Economics 102: Foundations of Macroeconomics Name____________ Assignment 2: The View of the Human Condition in the Social Sciences Note: If you had me for econ 101, you must use one additional reading: BF Skinner’s “What is Man?” from his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity

Subject:EconomicsPrice:18.89 Bought3

Share With

Economics 102: Foundations of Macroeconomics Name____________ Assignment 2: The View of the Human Condition in the Social Sciences Note: If you had me for econ 101, you must use one additional reading: BF Skinner’s “What is Man?” from his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. A. Acts Ch 17: Verses 16-24 (below) Paul encounters 2 groups with competing philosophies (note: not different religions) 1. What were the basic views of the: a. Epicureans regarding existence? A moral law? b. Stoics regarding meaning, purpose, existence? 2. How do you think Paul addressed people from each philosophical school? What would a modern Epicurean look/think like? B. Cashmore: (For Behavioral Theory) 1. What is Cashmore’s basic assumption about existence? human (your) nature? 2. How does this affect his view on whether you have free will? Identity? Rationality? 3. Given that, what does Cashmore think drives human behavior? (“Stochastic” = random chance) 4. How does that view of existence affect his view of personal responsibility? 5. How does that view of existence affect his view of how we should approach crime? 6. Extension: how would we apply that reasoning to economics? 7. Explain: how might one’s view of the human condition affect one’s theories about human behavior? 8. Why does he cite Epicurus? Lucretius? 9. Why would a prominent biologist in 2010 cite arguments from 2400 years ago? What should that mean for your wanting to learn arguments from 2400 years ago? C. Huxley: “Beliefs”: P 367 – 371 (For Moral Theory) 1.What did Huxley assume about human existence (for him “scientific picture of the world” = matter is all that exists.)? This affected his understanding of how people develop/are formed and the existence of morals to follow. 2. What did Huxley assume about the meaning of human existence? (367, 369) 3. Why did they assume that position about meaning? 4. Where would that place him as an Epicurean or not? 5. Bring this into Brave New World: 6.How would Huxley’s views inform the morals John was taught on the reservation? Comp w/ King: LBH 7.How would Huxley’s views of the formation/production of people in Ch 1,2 of BNW relate to Cashmore? D. Martin Luther King: Accepting Responsibility for Your Actions 1. How does MLK’s argument contrast with Cashmore’s? 2. Where does it agree/disagree? Why? What makes the difference? 3. How does this connect with the problem of free will? E. Martin Luther King: “Letter from Birmingham Jail” excerpt (below) What is King’s basic assumption about the existence of an eternal/universal law? How does that apply to the civil rights movement? How does that compare with Huxley’s position? These two pieces from King perfectly capture the central issues of a religiously informed worldview. The issue essentially boils down to this: 1. Do we have free will, rationality, identity? (This is central to all behavioral theory) 2. IF so, is there a moral law to guide us in our free choices? (This is central to all moral theory) # 1 is why this is not simply a question of religion or morals. Every discipline which deals with human action must take a position on whether people have free will and rationality (ability to act on ideas) or not. You cannot avoid this question. And addressing this question helps you understand your disciplines more effectively. Acts Chapter 17:16 – 24. Paul in Athens: 16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) 22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. From Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all" Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Economics 102: Principles of Microeconomics Assignment 8: Resource Markets; Labor and Pay Name____________ Calculation & Excel Exercise 1. Complete the following table to derive the demand curve for labor. Units of Input (L) 0 Total Output 0 Marginal Product Product Price Total Revenue MRP =P*MP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 9 12 14 15 14 12 5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 500 500 (Wage) Price of Input 500 400 300 200 100 Demand For Input 1 a. If the weekly price of labor is 300, how many workers will be hired? Do 2 (two) of the following: 2,3, or 4 2. Minimum Wage, Economics, Eugenics, and the Progressive Era Read the article "Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era" (Thomas Leonard; Journal of Economic Perspectives Fall 2005) a. What was the progressive era? b. What was eugenics? c. Why did the progressives also adopt a eugenics approach? d. What was the eugenic argument from the progressives about the advantage of the minimum wage causing unemployment? e. What was the most astounding quotation you read/idea/fact you discovered in the article? f. Why did eugenicists support the minimum wage? 3. Unions and Pay. (Special topic chapter on unions.) a. Do union members have higher pay than non-union workers? b. Do unions raise the compensation of workers? Why or why not? What is the key factor here? c. When can unions be most useful for workers? 4. Gender and Pay Discrimination. Goldin's article: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GenderGap.html Claudia Goldin is a professor of economic history at Harvard who specializes in labor economics, especially women's labor. If the MRP theory of labor were correct, women should receive the same pay as men if similarly productive; but there is a gap. How big is this gap? How much does Goldin attribute to discrimination, and how does she describe that logic. How much has the gap changed over time? What might that imply? This topic is covered in more detail in chapters 13 and in the special topic section on discrimination.) What is the gap between: a. All women relative to all men? b. Unmarried women relative to unmarried men? c. Married women relative to unmarried women? What do these results imply about the source of the gap and potential discrimination? Alternate Question: In place of the two above, you may do the question below. Economics and Moral Reflection 5. CEO and Celebrity Pay: Use Excel Go to the Forbes Website and look up recent celebrity and CEO compensation. http://www.forbes.com/celebrities/list/2/#tab:overall http://www.forbes.com/lists/2012/12/ceo-compensation-12_rank.html You may use the list I generated from the 2012 numbers below for CEO's. For Celebrities, you're on your own.. Employee data is tougher. The following had some: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/countries/US.html a. Go to the websites above. Download the compensation for the 100 highest paid CEOs & Celebrities paste it into a table! b. Who made more on average? The top 100 celebrities or top 100 CEOs? Top 100 CEOs Top 100 Celebs c. Who "deserves" the big bucks? CEO's? Celebs? Neither? Both? What do you think? d. If firms pay CEO's more, does that mean employees get less? e. If entertainment companies and movie studios pay stars more, do average employees get less (e.g. does the janitor at Oprah's studio get paid less because Oprah makes so much more)? Analyze: CEO Pay Per Employee f. List the top 10 CEO's and celebrities and their annual pay for recent years. g. Go online to find the number of employees at the firms with those 10 highest paid CEOs (This may take a general search) h. Divide the CEO pay by the number of employees to determine how much more the employees would make if the company paid the CEO's nothing and gave everything to the workers. It is OK if the # employees is from a slightly different year. It won't change that much. For example, in 2007, the Walmart CEO earned about $8m in salary, $31M in total compensation. This would be 500-1000 times what the average person made at Walmart. On the other hand, redistributing the $8M in salary across Walmart's 1.4 million employees would raise their salary by less than one hour's wage (8/1.4) while redistributing the entire $31 would raise employee pay by $21 each about 2 hours salary). Income and Compensation for Celebrities and CEOs Celebrity Income CEO Firm Salary Stock/ Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Top 100 CEO Compensation in 2012 Company Annual Pay (Million $) John McKesson 131.2 Ralph Ralph Lauren 66.7 Michael Vornado Realty 64.4 Richard Kinder Morgan 60.9 David Honeywell 55.8 George Express Scripts 51.5 Priceline.com 50.2 Rank Name 1 Hammergren 2 Lauren 3 Fascitelli 4 Kinder 5 Cote 6 Paz 7 Boyd Jeffery Total Comp. CEO Pay Number of vs Avg Emp. Employees 8 Hemsley 9 Cazalot Stephen UnitedHealth Group Jr 48.8 10 Martin 11 Wren 12 Dimon James JPMorgan Chase & Co 41.9 13 Moonves Leslie CBS 41.4 14 Schultz Howard Starbucks 41.4 15 Plant 16 Zaslav 17 Iger 18 Adkerson 19 Manganello Timothy BorgWarner 39.2 20 Jacobs Paul Qualcomm 36.3 21 Chazen 22 Pyott David Allergan 33.8 23 Hess John Hess 33.2 24 Frankfort LewLew Coach 33.1 25 Camilleri Marathon Oil 43.7 John Gilead Sciences 43.1 John Omnicom Group 42.6 JohnTRW Automotive Holdings41.9 David Discovery Communications40.7 Robert Walt Disney 39.8 Richard Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold 39.5 Stephen Occidental Petroleum 34.3 LouisPhilip Morris International32.7 26 Tucci Joseph EMC 32.3 27 Dauman Philippe Viacom 30.8 28 Novak David Yum Brands 29.6 29 Berkley William WR Berkley 29.5 30 Steinhafel Gregg Target 28.6 31 Nosbusch Keith Rockwell Automation 32 Zuckerman Mortimer Boston Properties 27.6 33 Angel Stephen Praxair 26.4 34 Stephenson Randall AT&T 26.8 35 Hackett 36 Cutler 37 Donegan 38 Fishman Jay Travelers Cos 25.4 39 Smith Frederick FedEx 25.3 40 Rosenfeld Irene Kraft Foods 25.3 41 Sullivan William Agilent Technologies 24.8 42 Murdoch RupertK News Corp 24.7 43 Wiseman Eric VF 24.4 44 Farrell James Anadarko Petroleum Alexander Eaton MarkMark Precision Castparts 27.1 25.9 25.8 25.6 Michael Annaly Capital Management23.8 45 Fink Laurence BlackRock 23.3 46 Duke Michael WalMart Stores 23.1 47 Snow David Medco Health Solutions 22.1 48 Ells 49 Blankfein SteveSteve Chipotle Mexican Grill 21.7 50 Johnson 51 Parkinson 52 Brock John Coca Cola Enterprises 21.1 53 Wise Allen Coventry Health Care 20.8 Lloyd Goldman Sachs Group 21.7 William HJ Heinz Robert Baxter International 21.6 21.3 54 Mulally Alan Ford Motor 20.8 55 Balmuth Michael Ross Stores 20.8 56 Martire Fidelity Frank National Information Services 20.7 57 Sheffield 58 Farr 59 McClendon 60 ScottPioneer Natural Resources 20.5 David Emerson Electric 19.9 Aubrey Chesapeake Energy 19.8 Ward Michael CSX 19.8 61 Beauchamp Robert BMC Software 19.8 62 Bewkes Jeffrey Time Warner 19.7 63 Lundgren John Stanley Black & Decker 19.7 64 Bunch Charles PPG Industries 19.6 65 Hermance Frank Ametek 19.3 66 Culp LawrenceH Danaher 19.2 67 Cook Ian ColgatePalmolive 19.2 68 Stevens Robert Lockheed Martin 19.2 69 D'Souza 70 Roberts Brian Comcast 18.7 71 Ring Timothy CR Bard 18.5 72 Rogers James Duke Energy 18.5 73 Lesar David Halliburton 18.3 74 Szymanczyk Michael Altria Group 17.8 75 Fries Michael Liberty Global 17.6 76 Waddell Frederick Northern Trust 17.6 77 Case Gregory Aon 17.5 78 Hay Lewis NextEra Energy 17.5 79 Swanson William Raytheon 17.4 80 Farris Steven Apache 17.3 81 Klappa Gale Wisconsin Energy 17.2 82 White Miles Abbott Laboratories 17.1 83 Amos Daniel Aflac 17.1 84 Georgens Thomas NetApp 17.3 85 Finnegan John Chubb 16.8 86 Pope LarryC Smithfield Foods 16.6 87 Britt Glenn Time Warner Cable 16.5 88 Meyrowitz Carol TJX Cos 16.5 89 Young Larry Snapple Group 16.5 90 Conway John Crown Holdings 16.4 91 Washkewicz Donald ParkerHannifin 16.2 92 Smith Francisco Cognizant Technology Solutions 19.9 Wayne Community Health Systems16.1 93 Herbert 94 Sutherlin Michael JamesFirst Republic California 16.7 Joy Global 15.8 95 Mulva James ConocoPhillips 15.6 96 Lechleiter John Eli Lilly & Co 15.5 97 Harvey Brett Consol Energy 15.5 98 Huang JenHsun Nvidia 15.4 99 Donahoe John Ebay 15.3 100 Templeton Richard Texas Instruments 15.3 Labor Demanded Wage 0 1 2 3 4 5 600 500 400 300 200 100 5 0 countries/US.html aste it into a table! p 100 Celebs anitor at Oprah's studio eneral search) if the company ne hour's wage (8/1.4) CEO pay per Employee "Accepting Responsibility for Your Actions" King, Martin Luther, Jr. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/accepting-responsibility-your-actions One of the most common tendencies of human nature is that of placing responsibility on some external agency for sins we have committed or mistakes we have made. We are forever attempting to find some scapegoat on which we cast responsibility for our actions. Herein lies the tragic misuse of much of our modern psychology, particularly what is known as depth psychology or psychoanalysis. This school of thought affirms that many of our conscious actions are due to unconscious motives. Now there is a kernel of truth in this theory and we owe a great debt to Sigmund Freud for opening to us the uncharted regions of the sub conscious. But the tragedy lies in the fact that many modern men have used this theory as an attractive defense mechanism. How easy it was to say that unconscious emotions and repressed sex drives were responsible for our actions rather than plain everyday sin. The word sin was gradually eliminated from the modern vocabulary and there emerged in its place a series of bombastic psychological phrases such as phobias, complexes, and inhibitions. And so modern man was convinced that psychology had given him explanations which relieved him of any responsibility for his actions. This tendency to thrust responsibility for our actions on some external agency is by no means a new one. The Genesis writers found it present in the very beginning of history. Remember the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? God had placed Adam and Eve in the garden to dress it. They were given liberty to make use of everything in the garden with the exception of one thing: “They were not to eat of the tree of good and evil.” Very soon a serpent appeared on the scene and said: “Hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And Eve answered: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the tree of good and evil God has commanded that we not eat or touch lest we die.” And the serpent answered: “Ye shall not surely die, for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” After listening to these cogent words by the subtle serpent, Eve yielded to the temptation and very soon Adam and Eve were found eating from the tree that God had forbidden them to touch. When God came back on the scene to ascertain why this sin had been committed, he found each shifting responsibility on some external agency. Adam's answer was that the woman caused him to eat of the tree. Eve claimed that the serpent caused her to eat of the tree.3 Neither Adam nor Eve stopped to realize that although they were tempted by external agencies, they were, in the final analysis, responsible for yielding to the temptation. Ultimately individual responsibility lies not in the external situation but in the internal response. Environment: : We are all familiar with the most common agencies on which we project responsibility for our actions. First we turn to environment. How easy it is for one to affirm that one's whole personality make-up and indeed one's very destiny itself is determined by one's environment. Here is a man about forty now whose life has been given in riotous living. Now as he looks back over these wasted years his comment is: “I would have been [better] if I had been [in] a rich family with prestige and fame or if I had been in a more progressive community. It is my environment that has corrupted me.” Yet such persons as this fail to realize that many individuals rise from the very lowest of environments to be some of the most noble characters of human history. There is a Marian Anderson, born in a poverty stricken area of Phila. Pa. She could have very easily given up in despair and cried out that she was born in the wrong environment. But she was not one to make excuses. This same Marian Anderson rose from a poverty stricken environment to be one of the world's greatest contraltoes, so that a Toscanni can say that a voice like this comes only once in a century and a Seballius of Finland can say, “My roof is too low for such a voice.”4 There is a Roland Hayes, born on the red hills of Gordon County Georgia under the most crippling restrictions. At a very early age he found himself working in an iron foundry of Chatanooga Tenn. But from these red hills of Georgia, he rose to the palace of Queen Mother of Spain. From this iron foundry in Chatanooga, Tenn., he rose to the palace of King George the 5th.5 There was an Abraham Lincoln, born in poverty and insecurity, later working as a Kentucky rail splitter. Yet this same Abraham Lincoln rose from a Kentucky rail splitter to be one of the greatest characters in the great drama of history. These are but few of the many examples that could be used to refute the claim that one is completely determined by his environment. Those who hold such a position fail to see that many fine and noble persons stem from bad environments and many very bad and corrupt persons stem from comfortable and desirable environments. Genes: Another external agency on which we readily cast responsibility for our actions is heredity. There are those who would affirm that one is completely determined by heredity. How easy it is to say, “I would have been better if I had had better hereditary circumstances.” Here again those who project total responsibility for their actions on hereditary circumstances fail to see that numerous individuals rise above such circumstances. There is a John Bunyan, deprived of his physical sight, and yet he wrote a Pilgrim's Progress that generations will cherish so long as the cords of memory shall lengthen.6 There is a Franklin D. Roosevelt, inflicted with infantile paralysis and yet he rises up to leave such an imprint in the sands of our nation’s history, that future history books will be incomplete without his name. There is a Hellen Keller, burdened with blindness and deafness, and she rises up to live such a sublime and noble life that millions have come to admire her as one of the choicest fruits on the tree of history.7 These are but few of those who have proved that man is not finally caught in the clutches of heredity. He has within himself the power to transcend the disadvantages of bad hereditary conditions. As a world famous psychologist has said: “After going through the experimental and clinical literature, the thoughtful reader will conclude that the effects of personality upon glands are more impressive and easier to illustrate than are the effects of the glands upon personality.”8 Both Genes and Environment Matter...But are Not All I must hasten to say that the above assertions do not mean to imply that heredity and environment are not important. I happen to be a firm believer in what is called the “social gospel.” Indeed, no one can intelligently care for personal life without caring about genetics and social reform. Moreover, the above assertions do not mean to imply that our actions are not somewhat conditioned by external influences. When one considers the cosmic setting of our lives, our absolute dependence on the maintenance of the earth's heat and moisture, the determining effect on each individual of the race's biological evolution, the momentous consequences of heredity, and the conditioning effect of environment, one cannot lightly talk about being the master of one's fate and the captain of one's soul.9 Far from saying that environment and heredity have no importance in human personality, what I am really saying is that there is another factor which is the ultimate determining factor (viz) personal response. And herein lies our responsibility. We are not responsible for the environment we are born in, neither are we responsible for our hereditary circumstances. But there is a third factor for which we are responsible namely, the personal response which we make to these circumstances. And so the challenge which confronts all of us is to respond to our circumstances with strength and courage rather than with weakness and despair. Who in all history can serve as a better example for us at this point than our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ? There was nothing so comfortable and advantageous about His environmental and hereditary circumstances. He was born in a stable and raised on a carpenter's bench. His mother and father were not members of the upper crust of Jewish society. They did not enjoy the power of the aristocratic Pharisee or the prestige of the cosmopolitan Saducee. Jesus was born in plain unpretentious circumstances. But Jesus had within himself a power of personal response which was destined to transform his circumstances. This same Jesus who was born in an ox stable, rose up to be the strongest and tallest oak in the great forest of history. This same Jesus, rose from a carpenter's bench to give impetus to a movement which has grown from a group of 12 men to more than 700,000,000 today. This same Jesus split history into A.D. and B.C. This same Jesus so convinced men that His message is eternal and universal that they have triumphantly sung Jesus shall reign where ere the sun Does his successive journeys run; His kingdom spread from shore to shore,Till moons shall wax and wane no more. Not environment; not heredity; but personal response is the final determining factor in our lives. And herein lies our area of responsibility.11 Preached July 26, 1953 {Preached at Dexter, May 2, 1954} 1. What is King’s basic assumption about existence (what exists)? human (your) nature? 2. How does this affect his view on whether you have free will? Identity? Rationality? 3. Given that, what does King think drives human behavior? (“Stochastic” = random chance) 4. How does that view of existence affect his view of personal responsibility? 5. How does that view of existence affect his view of how we should approach crime? 6. Extension: how would we apply that reasoning to economics? 7. Explain: how might one’s view of the human condition affect one’s theories about human behavior? 8. How does his view on free will and personal responsibility contrast with Cashmore’s? What’s the source of the differen 9. How does his view on the role of (a) genes and (b) environment in free will and personal responsibility contrast with Cashmore’s? What is the source of the difference? 10. What would it take for King's view to be true/possible? 11. Now that you've covered King & Cashmore, What is your own personal view? If it is a "mix" of genes, conditions, and personal free action, how do you divide it: 25% genes, 25% environment, 50% personal free response? or 50% genes, 25% environment, 25% personal free response? or 25% genes, 50% environment, 25% personal free response? Etc. Does it vary by person? By type of thing you're considering (e.g. actions done as part of an addiction might be different than actions in other cases (e.g. helping a friend, cheating in school, effort studying, etc.)? How would this affect potential positions on social issues? 1. At the end of this document, King wrote “Preached July 26, 1953,” the date he assigned to this title in his list of his radio sermons for the summer of 1953 (King, “Radio Sermons” 26 July-6 September 1953, p. 136 in this volume). King's announced sermon on 28 June 1953 was “Accepting Responsibility for Your Actions” (“Rev. King Jr. Slated at Ebenezer Sunday,” Atlanta Daily World, 27 June 1953). 2. King wrote “Preached at Dexter, May 2, 1954” at the end of this document and also noted, “ARYA Preached at Dexter May 2, 1954” on the inside of the file folder containing this document (King, Acceptance Address at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 2 May 1954, pp. 166-167 in this volume). 3. Cf. Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-13. 4. Arturo Toscanini (1867-1957), an internationally recognized conductor, and Finnish composer Jean Sibelius (1865-1957) made these comments on Anderson's singing during her concert tours of Europe in the 1930s (Anderson, My Lord, What a Morning [New York: Viking Press, 1956], pp. 149, 158). King owned Anderson's autobiography and kept it in his personal library. 5. King refers to tenor Roland Hayes's successful singing tour of Europe. 6. John Bunyan (1628-1688) was an English preacher and Christian writer who, in 1678, published Pilgrim's Progress, an allegory of the Christian path to salvation. 7. Helen Keller (1880-1968). 8. Fosdick included this quotation in his sermon “Shouldering Responsibility for Ourselves,” in On Being a Real Person (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1943), p. 7. King drew a line next to it in his copy of On Being a Real Person and wrote, “quote.” Fosdick attributed the quotation to Starke R. Hathaway's Physiological Psychology (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1942), p. 203. 9. King paraphrases William E. Henley's 1875 poem “Invictus”: “It matters not how strait the gate / How charged with punishments the scroll / I am the master of my fate: / I am the captain of my soul.” 10. King quotes from Isaac Watts's hymn “Jesus Shall Reign Where'er the Sun”(1719). 11. Fosdick, On Being a Real Person, p. 4: “Three factors enter into the building of personality: heredity, environment, and personal response.” Next to these words, King wrote “quote (environment)” in his copy of Fosdick's book. He also underlined the words “personality: heredity, environment and personal response.” Source: CSKC-INP, Coretta Scott King Collection, In Private Hands, Sermon Files, folder 139