The story of Sindbad the sailor, told in "One Thousand and One Nights" and full of countless economic transactions, can be understood through the application of different economic models to reveal the motivations and the main character's motivations and strengths. By evaluating Sindbad's actions in this 10th-century collection of stories through an economic lens and applying the models of Homo Economicus (economic or selfish man), Homo Reciprocans (reciprocating or cooperative man), and Homo Islamicus (Islamic man), we are able to deduce why characters make certain choices and take certain risks. This allows us to gain a wealth of essential information that we would otherwise overlook. The hypothesis that Sindbad is the “perfect embodiment” of Homo Economicus is an interesting, if ultimately unsupported, claim. By focusing on three major theoretical models, Homo Economicus, Homo Islamicus, and Homo Reciprocans, we can work to characterize Sindbad's actions, ultimately realizing that he appears not to conform to a specific economic model, but fits the criteria of each. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Although Sindbad's self-centeredness and greed fit traditional definitions of Homo Economicus, his charitable actions and irrational measures to obtain wealth make this claim unjustifiable. To apply these theories to the Sindbad story, we must take into account the academic debate that preceded this article and the opinions of scholars who have thoroughly studied the economic aspects of these stories. It is also useful to consult economists' definitions of each theoretical model to correctly characterize the actions of our hero protagonist, Sindbad. Kay and Mill agree on the portrayal of Homo Economicus, using descriptive words such as “materialistic,” “selfish,” and “wealth-seeking.” Perhaps most valuable for analyzing Sindbad's situation are Quiggin's words on Homo Economicus which says: "moral considerations... have no role to play." Throughout Sindbad's travels we are given examples of his self-centeredness, with a large focus on his fourth journey where he kills for personal gain. Another variable on which all three scholars agree is that Homo Economicus is “calculating” and “capable of judging the comparative effectiveness of the means to achieve that end” (Mill, np). This is a potential flaw in the belief that Sindbad is a perfect example of Homo Economicus. Throughout the book Sindbad's judgments can be characterized as irrational and risky. Two economists, Gintis and Romer, helped break down the character traits of Homo Reciprocan in “The Human Side of Economic Analysis.” While many economists such as Mill use Homo Economicus as a general model for today's human being, Gintis and Romer argue that "a considerable body of empirical evidence contradicts this view." They argue that many humans fall into the category of Homo Reciprocans. This model helps explain some of Sindbad's economic choices when concerned with the "well-being of others" and, as seen in many stories, his willingness to "cooperate and share with others," especially when they helped him. Another important model to apply to this situation would be Homo Islamicus for many reasons, particularly focusing on the geographical setting of the story and the religious emphasis Sindbad places on praising Allah and religion. Timur Kuran argues that Homo Islamicus, based on the laws of the Koran and the Sunnah, describes man who is capable of trading for profit but is unableto cause harm to others with these activities. He is also prohibited from earning more than he should. The only problem with the description is the ambiguity of words like “norms,” “fair,” and “reasonable.” We can see parallels with Homo Islamicus in which the consumption of Sindbadterra and charity, rather than adultery, wine and illegitimate objects, consists. By consulting each practitioner's definition, the reader may find that Sindbad exemplifies not just one theory, but parts of all. Looking at these definitions, it is obvious that Sindbad cannot be the “perfect embodiment” of Homo Economicus. To demonstrate that these definitions apply to Sindbad and to demonstrate his failure to fully represent the prototypical Homo Economicus, an examination of his seven voyages must be made to support this claim. Applying the concept of Homo Economicus to the character of Sindbad is an interesting and insightful way to analyze his actions. The overwhelming consensus on the definitions of Homo Economicus indicates a man who is selfish, driven by greed and devoid of morals. We find overwhelming evidence of these traits in his ability to sacrifice human lives for his own, and although he constantly berates himself for his greed that drives him to embark on new journeys, he cannot resist the temptation of wealth. The most touching cases of self-centeredness and lack of concern for others are found in the fourth and fifth journeys. Page 162 includes the passage: "I gave the unfortunate wretch two or three great blows... [and] killed her" and ends with "I committed this inhuman deed simply for... provisions." Sindbad ends up killing 3 people for their water and bread. He justifies this by saying that he needed their resources to live, but this is an extremely selfish act. Taking the lives of multiple people to ensure one's own is an extreme example of the self-centered nature of Homo Economicus, presenting Sindbad as a reliable example of this economic model. On his fifth journey, he kills an old man by getting him drunk, although this is somewhat justified as Sindbad was in immediate risk of death if he did not get the man off his neck. But he is undoubtedly more aggressive and violent than his attacker. While he could have refrained from killing the man, this murder is more acceptable than killing others for their food and water who never did anything to harm him. By addressing the other important qualification of Homo Economicus, the drive for greed, we are able to find specific examples of Sindbad's voracity. He is driven by greed to satisfy his sense of adventure, continuing on seven separate journeys. His sixth journey begins with, “I could not help but reflect on myself as the cause of my downfall, and regretted ever having undertaken this last journey” (169). He fears he will finally have to pay a price for his greed. However, this quote can also be an example of a major inconsistency with Sindbad being a Homo Economicus. He proves time and time again that he will let his emotions and greed get the better of him by going on these life-threatening expeditions. We know that he regrets these choices, beginning most of the stories with "the pleasures of the life I then led soon made me forget the risks I had taken on my two previous journeys" (151). After almost dying six times, he embarks on his seventh journey again. This shows that his lack of money clouds his judgment. If we take from Mill's definition, we see that Homo Economicus is someone who “is capable of judging the comparative effectiveness of the means to that end” and one who knows “consequence of the pursuit of wealth” (Mill). Though Sindbad returns every time with wealthenough, enough to donate to charity and buy nice properties, keep pursuing more. According to this theory, after gaining wealth, Sindbad should have stopped his travels. However, his choice to move forward is illogical and contrary to the principle of rationality of Homo Economicus. Another line of inquiry is that Sindbad is not Homo Economicus, but rather Homo Reciprocans. Sindbad, kind to those who help him and obligated to help those who provided for him, offers jewels to the merchants who help him on his second voyage and to the king on his fourth voyage. This demonstrates his willingness to show gratitude and give material goods to others. Homo Reciprocans also share at personal cost. However, Sindbad cannot be classified as Homo Reciprocans due to his negligence for the “well-being of others”. With the multiple murders he commits, his selfishness is a serious contradiction to this theoretical model. The last theory we can apply to Sindbad would be that of Homo Islamicus. This theory is especially interesting because of the religious aspects of this book and the setting. It focuses on morality with a special emphasis on charity. Although we find Sindbad to have the selfish characteristics of a Homo Economicus, in his second, third, and fourth voyages he says that he "gave much to the poor" (156), and does not spend his money on such things as adultery and gambling. 'I gamble. The Islamic man is allowed to “trade for personal profit,” so Sindbad's line of work is an acceptable way to receive wealth. However, Homo Islamicus, similarly to Homo Reciprocans, is “necessary to avoid causing harm to others,” and Sindbad clearly does not have much concern for others. Homo Islamicus, “renounces the temptations of immediate gain when by doing so he can protect and promote the interests of his fellow men” (Kuran, np). And although he trades for profit and gives to charity as he is asked, he sometimes does so at the expense of others, and it can be argued that he lives in excess wealth that exceeds the amount of wealth he should have. Throughout this article, the evidence for and against the characterization of Sindbad as the “perfect embodiment” of Homo Economicus has been explored and refuted. Although it exemplifies many traits of this economic model, its transactions borrow variables to a large extent from Homo Reciprocens and Homo Islamicus. After an analysis of each of the three main theoretical archetypes, Sindbad does not appear to fit into any of these choices. Although the audience pushes to fit Sindbad's actions into a simple model, this is not a realistic way to represent his economic choices and motivations. It borrows heavily from all three. When we apply economic ideas like these to a fictional text, we must understand the many limitations that can cause characters to differ from models. It is difficult to place a character from a collection of 10th-century Arab tales into modern economic models originating in the West. While there are limitations to the models, they are useful for evaluating this story. Looking at the bigger picture, in plot, Scheherazade is very similar to Sindbad. They both tell a new story every night and try to entice their listeners to come back and listen every night. Scheherazade tells these stories of a rich man who is surprisingly generous, earning and donating a lot of money, to try to convince King Schahriar to be generous and kind. Sindbad never gives up when bad things happen to him, and only if his perseverance earns him wealth. If the king gives up hope in women and kindness because of his wife, he will never receive anything good. Sindbad helps us to, 1844, 137.