Amitav Ghosh's Sea of ​​Poppies follows the narratives of a multitude of characters in pre-Opium War India. By following the ship called the Ibis, an ancient slave ship converted for use in the opium trade and transportation of coolies, the reader becomes invested in the stories and decisions of both sailors and indentured servants. The widow Deeti and her lover Kalua are on their way to Mauritius to become girmitiya along with several other smaller characters the reader meets once they arrive on board. Another main character, American sailor Zachary Reed, managed to become second officer with the help of the Lascars, including their leader Serang Ali. Neel Halder, an opium trader in debt to Mr. Burnham, is brought to the ship as a prisoner with a Chinese drug addict named Ah Fatt. Benjamin Burnham's adopted daughter Paulette runs away from him and her family life to be free on the sea with her Bengali adoptive brother Jodu and his love interest Reed. Throughout the complex subplots and when exploring the stories of the numerous characters in Ghosh's novel, there is an important economic undertone that is very important to explore. Caught in the historical monetary context of the opium trade, lascars, and indentured laborers, this book is an important work for understanding world order and economic markets during the late 19th century. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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. Looking at two works by Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations and Moral Sentiments, the reader can observe that these works present a slight contradiction in justifying human behavior in the field of economics. Werhane's comment in “Adam Smith's Legacy for Ethics and Economics” perfectly explains the disparity between the two works by saying that “Moral Sentiments” describes people acting out of sympathy while “The Wealth of Nations” describes 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 examining the role of empathy and sympathy in economics defines them perfectly by saying: “Sympathy is generally understood as concern for the well-being of others” while empathy, “the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes and therefore to share that person's feelings or thoughts” (Kirman, 1). Smith explains why people do things for others when he says that, no matter how selfish they are, 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 focus is on when they overlap for the purposes of false justifications. In Sea of ​​Poppies, most characters are able to focus on their own interests, while keeping others in mind; sometimes they even have positive benefits on other characters. Although explained in the Wealth of Nations with the statement that “every man, so long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way,” the definition of self-interest can best be clarified by fitting Sea of Poppies. Given that Smith does not give a clear meaning to the "laws of justice", it can be argued that in Sea of ​​Poppies, a character is free to pursue his own interests as long as he does not hurt anyone or break any laws. A famous quote by Smith helpsexplain this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect a dinner out, but from their regard for their own interests." The baker makes bread not so that you can eat it and be satisfied, but so that he can earn money. The baker is free to produce bread for his own profit as long as this is legal and not directly harmful to anyone. His bread is not only legal and doesn't hurt anyone, but it also has a positive impact on people's willingness to eat it. It is a perfect example of how Smith and Ghosh advocate the practice of self-interest. It is essential to understand how self-interest is defined to understand Ghosh's views that he presents to the reader in Sea of ​​Poppies. The basis of this article is based on the fact that these two ideas are intertwined and Ghosh realizes this. Most of the characters in this book are capable of pursuing their own self-interest while being sympathetic. 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 self-interest that harms others or breaks laws. In this book, which emphasizes self-interest over empathy but shows how many characters incorporate both into their decisions, Ghosh criticizes the abuse of self-interest that Burnham justifies by claiming empathy, but argues for self-interest personnel who refrain from harming others. It does this by shaping characters as protagonists or antagonists depending on how they achieve their goals. Every character has a goal in this book. Whether it's escaping death or home life, each character has their own goals. Most of their actions are rooted in self-interest, even if they are beneficial to 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 don't find a problem with self-interest. Some of the best examples of this are Deeti and Sarju. Most of their actions are a mix of sympathy and self-interest, showing that these actions are combined and that anything is acceptable as long as it is respectful towards others. A good example of this is when Deeti leaves her daughter. She can't worry about herself or her 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 ​​they would take care of the girl" (131). It would be a great burden to have to provide not only for herself but also for her daughter. He is in no position to take his daughter with him for his own sanity and for the sake of his daughter. Giving his daughter to relatives is rooted in self-interest but also in a display of empathy. She wants her daughter to have a better life and meet basic human needs such as a stable food source and shelter. She wants a safe life for her daughter, but at the same time takes some of the pressure off. This example uses sympathy along with self-interest. It seems in the best interests of both her daughter and herself. It makes both of your lives easier and doesn't harm anyone, which makes it an acceptable form of self-interest. Deeti uses a combination of self-interest and sympathy in her choices, and this is clearly seen through her decision to leave her daughter. A minor character does a similar action to Deeti: Sarju gives seeds to Deeti which will not only help her. she will begin her new life in Mauritius, but will give her a constant supply of money to feed and house. It's an immeasurable gift, especially considering everyone left penniless on the ship, headedtowards a life of poverty and difficulty. She and Deeti get along well in the book and Sarju wants to give her last belongings to someone she really has feelings for. While it may be a gift from the kindness of his heart to give thanks for Deeti's friendship and leadership on the boat, an alternative motive is revealed. Sarju, who could have spread the seeds among all the women to help more people, only gives them to Deeti because he knows she will get something out of it. He even says, “Don't let others know. Don't let them see these seeds” (310). Sarju, who is dying, shares with all those close to death the common fear of being forgotten. She wants someone to remember her and carry her memory forward on earth. When Deeti asks why she was given the seeds, Sarju says: “Because I want to be there too, she said. I want to be remembered in your sanctuary” (310). These characters are written in a way that makes the audience like and root for them, unlike the antagonist Benjamin Burnham. Because their actions are informed by self-interest and empathy, demonstrating that you can both help others and yourself, they are depicted as protagonists, and Ghosh pushes the reader to have positive feelings for them. Their activities and decisions never break laws or harm anyone. Here it is clear that Ghosh supports self-interest as long as it is right. One character that Ghosh sees as casting a negative light is Burnham, who chooses to partake in "unfair" forms of self-interest and even justifies her actions by trying to hide them in sympathy. He, along with Mr. Doughty, are the only characters who display a lack of sympathy and deliberately choose actions that will harm others. Benjamin Burnham is the perfect contradiction to Smith's The Wealth of Nations. He pursues his own interest, but this is usually at the expense of others. Furthermore, in many cases, he tries to use sympathy, as mentioned in Moral Sentiments, as an excuse for his unacceptable (if he follows Smith's definition) pursuit of self-interest. The clearest example of his negative impact on others comes when he tries 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 only on self-interest, more specifically, self-interest at the expense of another, which defies Smith's laws of pursuing one's desires. He does everything to accuse Neel of falsehood and fix the trial so that he not only loses his property, but his entire life. Neel is forced to board the ship as a prisoner and loses his cast and family. Burnham gets her debt repaid, but does so in a way that hurts and negatively affects Neel's life, when she had other options. It not only hurt Neel, but also his family and all the people who live on his property. The way Ghosh describes Burnham's character as an antagonist shows us that he is against people using self-interest as a motive that can cause harm to others, thus agreeing with Smith. Another point Ghosh makes is his opinion on Burnham's use of sympathy. as an excuse for his hurtful actions when he never takes into account how others feel or what they might be going through. This is seen in two main points in the book. First it justifies the opium trade at the expense of China and then it justifies its involvement with slavery as something positive when it is an unacceptable and oppressive system. When Burnham and Mr. Doughty argue with Neel, they try to use the Chinese people as an excuse for their actions. They rationalize their enthusiasm for warsof opium, saying 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 replies, “The opium trade there has been illegal for some time” (118). Neel also highlights the fact that there is “a great deal of addiction and intoxication” in China (117). This shows the men's indifference to the Chinese people and the government's wishes. According to Smith they should not be able to pursue self-interest and hide their greed by using sympathy as an excuse. As some of the few characters who show no sympathy in the book, it's even worse that they constantly use it to explain their actions. Mr. Doughty uses caring for India's poor farmers as an excuse saying, "what will become of him if his opium cannot be sold to China?"(176). This was disproved at the beginning of the book where information was given about Indian farmers and their interactions with the English. These farmers are controlled by the British and kept in poverty through a system of loans and advances. Agents came from England “making them sign my contract… if you refused they left their silver hidden in your house, or threw it out of a window. It was useless to tell the white magistrate that you had not accepted the money and that your fingerprint was falsified: he earned commissions on opium and would never let you go” (20). The sale of opium brought no benefits to either the Indians or the Chinese. Not only do they say profiting from the illegal sale of opium helps the Chinese gain freedom, it also helps the farmers who are forced to grow it. It is prevalent among upper caste characters who are so rich that they do not care about anyone but themselves, but claim sympathy is their motive. Mr. Burnham then reveals to Reed that he will turn the Ibis into a slave ship, yet another illegal activity. He even calls slavery “the march of human freedom,” saying that some people must suffer for the sake of everyone else. Of course, Mr. Burnham will never be the one to suffer. Neel is obviously uncomfortable and expresses that he is happy not to be in slavery because it doesn't feel like freedom. Mr. Burnham reiterates that the “white man's mastery” over other races is freedom for them. He's trying to argue that he's doing something good. He talks so much about how he helps people instead of hurting them that he might actually believe it at this point. After Burnham tries to convince everyone that she has sympathy for others, she admits. On page 120 he acknowledges that “British rule would not be sustained in India without opium.” The reader is finally able to see that everything he does is to maintain his own position and help maintain British rule over India, and perhaps even move it to China. Captain Chillingsworth explains that men in power like to try to apologize and pretend to be sympathetic. He says, “We are no different from the pharaohs or the Mongols: the difference is only that when we kill people we feel obliged to pretend that it is for some higher cause” (177). Benjamin Burnham and Mr. Doughty practice self-interest that causes harm to others, and this goes against legal restrictions. Even worse, they explain their actions by saying that they do not do it for themselves, but rather for the good of others. Ghosh criticizes those who justify self-interest in the name of empathy they do not feel, but advocates the pursuit of self-interest that does not harm others and respects the law../179495.