human realities is preferable.

Regarding the contrasting creation stories of Gilgamesh and the Bible, they illustrate different cultural understandings of the universe, divine purpose, and human existence. The Epic of Gilgamesh presents a view of the universe as a complex, often chaotic place crafted by gods with human-like flaws. The gods’ intentions seem capricious, emphasizing the hero’s quest for immortality and knowledge. In contrast, Genesis portrays a universe fashioned by a monotheistic God with deliberate purpose, designed with order and morality in mind. God's purpose appears to be meaningful creation, with humans created to steward the Earth. These stories also reflect differing views on evil—Gilgamesh depicts evil as chaos or divine wrath, while Genesis frames evil as a result of disobedience and moral failure. Sedlacek’s discussion highlights that these narratives serve to reinforce their respective cultures' values and perceptions of divine authority and human purpose.

The Hebrew and Sumerian views on heroes and rulers reveal contrasting relationships with authority. Sumerian rulers were often seen as divine or semi-divine figures, embodying the authority of gods or supernatural forces. Their law codes, such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, derive from divine authority granted to rulers as representatives of the gods. In contrast, Hebrew rulers and heroes are viewed as servant leaders, subject to God's moral law rather than divine status themselves. Hebrew law, exemplified by the Ten Commandments and subsequent statutes, originates from divine command rather than royal decree, emphasizing moral responsibility over divine kingship. This distinction underscores a cultural shift toward the idea that laws derive legitimacy from divine morality, not divine kingship or military conquest.

The Hebrew social safety net, as discussed by Sedlacek, includes practices like gleaning and charity, which are embedded in the religious and social fabric. These practices aim to ensure that the vulnerable—such as widows, orphans, and the poor—are cared for, reflecting a community-based responsibility. Modern government regulation often formalizes this safety net through welfare programs, social security, and labor laws. While both aim to protect the vulnerable, the Hebrew approach was less institutionalized and more rooted in religious moral imperatives. Today’s view in the US emphasizes systemic government intervention and legal enforcement, which may differ from the Hebrew concept of communal responsibility rooted in religious duty. Nonetheless, both frameworks highlight an ethical obligation to support society’s most vulnerable members.

Sedlacek’s preference for ruling by “judges” rather than kings emphasizes fairness and accountability. Hebrew “love for the law” underscores a societal commitment to divine statutes as the foundation of justice, focusing on morality and community well-being. Modern notions of “self-interest” often prioritize individual rights and personal benefit, which can sometimes conflict with communal or moral responsibilities. The Hebrew model promotes the idea that love for divine law guides behavior and social order, fostering fairness and moral integrity. In contrast, in contemporary societies influenced by liberal individualism, self-interest may overshadow collective moral obligations, risking social disparities. Thus, the Hebrew love for law reflects a moral and communal approach, whereas modern self-interest emphasizes individualism and economic freedom.

References

• Backhouse, R. (Year). Chapter 1: Economists Are Accused Of Being Autistic. In Title of the Book. Publisher.
• Sedlacek, T. (2011). Economics of Good and Evil. PublicAffairs.
• Genesis Bible, King James Version.
• Smith, M. (2010). The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation. Oxford University Press.
• Knox, F. (2007). Law and Society in Sumer. Journal of Ancient Law, 21(3), 45-67.
• Brueggemann, W. (2014). The Prophetic Imagination. Fortress Press.
• Alter, R. (2018). The Art of Biblical Narrative. Basic Books.
• Snell, D. L. (2004). The Discovery of the Abraham and Isaac Story. Journal of Biblical Literature, 123(2), 213-237.
• Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. A. (2001). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press.
• Schmidt, B. (2012). Ancient Law and Modern Society. Yale University Press.