[ Follow Ups ]
Posted by David Thaler on April 29, 1999 at 17:53:29:
In Reply to: Darwin vs Wallace: is spirituality a result of natural selection? posted by Sergei Atamas on April 28, 1999 at 23:04:45:
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (The Glasgow Edition of the Works
and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 1)
Reviews from the Amazon site:
Jonathan Wight>jwight@richmond.edu from Richmond, Virginia , February
8, 1999
The moral underpinnings for capitalism
In contrast to extreme rationalists and proponents of the selfish gene theory,
Adam Smith
argues that the beginnings of morality are innate, in the sense that our
connection to other
human beings makes us sensitive to their needs and sentiments. Morality is thus
learned
through experience of feeling (sentiments) that connect us to others (thus the
title: theory of
moral sentiments).
This is an outstanding book, full of magnificent observations about human
life and values.
Smith provides the theoretical underpinnings for the workings of a capitalist
system by
rejecting the idea that selfishness and self-interest are synonymous. For
Smith's ideal to exist,
humans would have to pay attention to the development of moral conscience. It
is a startling
conclusion, and allows us to comprehend more fully Smith's other great work,
The Wealth of
Nations. If the Amazon.com rankings allowed a ten, this would be a ten!
Lawrence Udell Fike, Jr. -- LUFikeJr@aol.com
from United States of America
, November 21, 1998
Smith's moral theory actually inspires moral conduct itself.
This book, the first published by Adam Smith, was very favorably received when
it was first
appeared in 1759. Within a few generations, however, it was largely neglected
due to various
turns taken in moral philosophy. Smith's approach is to paint the moral aspect
of living in vivid
colors, so that it literally inspires virtuous conduct. But in doing so, Smith
never preaches;
instead, he illustrates the beauty of virtue even over the practical advantages
of living as though
one were an "Ideal Observer" or spectator. This perspective plays a
large role in his work, for
according to Smith the moral perspective, and indeed conscience itself, is
largely a function of
adopting the point of view of the "person principally concerned" in
morally relevant situations,
and subsequently sympathizing with the perspective of the various parties
involved. Sympathy
for Smith is not soft-heartednes (nor headedness), but is instead
identification with the motives
and feelings of the parties involved. The volume includes one part devoted to
an examination of
the history of ethical theory, interpreted through the lense of Smith's own
sentimentalist theory.
One thing that should be noted about The Theory of Moral Sentiments is that it
goes a good
way in correcting the impression that Smith was a laissez-faire capitalist, and
indeed the
sentiments expressed here make it clear that the popular conception of Smith as
first and
foremost an economist concerned with automatic regulation resulting from an
"invisible hand"
(a phrase used only twice in all of Smith's writings, as explained by the
editors in the excellent
introduction to this volume), do not mesh well with the historical facts. He
was a professor of
Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University, and is reputed to have declared himself
most proud,
not of his most (and justly) famous, The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, but of
this book instead. Indeed, his headstone reads, "Here Lies Adam Smith,
Author of The Theory
Of Moral Sentiments and of The Wealth of Nations." The book's major
shortcoming is its
ultimately unsatisfying appeals to human nature at junctures where people
clearly have
disagreements. Smith's defense of retributive justice is an example, for today
we might well
see ourselves as involved in a struggle to move beyond such a conception of
what constitutes
appropriate behavior, despite the natural propensity that we may have toward
it. Despite its age,
this book will inspire and challenge people now struggling with moral dilemmas,
and the
comparatively confusing moral climate of our own time. It is good to see it in
print, and it is
good to see moral philosophers and others beginning to discuss its significance
once again. I
recommend it highly.