Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
ADialecticalReadingofAdamSmithonWealthandHappiness
ErikW.Matson
NewYorkUniversity,DepartmentofEconomics
ForthcomingintheJournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization
Abstract:InthisessayIconsidertherelationshipbetweenwealthandhappinessinAdamSmithbyaclosereadingofafamoussectionofTheTheoryofMoralSentiments(TMSIV.i.8-10).IinterpretSmithaspresentinganopen-endeddialecticbetweenthepursuitofwealthandthepursuitofhappinesswiththegoalofcontributingtohisreaders’moraleducation.WithinthedialecticSmithplacessomeimportantsocialanalysis,whichheusestostimulatereflectionandsynthesis.Uponreflectionandobservationofthetensionswithinthepassagesandthelargerscopeofhisworks,Smithpushesthereadertoconfrontaquestion:giventheknowledge—knowledgethatoneacquiresuponreadingTMSIV.i.8-10—that(1)peopletendtobedeceivedintothinkingthatpursuingandacquiringwealthwillmakethemhappy,andthat(2)actingontheirdeceptionhasbeneficialunintendedconsequences,howshouldoneproceedinone’sownpursuitofwealthandhappiness?
JELCodes:B12,B31,D01
Keywords:AdamSmith,happiness,wealth,moraleducation,prudence
Acknowledgements:I’mgratefultoJohnAlcorn,RichardBoyd,SteveEaly,BrentOrrell,MarioRizzo,andthreeanonymousrefereesfortheirhelpfulcomments.IthankJaneShawStroupforherexcellentcopyediting.
2
ThatSmithshouldattributetoalmostalleconomicactorsanillusionthatgreaterwealthyieldsgreatersatisfaction,anillusionthatisperhapsneverpierced,isoneofhisgreatestidiosyncrasies.
GeorgeStigler(1976,1207)
1.Introduction
TherelationshipbetweenwealthandhappinessinSmithisapuzzlewithimportant
bearingforhisintellectualproject.InTheWealthofNations,Smithdefendsapoliticaland
economicsystemofnaturalliberty.1Insodoing,hemorallyauthorizesindividualsto
pursueandacquirewealthinanefforttobettertheircondition.ButinTheTheoryofMoral
Sentiments,herepeatedlyconnectsthepursuitofwealthwithunhappiness,self-deception,
andmoralcorruption.ThepuzzleisreinforcedbythefactthatSmithseemstotakethe
happinessofcitizensasthemaincriterionbywhichpoliticalandeconomicsystemsshould
bejudged.Ashesays,“allconstitutionsofgovernment,however,arevaluedonlyin
proportionastheytendtopromotethehappinessofthosewholiveunderthem”(TMS
IV.i.11).DanielDiatkine(2010)suggeststhatthesemattersconstitute“anewversionofthe
AdamSmithProblem,”whichonceagaincallsintoquestion“thedegreetowhichSmith’s
twobooksarecompatible,and,moregenerally,thequestionofhoweconomicsrelatesto
moralphilosophy”(384;italicsoriginal).Givenhisconcernforindividuals’happiness,how
canSmithconsistentlysupportliberalsocietywhileassertingthatwealth-seekingtendsto
1 References to The Theory of Moral Sentiments, hereafter “TMS,” are to Smith (1982b), followed by part, section, [when one exists], chapter, and paragraph. References to The Wealth of Nations, hereafter “WN,” are to Smith (1981), followed by book, chapter, part, and paragraph.
3
produceunhappiness,leavingpeople“asmuch,andsometimesmoreexposedthanbefore,
toanxiety,tofear,andtosorrow;todiseases,todanger,andtodeath”(TMSIV.i.8)?
Thequestionhasbeenansweredinvariousways.CharlesGriswold(1999,222-227)
arguesthatSmithseesthepursuitofwealthasironicallyleadingtotheunhappinessof
some,butthegoodofthemany.HepointstohowSmithseesthepursuitofwealthas
leadingtoscientificprogress,economicdevelopment,andrefinementinthearts—all
thingswhichcontributetotheflourishingofcivilizationovertime.SamuelFleischacker
(2004)takesissuewithGriswold’sinterpretation,suggestingthatheexacerbatesthe
apparenttensioninSmith’sposition:“IfGriswold’sinterpretationisright,Smithurgesus
throughoutTMStoseethepursuitofwealthasmorallycorruptingandconduciveto
unhappiness,butalsoapplaudsasocialsystemthatdependsupon,andencourages,that
verypursuit.Thisdoesn’tmakesense”(104).ByprivilegingSmith’sanalysisinWN,
FleischackerarguesthatforSmithitisinfactonlythepursuitofwealthfortheself-
deceivedsakeofvanitythatendsinunhappiness.Heseestheretobeamodest,positive
relationshipbetweenproperlycultivatedwealthandhappinessinSmith.Dennis
Rasmussen(2008)takesadifferentapproach,explainingSmith’sviewbyemphasizingthe
tendencyofcommercialsocietyto“[pave]thewaytowardlibertyandsecurity...thereby
removingthegreatobstaclestohappiness”(38).RasmussendrawsonSmith’sanalysisin
WN(whichitselfexplicitlydrawsfromHume’sHistoryofEngland)ofthetransitionoutof
feudalisminEnglandtowardsanintegrated,stablepoliticalorder.Thistransition,
accordingtoSmithandHume,wasinlargeparttriggeredbyatransformationofnobles’
interests,instantiatedbytheirdemandforluxurygoods.Rasmussen’sviewcanperhaps
seenasaclarificationanddevelopmentofGriswold:thepursuitofwealthmaywellleadto
4
unhappinessforsomeindividuals,butitnaturallytendstosecureaninstitutional
frameworkoflibertyandsecurityinwhichpeoplehavethefreedomtopursuehappiness
astheyseefit.
InthepresentessayIreconsiderthesemattersbypresentingaclosereadingofone
ofthemostrelevantsetofpassagesinSmith’scorpus:TMSIV.i.8-10.Thesepassages
containthecentralexpressionofSmith’swealthandhappinesspuzzle.Herehe
dramaticallyspeaksofwealthandgreatnessasnothingbut“operosemachines”readyto
“crushinruinstheirunfortunatepossessor”(IV.i.8).Yettwoparagraphslaterhecuriously
maintainsthatitisnonetheless“well”thatNaturedeceivesusintopursuingwealthinlight
ofitssocialeffects(IV.i.10).Thetensionhereatthesurfaceofthetextwarrantsclose
attention.Smith’slanguageinthepassages,moreover,suggeststhatheisdirectlyengaging
withRousseau,Mandeville,andHumeinalargerdiscourseonwealthandvirute.Istvan
HontandMichaelIgnatieff(1983)claimRousseautobe“animportantifunavowed
interlocuter”inthesepassages(seealsoRasmussen2008,88–89).AlongwithMandeville’s
importanceinthegeneralcontextoftheeighteenth-centuryluxurydebate(seeBerry1994,
126–34),theeditorsoftheGlasgoweditionofTMSsuggestthatSmith’smentionof
“operosemachines”inTMSIV.i.8specificallyconnectstoMandeville’sdiscussionof
“operosecontrivances”inhisFableoftheBees(inSmith1982b,182n4).Smith’sgeneral
engagementwithHumethroughoutTMSIViswell-known.MatsonandDoran(2017)point
tosomeadditionaltextualconnectionsbetweenTMSIV.i.8-10andthefamousconclusion
toBookIofHume’sTreatiseofHumanNature.
5
IinterpretSmithinthesepassagesaspresentinganopen-endeddialecticbetween
thepursuitsofwealthandhappinessthatheleavestothereadertosynthesizeinthe
broadercontextofhisthought.Inotherwords,IcontendthatSmith’sintentionsinthese
passageshaveasignificantpedagogicaldimension:Smithdrawsoutanaturaltension
betweenthedesireandpursuitofwealthandthedesireandpursuitofhappinesswiththe
goaloffacilitatinghisreaders’moraleducation.2Hebeginsbyillustrating,throughthe
storyofthepoorman’sson,howournaturaldriveforwealthandstatuscanleadusto
overestimatethecontributionsofwealthtoourhappiness,causingustosacrifice
tranquilityandenjoyment.Hecontinuesbyanalyzingthesocialeffectsofthesenatural
drives.Hepointsoutthatourdesireforwealth,andespeciallythestatusthatwealth
brings,leadstomaterialprosperity,technologicaldevelopment,and,ashepointsoutina
numberofothercontexts,politicalstability(fordiscussion,seeHill2012).Thepedagogical
dimensionofthepassagesimplicitlyplacesthissocialanalysisincontext,firstwithinthe
surroundingpassages,andthenwithinthewiderframeofhiscorpus.Smithpusheshis
readerstoconfrontthefollowingquestion:Giventheknowledge—theknowledgethatone
acquiresuponreadingTMSIV.i.8-10—(1)thatpeopletendtobedeceivedintothinking
thatpursuingandacquiringwealthwillultimatelymakethemhappy,and(2)thattheir
deceptionhasbeneficialunintendedsocialconsequences,howshouldoneproceed?Put
differently,howshouldtherecognitionofbothourtendencytobedeceivedandtheeffects
2 For some comments on the role of moral education in TMS, see Hanley (2009); Otteson (2002, 227-239); Griswold (1999, 210-217).
6
ofactinguponthattendencyaffectourongoingattitudesanddecisionsconcerningourown
pursuitsofwealthandhappiness?
2.AsummaryofTMSIV.i.8-10
InTMSVII.iii.3Smithanalyzes“thosesystemswhichmakesentimenttheprinciple
ofapprobation.”Hedisassociateshismoralphilosophywiththemoralsensetraditionof,
amongothers,ShaftesburyandHutcheson.Intheprocesshepresentsasuccinctsummary
ofhisownaccountoftheprocessofmoralapproval:
Whenweapproveofanycharacter,thesentimentswhichwefeel,are,accordingto
theforegoingsystem,derivedfromfoursources,whichareinsomerespects
differentfromoneanother.First,wesympathizewiththemotivesoftheagent;
secondly,weenterintothegratitudeofthosewhoreceivethebenefitofhisactions;
thirdly,weobservethathisconducthasbeenagreeabletothegeneralrulesby
whichthosetwosympathiesgenerallyact;and,lastofall,whenweconsidersuch
actionsasmakingapartofasystemofbehaviourwhichtendstopromotethe
happinesseitheroftheindividualorofthesociety,theyappeartoderiveabeauty
fromthisutility,notunlikethatwhichweascribetoawell-contrivedmachine.(TMS
VII.iii.3.16)
ThesefoursourcesofmoralapprovalcorrespondtothefirstfourpartsofTMS.PartI,“Of
theProprietyofAction,”treatstheissueofassessingmotivation;PartII,“OfMeritand
Demerit,”treatstheissueofgratitudeandresentment;PartIII,“OftheFoundationofour
7
JudgmentsconcerningourownSentimentsandConduct,andoftheSenseofDuty,”treats
theissueofgeneralmoralrules;andPartIV,“OftheEffectofUtilityupontheSentimentof
Approbation,”treatsutility.ItisnoteworthythatTMSIV.i.8-10comestowardtheendof
Smith’saccountofthesourcesofmoralapproval.Afterworkingthroughthefirstthreeand
ahalfpartsofthebook,whichdescribehisaccountoftheoperationofourfacultiesof
moralapproval,perhapsSmithcanbeseeninthesepassagesasdrawinghisreadersto
reflectandapplywhattheyhavelearned.
TMSIV.i.8-10beginsinparagraph8withastoryofapoorman’sson,“whomheaven
initsangerhasvisitedwithambition.”Thepoorman’sson“admirestheconditionsofthe
rich,”thinkingthatifhehimselfweretoobtainpowerandriches,“hewouldsitstill
contentedly,andbequiet,enjoyinghimselfinthethoughtofthehappinessandtranquility
ofhissituation.”Tothatend,hesubmitshimselfto“fatigueofbody”and“uneasinessof
mind.”He“servesthosewhomhehates,andisobsequioustothosewhomhedespises.
Throughthewholeofhislifehepursuestheideaofacertainartificialandelegantrepose
whichhemayneverarriveat,forwhichhesacrificesarealtranquilitythatisatalltimesin
hispower.”Butattheendofhislife,thepoorman’ssoncomestoaprofoundandtragic
realization:“wealthandgreatness,”whichhehasspenthiswholelifepursuing,“aremere
trinketsoffrivolousutility,nomoreadaptedforprocuringeaseofbodyortranquilityof
mindthanthetweezer-casesoftheloveroftoys.”Uponthisrealization,he“curses
ambition,andvainlyregretstheeaseandindolenceofyouth,pleasureswhicharefledfor
ever.”Tohim,inhispresentstateofmind,“powerandrichesappearthentobe,whatthey
are,enormousandoperosemachines...readyeverymomenttoburstintopieces,andto
crushtheirunfortunatepossessor.”
8
SmithmovesintoIV.i.9andoffersaninitiallevelofcommentary.Hespeaksofthe
poorman’sson’sendviewofpowerandrichesasapartofa“spleneticphilosophy,which
intimeofsicknessorlowspiritsisfamiliartoeveryman.”Smithsaysthesplenetic
philosophy“entirelydepreciatesthosegreatobjectsofhumandesire,”which“whenin
betterhealthandhumour,”weviewunder“amoreagreeableaspect.”Hesaysthat“in
timesofeaseandprosperity”ourimagination“expandsitselftoeverythingaroundus.”To
ourmoreelevatedandengagedimaginations,“thepleasuresofwealthandgreatness”
strikeus“assomethinggrandandbeautifulandnoble,ofwhichtheattainmentiswell
worthallthetoilandanxietywhichwearesoapttobestowuponit.”
InIV.i.10Smithofferssomeglobalcommentary.Hesays,“Anditiswellthatnature
imposesuponusinthismanner[i.e.,themannerelaboratedinIV.i.8].Itisthisdeception
whichrousesandkeepsincontinualmotiontheindustryofmankind.”Nature’sdeception
drovemankind“tocultivatetheground,tobuildhouses,tofoundcitiesand
commonwealths,andtoinventandimprovealltheartsandscience.”3Asaconsequenceof
mankind’spursuitofwealth,theearth“hasbeenobligedtoredoublehernaturalfertility,
andtomaintainagreatermultitudeofinhabitants.”Smithbrieflyproposestheeconomic
mechanismbywhichsuchdevelopmentoccurs:Ambitiousandaspiringindividualswho
pursuepowerandrichesfortheirownends,e.g.,“theproudandunfeelinglandlord,”are
deceivedinthinkingthattheywillreapthebenefitsofthe“wholeharvest”oftheir
“extensivefields.”Butgiventheirlimitedphysicalcapacityforconsumptionoffood,andthe
3 This line in particular seems to engage with Rousseau, drawing on language from his Discourse on Inequality. See Hont and Ignatieff (1983, 10); Rasmussen (2008, 88-89).
9
needtohirelabortomaintaintheirestatesastheygrow,theyare“obligedtodistribute”
muchoftheirmaterialwealth“amongthose,whoprepare,inthenicestmanner,thatlittle
which[theythemselvesmake]useof...allofwhomthusderivefrom[their]luxuryand
caprice,thatshareofthenecessariesoflife.”
Afewlineslaterappearsthefirstofthetwopublished“invisiblehand”passagesin
Smith’swork.4Smithsaysthattheserich
areledbyaninvisiblehandtomakenearlythesamedistributionofthenecessaries
oflife,whichwouldhavebeenmade,hadtheearthbeendividedintoequalportions
amongallitsinhabitants,andthuswithoutintendingit,withoutknowingit,advance
theinterestofsociety,andaffordmeanstothemultiplicationofthespecies.5
SmithconcludesIV.i.10byremarkingthatprovidence,throughthedescribedinvisiblehand
mechanism,“neitherforgotnorabandonedthosewhoseemedtohavebeenleftoutinthe
partition.Theselasttooenjoytheirshareofallthatitproduces.”Heendstheparagraphon
acuriousnote,apparentlyremarkingthatthepoorarenotmuchworseoffthantherich:
“Ineaseofbodyandpeaceofmind,allthedifferentranksoflifearenearlyuponalevel,and
thebeggar,whosunshimselfbythesideofthehighway,possessesthatsecuritywhich
kingsarefightingfor.”
4 There is a third “invisible hand” passage in Smith’s posthumously published essay on the history of astronomy.
5 For a helpful interpretation of the implicit economic model underlying the invisible hand in TMS, see Brewer (2009).
10
ThefinalsentenceofIV.i.10hasbeenthesubjectofcriticism.ItmotivatesMartha
Nussbaum(2000),inanarticleontheinfluenceofCicero,toclaimthatSmithis“prepared
toletthemarketdoitsworstwithlittleconstraint,partlybecausehebelievesthatthepoor
donotsufferattheirverycore,retainingadignitythatlife’sblowscannotremove.”
PartiallyinresponsetoNussbaum’sclaim,Fleischacker(2004,108)disavowsTMSIV.i.8-
10,arguingthatthepassagesexpressviewsthatSmithdidnotholdinhismatureyears.6
ThomasMartin(2014),however,arguesthatthereisinfactmoretothefinalsentencein
TMSIV.i.10thanmeetstheeye.HesuggeststhatSmith’smentionofthebeggarsunning
himselfbytheroadisanallusiontothestoryofDiogenestheCynicandAlexanderthe
Great.OnMartin’sreadingthissentenceshouldbereadassayingthatkingsareoften
tacitlyfightingforthetranquilitypossessedbyDiogenesthephilosopher.Theimplicationis
thatSmithshouldnotbetakenhereasdiminishingthepainsofpoverty,sincethebeggar
hereferencesisactuallyaphilosopher,turnedbeggarbychoice.Smith’sdeepermessage
maywellbethatthemeansforhappinessareoften,thoughnotalways,alreadywithinour
power.ThepotentialallusionheretoDiogenesmayalsobetakenasasignalthatthe
underlyingmessageofthesepassagesismorecomplexthanitimmediatelyappears.
3.Theunresolveddialecticofwealthandhappiness
6 I find Fleischacker’s disavowal of TMS IV.i.8-10 difficult to sustain given that Smith substantially revised the book in 1790 and didn’t see fit to remove or alter the passages in any way. As Steve Ealy has suggested to me in conversation, we may consider the passages to be among Smith’s first and last words on political economy, published in 1759 and then again the end of his life in 1790—after his final edition of Wealth of Nations.
11
SpeakingofDavidHume’sapproachtophilosophy,DonaldLivingston(1984)says,
“philosophicalinsightisgainedbyworkingthroughthecontrarietiesofthoughtwhich
structureadramaofinquiry”(35).Livingston’scharacterizationofHume’sphilosophical
methodcaninthepresentcasebeusefullyappliedtoSmith.Indeed,Griswold(1999)
maintainsthatinTMSSmithoften“focusesourattentiononparticularsandexperienceand
attemptstogetusto‘see’thingsinacertainlightratherthansimplytoargueusinto
acceptingaphilosophicalposition”(61).InTMSIV.1.8-10Smithbuildsadramaofinquiry,
presentingadialecticbygettingusto‘see’twocontradictoryviewsontherelationship
betweenwealthandhappiness.
Smithpresentsthedialecticacrossthreephases—oneineachparagraph.Thefirst
phasepresentswhatI’llcallthe“spleneticview,”whichistheviewheldbythepoorman’s
sonattheendofhislife.Thesecondphasepresentswhatappearstobeourunreflective,
instinctive,orcommonsensicalview,whichI’llcallthe“activeview.”Thethirdphase
appearstoresolvethetensionbetweenthespleneticandactiveviewsbyselectingthe
activeviewasthemorenaturalperspective.Butthislastphaseactuallyendsup
reemphasizingthetensionsbetweenthesetwopointsofview.Thedialecticisnotresolved
inTMSIV;itisintentionallylefttothereadertoconsiderhisorherownpotentialsynthesis
inthelightoftherestofSmith’swork.
ThespleneticviewisoutlinedinTMSIV.1.8.Itistheviewthatcomesuponthepoor
man’sson“inthelanguorofdiseaseandthewearinessofoldage”when“thepleasuresof
thevainandemptydistinctionsofgreatnessdisappear.”Itleadsthepoorman’ssonto
regret:he“regretstheeaseandindolenceofyouth...whichhehasfoolishlysacrificedfor
12
what...canaffordhimnorealsatisfaction.”Theunderlyingmessageofthespleneticview
isthatpowerandriches—thingstowardwhichweunreflectivelyinclineandaroundwhich
weoftenorganizeourlivesandpurposes—distractusfromthethingsthattrulyenhance
ourwell-beingsuchascompanionship,reflection,andthepursuitofvirtue.Theuncertainty
inSmith’sconsiderationofthewealth-happinessrelationshipcomespartlyfromthefact
thatheunderstandstheplausibilityofthespleneticview.Hesays,“Inthismiserableaspect
doesgreatnessappeartoeverymanwhenreducedeitherbyspleenordiseasetoobserve
withattentionhisownsituation,andtoconsiderwhatitisthatisreallywantinginhis
happiness”(italicsadded).Fromthespleneticview,“powerandrichesappearthentobe,
whattheyare,enormousandoperosemachinescontrivedtoproduceafewtrifling
conveniences.”(italicsadded).Thislastsentenceisespeciallyinterestinginthatitshows
Smithhimselfassentingtothespleneticpointofview.Fromthespleneticviewpowerand
richesappearwhattheyare—i.e.,whatSmithhimselfunderstandsthemtobe!Againstour
unreflectiveviews,thespleneticviewpointstotherelativemeaninglessofwealthinthe
grandschemeofourlives.7
TheactiveviewappearsinTMSIV.i.9andmakesupthesecondphaseofSmith’s
dialectic.Theactiveviewascendswhenwearein“betterhealthandinbetterhumour.”
Wealthandgreatnessappearas“grandandbeautifulandnoble,ofwhichtheattainmentis
7 This point perhaps connects to Hume’s famous “melancholy and delirium” in the conclusion to his Treatise of Human Nature: “Smith notes that the poor man’s son’s view of the meaninglessness of wealth is a function of splenetic humor. Hume notes that his conviction of [skepticism] is likewise a function of spleneticism and over-reflective contemplation” (Matson and Doran 2017, 36). A proper outlook on wealth and a proper philosophical method each seem to require one to synthesize the logic of a splenetic view with a broader social or active perspective.
13
wellworthallthetoilandanxietywhichwearesoapttobestowuponit”(IV.i.9).Wealth
andhappinessnaturallyseemtobecomplementarypursuits.Whenweareengagedinour
dailybusiness,theideathatthereislittletonoconnectionbetweenourwealthandour
happinessseemsstrangeanddistant.Theactiveviewappearsnatural:“wenaturally
confound[thepursuitofwealthandgreatness]withtheorder,theregularandharmonious
movementofthesystem,themachineoroeconomybymeansofwhichitisproduced”
(IV.i.9).8Aswiththespleneticview,Smithappreciatesaspectsoftheactiveview.
ThroughoutTMSSmithemphasizestheimportanceofactiveandsocialperspectiveover
passivespeculation.Inconsideringthepropernessofanyparticularview,wedowellto
consulttheviewpointsofothers:“Societyandconversation,therefore,arethemost
powerfulremediesforrestoringthemindtoitstranquility,if,atanytime,ithas
unfortunatelylostit;aswellasthebestpreservativesofthatequalandhappytemper,
whichissonecessarytoself-satisfactionandenjoyment”(I.i.4.10).Althoughitmaybetrue
that“thedispositiontoadmire,andalmosttoworship,therichandpowerful...[is]the
greatandmostuniversalcauseofthecorruptionofourmoralsentiments”(I.iii.3.1),itis
alsotruethatourpassivefeelingsandspeculationsare“sordidandselfish”(III.3.4),
correctedonlybyactiveengagementandaparticipationin“theordinarycommerceofthe
world”(III.3.8).
8 Smith does always equate naturalness with goodness (see, e.g., Waterman 2002). As Spencer Pack (1991) has pointed out, “nature” in general (and especially in Smith), is “an extraordinarily rich, complex, contradictory, [and] no doubt dialectical concept” (32). “Nature” and “natural” in TMS IV.8-10 are especially difficult, being associated both with Providence (i.e., “when Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters” [IV.i.10]) and with something more like instinct.
14
Inthethirdphaseofthedialectic,whichoccupiesTMSIV.1.10,Smithoffersan
apparentresolutionthatinfactservestoheightenthetensionbetweenthespleneticand
activeviews.Inreferencetotheactiveview,Smithsays,“Anditiswellthatnatureimposes
uponusinthismanner.”PeterMinowitz(1993)rightlyasks,"Butwhyisit'well'that
naturehasdeceivedmankindintoceaseless'industry'(IV.1.10)?Don't'powerandriches'
leavetheirpossessorasmuchifnot'moreexposed'tofear,sorrow,danger,anddeath
(IV.I.8)”(125)?Putanotherway,thenaturalprevailingoftheactiveviewshouldonlybe
seenasbeneficialifthespleneticviewismisguidedorflawed.Butifthespleneticview
stands,ournaturalinclinationtowardtheactiveviewshouldn’tbeseenasbeneficialatall.
Ifpeoplewhopursuewealthendupbeingmiserablelikethepoorman’sson,andthefruits
oftheirindustrydon’treallycontributemuchtothehappinessofanyoneelse,whyisit
“well”thattheydosointhefirstplace?
Insum,Smith’sdialecticconsistsinbothaninitialcontrarietyandanattempted
resolutionofthatcontrariety,whichinfactservestointensifyratherthanresolvethe
originaltensions.SmithcontraststhespleneticandtheactiveviewsinTMSIV.1.8and
IV.1.9.Hebeginsbyleaningtowardthespleneticview,claimingthat“powerandriches
appearthentobe,whattheyare,enormousandoperosemachines”(IV.8).Hesubsequently
appearstoresolveinfavoroftheactiveviewattheoutsetofIV.1.10—“Anditiswellthat
natureimposesuponusinthismanner.”Buthisveryreferencetotheactiveviewasakind
ofimposition,andthenas“thisdeception”inthenextsentence,immediatelycallshis
apparentresolutionintoquestion.Indeed,ifonelooksclosely,theentiretyIV.1.10is,like
IV.1.8andIV.1.9,akindofback-and-forthbetweenthespleneticandactiveviews.Weare
leftwithagenuineandunresolveduncertaintyaboutthewealth-happinessrelationship.
15
Thediversityofperspectivesandpronounsemployedthroughouttheseparagraphs
reinforcetheirdialecticalstructure.Griswold(1999,50-52)considersperspectiveand
pronounvariationtobeasignificantpartofSmith’srhetoricalstrategyandapproachto
moralphilosophy,againpartofhisprogramtogetreadersto“see”fromdifferentvantage
points,tofullyenterintoparticularperspectivesandconsiderthemontheirownterms.
SmithbeginsTMSIV.1.8byspeakingfromtheperspectiveofthepoorman’sson,primarily
usingthepronouns“he”and“his.”Mixedintothelongparagraphisbutone“our”andtwo
instancesof“we.”The“our”servestodrawthereaderintotheparable,remindinghimof
hisaffinityandsharedtendencieswiththepoorman’sson:“Ofourownaccordwereadily
enterinto[theviewoftheconvenienceofpalaces,gardens,equipage,etc.],andby
sympathyenjoyandtherebyapplaudthesatisfactionwhichtheyarefittedtoaffordhim”
(italicsadded).Thetwousesof“we”intheparagraphseektopullthereaderbacktoa
pointofmoreabstractcontemplation:“weconstantlypaymoreregardtothesentimentsof
thespectator”and,inthenextsentence,“ifweexamine,however,whythespectator
distinguisheswithsuchgreatadmirationtheconditionoftherichandthegreat”(italics
added).Afterhisuseof“we”inIV.1.8,Smithturnsbacktotheperspectiveofthepoorman’s
son,tellinghow“inhishearthecursesambition”(italicsadded).Theninthefinal
sentences,Smithagainshiftsperspectives,adoptingadistanced,philosophicalvantage
pointfromwhichhecomments:“Inthismiserableaspectdoesgreatnessappeartoevery
manwhenreducedeitherbyspleenordisease.”
InIV.1.9,Smithreturnstospeakfrom“our”perspective.The“we”inthefirstthree
sentencesofIV.1.9is“we”quaactors,thatis,aninvocationofcommonwaysofactingand
thinkinginourregular,active,andsocialcontexts.“Wearecharmedwiththebeautyofthat
16
accommodationwhichreignsinthepalacesandoeconomyofthegreat”(italicsadded).
Halfwaythroughtheparagraph,however,Smithseemstoshifttheconnotationof“we”
towarda“we”ofphilosophers(Griswold1999,51),againseekingtodrawusintoan
abstractcontemplationofouractingselves:“ifweconsidertherealsatisfactionwhichall
thesethingsarecapableofaffording....”(italicsadded).InIV.1.10,Smithcontinuesto
speakfromtheperspectiveofa“we”ofphilosophers,saying,“Anditiswellthatnature
imposesuponusinthismanner.”ThroughouttherestofIV.1.10,thephilosophical“we”
perspectivelooms.
Griswold(1999)asks,“Whatisthepurposeoftheinterplayofperspectivesimplicit
inSmith’suseof[adiversityof]pronouns?Itleadsthereadertosee,first,thatthereareno
simpleanswers,thatfurtherquestionsandproblemsalwaysariseinethicalreflection,both
practicalandtheoretical”(52).Theobservationofthediversityofpronounsand
perspectivesinthesepassagessupportsthepointthatSmithisnotsimplyseekingtoargue
usintothespleneticviewortheactiveviewbutratherischallengingustoworkthrough
andsynthesizethedialecticonourownterms.
4.Luxuryandsocialscience
Eighteenth-centuryBritainsawanumberofremarkablesocialchanges.Inthe
decadesfollowing1688,afterthetumultuousseventeenthcentury,Englandbeganto
coalesceasastablepoliticalorder.Itdevelopedapowerfuladministrativestatewith
significantfiscal,legal,andmilitarycapacity.EnglandandScotlandlegallyjoinedtogether
inthe1706/1707ActsofUnion,creatinganewpoliticalandsocialspace.Amiddleclass
17
composedof“honestgentlemen”(touseHume’sterm)beganemergingtoformanew
economicandintellectualorder.Thesebroadsocialchangesandtheemergingintellectual
spacefosteredgrowingliteraryandphilosophicalcirclesinwhichideasaboutthetimes
werediscussed.Inlightofachangingsocial,political,andeconomiclandscape,a
particularlyimportantdiscussionconcernedtheideaof“luxury,”i.e.,seemingly
extravagantorunnecessaryconsumption,inconnectionwithvirtueandpoliticalpower.
AlthoughtheluxuryconversationstretchesatleastbacktoPlato,thereisevidencethatit
tookonaspecialintensityinBritaininthe1750’s—rightwhenSmithwrotethefirst
editionofTMS(Sekora1977,66;fordiscussionseeBrewer2009,521–24).
IntheclassicaltraditionofPlatoandAristotle,luxury,whichwasdefinedas
consumptionunnecessaryorsuperfluoustohumanpurpose,wasunderstoodbyitsvery
definitiontocorruptvirtueanddenigratehumanlifetothegratificationofbodilypleasures
(Berry1994,58).Itwasseenaspromotingeffeminacyattheexpenseofmartialspirit;it
wasseenasharmfultopoliticalandmilitarypowerandsocialorder.Modernthinkersin
theseventeenthandeighteenthcenturycriticallyengagedwithandreassessedthe
prevailingclassicalperspective.TwonotableaccountsforSmith’spurposeswere
MandevilleandHume’s.
Mandeville(1988)hadnodesiretodenythemoralviciousnessofluxury,whichhe
strictlydefinedas“everything...thatisnotimmediatelynecessarytomakeMansubsistas
heisalivingCreature”(107).Buthearguedthatluxurycould,ifproperlymanagedbythe
state,leadtooutcomesthatmostpeoplewouldagreewerebeneficial.Theseoutcomesin
particularwereeconomicgrowthandstatepower.Concerningeconomicgrowth,
18
Mandeville’smainpoint(laterseeminglyechoedbySmithinTMSIV)wasthatthedemand
forluxuriesnecessarilyemploys“amillionofthepoor”(107).Hethenbelievedthata
properlycontrolledtradebalancecouldtranslatethatgrowthintopoliticalpowerthrough
wealth.Mandeville’slong-lastingcontributioninthismatterwashisdecouplingofthe
traditionalpairingofbeneficialcausesandworthyeffects(Berry1994,128).
HumeembracedMandeville’sdecouplingofintentionsandoutcomes,butrejected
thecoreofhismoralevaluation.Heunderstoodthesignificationoftheterm“luxury”tobe
ambiguous;ageneralevaluationof“luxury”consumptionorthepursuitof“luxury”is
impossibleoutsideofone’sparticularsituationanditsmaterialandsocialconventions.
Second,heunderstoodthatalthoughtheindividualpursuitofwealthbeyondthenecessary
mightnotbevirtuous,itsetsinmotionasocialprocessbywhichtheconditionsbestsuited
fortheattainmentofvirtueandhappinessarerealized–thelibertyandruleoflaw
providedbythepoliticalandsocialframeworkofcommercialsociety(fordiscussion,see
Sabl2012,Chapter2).Humeunderstoodthat“industry,knowledge,andhumanity,are
linkedtogetherbyanindissolublechain,andarefound,fromexperienceaswellasreason,
tobepeculiartothemorepolished,and,whatarecommonlydenominated,themore
luxuriousages”(Hume1987,271;italicsoriginal).
MandevilleandHume’sperspectivesonluxuryilluminateSmith’sanalysisinTMS
IV.i.8-10.Smithdecouplestheconnectionbetweengoodintentionsandgoodoutcomesand
badintentionsandbadoutcomes.Hearguesthatevenmisguidedpursuitsofwealthhave
historicallyhadanimportantbeneficialaspect.Suchpursuitsledhumankind“tocultivate
theground,tobuildhouses,tofoundcitiesandcommonwealths,andtoinventandimprove
19
allthesciencesandarts”(IV.1.10).FromanhistoricalperspectiveSmithcansaythatitis
unambiguously“well”thatindividualswere“deceived”intopursuingwealthanditemsof
luxuryinthattheirdeceptionwasinstrumentalinbringingaboutimportanteconomic,
social,political,andmoraldevelopments.
InWNSmithdirectlybuildsonHume’stheoryofthe“indissolublechain”that
connectsindustry,knowledge,andhumanity(hementionsHumebynameinWNIII.iv).He
elaborateshisviewofthehistoricalprogressionthatimplicitlyunderwriteshisshort
analysisinTMSIV.i.10,describinghowluxurydemandandthepursuitofwealthled,at
leastintheBritishcase,totheemergenceofamoderncommercialsocietyoflibertyand
security.Inthepre-commercial,agrarianworld,consumptionoptionswerequitelimited—
allthatthefeudalbaronsandlordscoulddowiththesurplusproduceoftheirland,
accordingtoSmith,wasdirectlyconsumeitoruseittomaintain“amultitudeofretainers
anddependents”(WNIII.iv.5).Lordslargelyusedtheirsurplustosecuretheirownpolitical
andsocialauthoritybytyinganumberofdependentstothemselves,becomingthe“judges
inpeace,andtheleadersinwar,ofallwhodweltontheirestates”(WNIII.iv.7).Smith
continuesthat“theycouldorderandexecutethelawwithintheirrespectivedemesnes,
becauseeachofthemcouldthereturnthewholeforceofalltheinhabitantsagainstthe
injusticeofanyone”(WNIII.iv.7).ThecentralizedimpositionoffeudallawinEnglanddid
littletodiminishthepowerofthesegreatlords,and“theopencountry[inEngland]still
continuedtobeasceneofviolence,rapine,anddisorder[betweenlords,barons,etc.]”(WN
III.iv.9).
20
Whatchangedthepoliticalandsocialfabricofthecountryfromacollectionof
warringstatestoamoreintegratedpoliticalorderwastheintroductionofcommerceand
theextensionofthemarket.Luxuryitemsappearedtothelordsasasubstitutefor
maintainingretinuesofdependents;theseitemsbecamepreferablebecausetheir
consumptionwasperceivedtobeexcludable.9Butthepursuitoftheseluxurycommodities
hadunintendedconsequences—itcausedabreakdowninfeudalpowerstructuresand
createdanindependentmiddlingrankofmerchantsandartificers:
Forapairofdiamondbucklesperhaps,orforsomethingasfrivolousanduseless,
they[landlords,liketheonehespeaksofinTMSIV.i.10]exchangedthe
maintenance,orwhatisthesamething,thepriceofthemaintenanceofathousand
menforayear,andwithitthewholeweightandauthoritywhichitcouldgiveto
them....[For]thegratificationofthemostchildish,themeanestandthemost
sordidofallvanities,theygraduallybarteredawaytheirwholepowerandauthority.
(WNIII.iv.1)
Thepursuitofluxurygoodsgraduallybroketheconnectionbetweenthelordsandtheir
dependents.Theadministrationofjusticewasnolongercarriedoutbyindividualbarons
andlords.Thelocusofactuallegalpowershiftedupwardstowardthekingandthe
centralizedstate.Thelong-runresultinBritainwastheestablishmentofanintegrated
9 Note that the underlying psychology of the lords in Smith’s WN account is directly parallel to that of the selfish and rapacious landlord treated in the invisible hand passage in TMS IV.i.10. His description in WN elaborates the same principle: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they [the proprietors] could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other person” (WN III.iv.10).
21
politicalorderwithinwhichanetworkofmutuallybeneficialtransactionsbetween
independentpoliticalequalsreplacedthetraditionalnetworkofsubordination.Libertyand
securityemergedastheunintendedconsequenceofluxurypursuit.Smithreiteratesthe
point:
Havingsoldtheirbirth-right,notlikeEsauforamessofpottageintimeofhunger
andnecessity,butinthewantonnessofplenty,fortrinketsandbaubles,fittertobe
theplay-thingsofchildrenthantheseriouspursuitsofmen,they[theproprietors
andlords]becameasinsignificantasanysubstantialburgherortradesmaninacity.
Aregulargovernmentwasestablishedinthecountryaswellasinthecity,nobody
havingsufficientpowertodisturbitsoperationsintheone,anymorethaninthe
other.(WNIII.iv.16).
ItisalsoimportanttonotetheconnectionSmithseesinthesesectionsofWN
betweenluxurypursuitsandeconomicgrowth.10Hesaysinpassingthatduetothedivision
oflaborandextendingmarket,theproprietorsandlordscouldindirectlymaintain“as
greatorevenagreaternumberofpeoplethan[they]couldhavedonebytheantient
methodof[direct]expence”(WNIII.iv.11).Thepurchaseofadiamondbuckledirectly
supportsthemerchantfromwhomitispurchased,butindirectlysupportsawholehostof
artificersandlaborersthatcontributetotheproductionprocess.Smithelaboratesthe
directandunintendedindirectsupportofdifferentkindsofworkthatexchangeandthe
divisionoflaboraffordinhisdiscussionofthewoolencoatinWNI.i.ElsewhereinWN,and
10 For a detailed analysis of the role of luxury taste in Smith’s theory of economic development see Rosenberg (1968).
22
inclearconnectionwithTMSIV.i.10,Smithmakesarelatedpoint,sayingthat“thepoor,in
ordertoobtainfood,exertthemselvestogratifythosefanciesoftherich,andtoobtainit
morecertainly,theyviewithoneanotherinthecheapnessandperfectionoftheirwork”
(WNI.xi.c.7).Therich“havethecommandofmorefoodthantheythemselvescan
consume”andtradethesurplusawaytothepoorfor“theamusementofthosedesires
whichcannotbesatisfied,butseemtobealtogetherendless”(WNI.xi.c.7).Theendresult
ofthevainpursuitsoftherichisthehiringofmoreworkersandthedistributionofproduct
whichleadstoanincreaseinsustainablepopulationlevels.Thustheselfishnessandvanity
oftherich,ofthelordsandbaron,throughthemechanismofluxurydemand,inadvertently
leadstopoliticalstabilityandsecurityandpopulationandeconomicgrowth.
5.Onhappiness
SmithcloseshisdiscussioninWNonthemoveawayfromfeudalismtoward
commercialsocietybycommentingonitseffectonhappiness.Hespeaksofthecomingof
commercialsocietyas“arevolutionofthegreatestimportancetothepublickhappiness”
unintentionallybroughtaboutbyproprietorsandmerchants,neitherofwhom“hadeither
knowledgeorforesightofthatgreatrevolutionwhichthefollyoftheone,andtheindustry
oftheother,[would]graduallybringabout”(WNIII.iv.17).Thiscommentusefullysumsup
thethrustofSmith’ssocialanalysisinTMSIV.i.10.Inmovingthenfromthisimportant
pointtowardanattemptedsynthesisofthewealth-happinessdialecticitisusefulto
considertwoquestions:(1)HowdoesSmithconceiveofhappiness?(2)Whyexactlydoes
23
Smithviewthecomingofcommercialsocietyasarevolutionofthegreatestimportanceto
happiness,especiallyinlightofthespleneticpoleofhiswealth-happinessdialectic?
Happinessisanbroadconcept.11ItisaphenomenonthatSmithwouldlikely
consider“loose,vague,andindeterminate,”admittingofa“generalidea”butresisting
preciseformulation(TMSIII.6.11).Smithdoesn’ttreatthenotionofhappinessdirectlyor
systematicallyinhiswork.Butfromhisscatteredcommentswemightsaythathappiness
forSmithseemstohavethreeprincipalelements:(1)basicmaterialwelfare,(2)social
relationships,and(3)thetranquilityconferredbytheapprovalofconscience.
Thebasicmaterialcomponentofhappinessistheconsumptionwhichisrequired
forhealthandself-preservation.Humansarenaturallyconstitutedtoseektheirown
physicalpreservationandhealthfulnessbeforeturningtoanythingelse.Happiness
requiresalivingpersontobehappy.Smithspeakstothisconnectiondirectlyinsection1of
Part6ofTMS,titled“OftheCharacteroftheIndividual,sofarasitaffectshisown
happiness;orofPrudence”(italicsadded):“Thepreservationandhealthfulstateofthe
bodyseemtobetheobjectswhichNaturefirstrecommendstothecareofevery
individual.”(TMSVI.i.1).Beyondself-preservation,thematerialelementofhappinessin
Smithisasocially-determinedbaselinelevelofwealthcontributingtoaperson’s“healthful
state.”Smithspeaksofsuchabaseline,forexample,whenhereferstothe“necessitiesof
11 There are different ways to think about happiness. Happiness can be taken as a transient state of mind, reflected by statements like “I feel happy when the weather is nice.” But happiness can be taken in a broader sense as a concept of human flourishing, hearkening back to the Greek notion of eudaimonia. In this paper, I’m concerned with happiness of the second kind. For an overview of the two kinds of happiness, see Haybron (2011).
24
nature,”whichcanbesuppliedby“thewagesofthemeanestlabour.”Thesenecessitiesare
“foodandclothing,thecomfortofahouse,andofafamily”(I.iii.2.1).Inthemodernworld
thenecessitiesandevenconveniencesofnatureare“veryeasilysupplied”(VI.i.3).The
materialcomponentofhappiness,thoughreal,isrelativelyminimal.ThematerialinSmith
providesaframeworkinwhichthemoresignificantelementsofhappinesstakeform.
AmoreimportantelementofhappinessforSmithisrelationships—genuine
communityandfriendshipwithothers.Humanstakepleasureincommunicatingand
sharingsentimentswithothersthroughsympathy.Suchsocialdesiresandaffectionsare
“felt,notonlybythetenderanddelicate,butbytherudestvulgarofmankind.”Our
relationshipsare“ofmoreimportancetohappinessthanallthelittleserviceswhichcould
beexpectedtoflowfromthem”(TMSI.ii.4.1).Smithputsthisadifferentway,saying,“the
chiefpartofhumanhappinessarisesfromtheconsciousnessofbeingbeloved”(I.ii.5.2).
Oneoftheproblemswithambitiouslyseekingwealthisthatitmayactuallycomeat
thecostofourrelationships.Therearetworeasonsforthis.Firstissimplythefactthat
timeisscarce.Spendingtimehaplesslypursuingwealth,likethepoorman’sson,meansnot
cultivatingfriendshipandenjoyingone’sfamily.Partofthepoorman’sson’smiserycomes
fromthefactthathisambitionleadshimtoserve“thosehehates,and[be]obsequiousto
thosewhomhedespises.”Insodoinghe“sacrificesarealtranquilitythatisatalltimesin
hispower”(TMSIV.i.7).Partofthatsacrificeisthelikelythecostofhisrelationships.Smith
makesasimilarpointinrecountingastoryinPlutarch:
WhenthefavouriteofthekingofEpirussaidtohismaster,maybeappliedtoall
menintheordinarysituationsofhumanlife.WhentheKinghadrecountedtohim,
25
intheirproperorder,alltheconquestswhichheproposedtomake,andhadcometo
thelastofthem;AndwhatdoesyourMajestyproposetodothen?saidthe
Favourite.—Iproposethen,saidtheKing,toenjoymyselfwithmyfriends,and
endeavourtobeagoodcompanyoverabottle.—AndwhathindersyourMajesty
fromdoingsonow?repliedtheFavourite.(TMSIII.3.32)
Smithclosesthestorywithhisowncommentary:“Inthemostglitteringandexalted
situationsthatouridlefancycanholdouttous,thepleasuresfromwhichweproposeto
deriveourrealhappinessarealmostalwaysthesamewiththosewhich[wealreadyhavein
ourpower]”(III.3.32).Insofarasourownhappinessisconcerned,wealthshouldbe
cultivatedandmanagedtoprovideamaterialframeworkorstateofaffairsinwhichwecan
enjoyourfamilyandfriends.
Thesecondreasonthatambitiouswealth-seekingcomesatthecostofrelationships
isbecauseitcantendtoalienateusfromourrelationships.Rapidchangesinfortuneand
statuscansowdiscordanddisrupttheflowofsympathy.Ourfriendsandfamilyarenot
normallydisposedtofullysympathizewithdramaticincreasesinourfortunes—winning
thelottery,forinstance—butratherareinsuchcasespronetoenvyandjudgment.Smith
warnsusthatarapidchangeinfortunewillgenerallyleadustoleaveouroldfriends
behindanddrifttowardisolation(seeTMSI.ii.5.1).
Athirdelementofhappinessisthetranquilitythatcomesfromtheapprovalofthe
conscience,anapprovalwhichisearnedthroughthecultivationandpracticeofvirtue.
“Warrantedself-approbationyieldsthegreatestpleasureofall,namelytranquility”
(Griswold1999,134;ontheimportanceoftranquilityseeTMSIII.2.3,III.3.30,33)We
26
aren’tcontentifwedon’tfeelwehaveactedproperly.Thebeliefthatwehavebehaved
contemptibly,orsimplywithheldduegratitudeorresentment,weighsonourconsciences.
InoneofhisdirectcommentsonhappinessSmithspeakstotheimportanceoftheapproval
ofourconscienceforourhappiness:“Whatcanbeaddedtothehappinessofthemanwho
isinhealth,whoisoutofdebt,andhasaclearconscience?”(TMSI.iii.1.5).
Thetranquilitythatcomeswithaclearconscienceandleadstohappinesshasan
activecomponent.Tohavetheapprovalofone’sconscience,orinSmith’sterminologythe
manwithinthebreast,impliesthepracticeofvirtue.Thisisclearinanumberofplacesin
TMS,especiallyinthewell-knownearthquakepassage(III.3.4).Smithsaysthataman
wouldinfactbemoreconcerned,moreaffected,bythelossofafingerthanbyhearingofa
tragicearthquakeinwhichhundredsofmillionsofpeopledied.Butthemanalsowould,
giventheopportunity,readilysacrificehisfingertosavetheearthquakevictimsinan
activecontext.Theapprovalofconsciencedependsuponhimfulfillinghisduty.Tranquility
isnotdisengagementwiththeworldbutvirtuousengagementandconsequent
contentment.
IfhappinessinSmithcanbeapproximatedby,basicmaterialprovision,community,
andtheapprovalofconscience,whythendoeshedescribetheemergenceofcommercial
societyfromfeudalismas“arevolutionofthegreatestimportancetothepublick
happiness”?IagreewithRasmussen(2006)thattheanswertothisquestionisthatSmith
understandscommercialsocietytoalleviateahostofmiseriesfromhumanlifeandprovide
thebestarrangement,relativetorealisticalternatives,inwhichhappinesscanbepursued.
27
Commercialsociety’salleviationofmiseriesisachieved,inSmith’saccount,through
economicgrowthandthematerialprovisionforthepoorandtheestablishmentofliberty
andsecurity.Economicgrowthenablesmorepeopletohavetheirbasicneedsmet;liberty
anditsinstitutionalcounterpartoftheruleoflaw,inadditiontofacilitatingeconomic
growth,provideproperconditionsinwhichgenuinerelationshipscanbedevelopedand
virtuecanbepursued.
Smith’sanalysisofcommercialsocietyisfilledwithapprovingreferencestothe
beneficialeffectsofeconomicgrowthonthepoor.Throughallhisworksheviewsthe
welfareoftheworstoffasamatterofgreatimportance:“nosocietycansurelybe
flourishingandhappy,ofwhichthefargreaterpartofthemembersarepoorand
miserable”(WNI.viii.36).Itiscommercialsociety,throughthedivisionoflaborandthe
accumulationofcapital,thatmakes,inSmith’smind,thefrugalEnglishpeasantricherthan
“manyanAfricanking”(WNI.i.24);itiscommercialsocietythatmoveshumankindoutof
theworldof“universalpoverty,”whichismisguidedly(andunknowingly)applaudedby
thechampionsof“universalequality”(WNV.i.b.7);itiscommercialsocietythatallows
eventhepersonofthe“lowestandpoorestorder,ifheisfrugalandindustrious,tohave
accesstoandenjoyagreatshareofthenecessariesandconveniencesoflife”(WNIntro.4).
Theprovisionofrealgoodsthatmakesupthewealthofnationsenablespopulationtogrow
andimprovesphysicalconditionsformany.Itenablesmorepeopletolivebyincreasing
populationgrowthanddecreasingmortalityrates.Itenablesmoreofthepeoplewholive
tohavetheirbasicneedsmet,satisfyingtheirownbasicmaterialpreconditionsfor
happiness.
28
Liberty,security,andeconomicgrowthinterrelate—thefreemovementoflaborand
capitalandfreeflowsofgoodsandservicesinawell-governedsocietyareattheheartof
Smith’spoliticaleconomyandhistheoryofthewealthofnations(e.g.,WNIV.ix.51).
Liberty,asfarashappinessisconcerned,derivesindirectvaluefromtheeconomicgrowth
itfacilitates.Butonamorefundamentallevel,libertylaysthegroundworkforhappinessby
givingpeoplefreedomofchoiceandfacilitatingthedevelopmentofrelationshipsandthe
practiceofvirtue.Peoplevaluefreedomintheirpersonandpossessions:theyare“jealous
oftheirliberty”(WNI.x.c.59).TheveryideaofhappinessforSmithasanobjectorstateof
pursuitseemstorequirefreedomofchoice,understoodnegativelyasalackofphysical
restraintonpersonorproperty.Smithinfactindicatesthebasicimportanceoflibertyto
happinessdirectlyinTMS:“Exceptthefrivolouspleasuresofvanityandsuperiority,we
mayfind,inthemosthumblestation,wherethereisonlypersonalliberty,everyother
[pleasurefromwhichderiveourrealhappiness]whichthemostexaltedcanafford”(TMS
III.3.32;italicsadded).Concerningthepleasureofrelationships,theexchangeofsympathy
(andgoodsandservices),andthepracticeofvirtueinSmithareallarticulatedwithina
frameofself-possessionandvoluntarism.TheverytitleofTMSinitsfullintendedform
makesthisclear:“TheTheoryofMoralSentiments,orAnEssaytowardsandAnalysisofthe
PrinciplesbywhichMennaturallyjudgeconcerningtheConductandCharacter,firstof
theirNeighbours,andafterwardsofthemselves”(RaphaelandMacfie1982,40).Political
powerandmaterialdependencydistortrelationshipsand,alongwithriches,rankasamong
thechiefcorruptorsofourmoralsentiments(TMSI.iii.2.3).Thediscoveryofthegoodand
thenatureofvirtuousconductinparticularsituationsrequiresongoingsocialconversation
29
betweenfreepoliticalequals—virtueis,byandlarge,notthebusinessofthepolitical
superior(seeTMSII.ii.1.8).
6.Apotentialresolution
OnceSmith’ssocialanalysisinTMSIV.8-10isunderstood,alongwiththecharacter
ofhisviewofhappiness,thequestionremainingisthis:givenknowledgethatwe,likethe
poorman’sson,areapttobedeceivedintoambitiouslypursuingwealthatthecostofour
ownhappiness,butalsothatourpursuitofwealthmaycontributetothecontinuationof
commercialsociety,whatshouldwedo?Itistruethatcommercialsocietyfacilitates
deceptionandcanleadtounhappiness.Beyondafairlyminimalthreshold,material
improvementsdon’tcontributemeaningfullytoourlives.Wecanpursuethemsometimes
atthecostofrelationshipsandvirtue.Butitisequallytruethatcommercialsociety
providesfortheneedsofthemany,liberatesfromdirectdependenceonmastersandlords,
andprovidesasecureframeworkinwhichindividualshavethefreedomtoorganizetheir
lives.Howshouldthisallbesynthesized?WhatkindoflifeisSmithimplicitly
recommending,andwhatshouldafuturepoorman’sson,asitwere,do?
InaninterpretationofTMSIV.i.8-10,LisaHill(2017)arguesthatthe“storyof‘the
poorman’sson’pointstoasignificanttensionbetweenhispersonalidealofhappinessand
his…recommendationsasasocialscientist”(10).Sheconcludesthatheultimatelybecomes
a“cheerleaderforthekindofersatzorsecond-ratehappinessthatisthemainstayandvery
engineofcommercialsocieties”(15).Iagreewiththespiritofthisclaiminasmuchasit
reflectsthefactthatSmithultimatelyauthorizesthepursuitofincomeandthebustleof
30
commercialactivity.TheanalysisembeddedwithinSmith’sdialecticinTMSIV.1.8-10helps
ustoseetheunintendedbeneficialeffectsofthepursuitofwealth,evenifthemotivations
behindthatpursuitareimperfect.Smithdoesnotmorallyendorseavarice;heclearly
disapprovesofit.Butbypresentingadramaticargumentoftheunintentionalbenefitsof
avaricious,wrong-headedwealth-seeking,thenafortiorihemakesacaseforproperly
motivatedwealth-seekingboundedbytherulesofjustice.
Inthewiderarcofhisthought,however,IsubmitthatSmithpushesforsomething
beyondthekindofersatzorsecond-ratehappinessthatHillsayshefavors.Hill(2017)
contendsthat“Smith’spositivityabouteudaimoniaisreallyonlyhispersonalratherthan
hisprofessionalposition”(22;italicsoriginal).Ithinkthismaybeanoverstatement.By
wayofthetensioninTMSIV.i.8-10,Smithactivelyencouragesthereadertoreflectonhow
thepursuitsofwealthandhappinessmaybecomebalancedandcomplementary,not
oppositionalmodesoflife.Heisnotadvocatingthatpeoplegiveuptheircommercial
enterprisesforthesakeofasceticpursuitsofwisdomandvirtue.Butheispushinghis
readerstoreflectuponhowcommercialenterprisemightbeundertakeninanappropriate
mannernotinconsistentwithcultivatingone’srelationshipsandpursuingvirtue—not
inconsistentwithcultivatingrealhappiness.
IfollowRyanHanley(2009,100–132)—whoarguesthatSmithwasatruefriendof
commercialsociety,clearlyseeingbothitsvirtuesandflaws—andsuggestthatthekeyhere
isSmith’selaborationofprudenceinTMSVI.Whereasprudenceissometimesassociated
with“economic”endsor“utilitymaximization”(e.g.,McCloskey2008),Smith’sconception
runsdeeper.Itistruethatanimportantpartofprudenceis“economic,”i.e.,concerningthe
31
industriousandfrugal“careofthehealth,ofthefortune”and“oftherankandreputationof
theindividual”(TMSVI.i.5),alongwiththegradualaccumulationofmaterialwealth
(VI.i.12).ButSmith’sdescriptionofprudenceencompassesotherimportantaspectsof
character.Smithianprudenceincludesanumberofcharactertraitsthatseemtotakeinto
accountthespleneticviewofwealth.Smith’schapteronprudencealmostreadsasifitwere
writtenwithTMSIV.i.8-10inmind,whichsupportsHanley’s(2009)readingofthefinal
editionofTMS,especiallyPartVIwhichwasnewtothefinaledition,asaguidebookto
virtueintheageofcommerce.Forpresentpurposes,IhighlighttwoaspectsofSmithian
prudencethatwardoffthepotentialmaleffectsanddeceptionsofwealth-seeking:sincerity
andcontentment.
Theprudentmanissincereinhisinteractionswithothersandinhisself-regard.
Thishastwoimportantimplications.First,sincerityrenderstheprocessofwealth
acquisitionagreeable.Theprudentmanseekstoincreasehiswealthandpracticesan
honestcommercecomprisedofgenuinerelationshipsandinteractions,wherehetrades
uponthelegitimatevalueofhistalentsandinterests.Histalents“maynotalwaysbevery
brilliant”but“theyareperfectlygenuine”(TMSVI.i.7).Whereasthepoorman’sson“serves
thosewhomhehatesandisobsequioustothosewhomhedespises”(IV.i.10),theprudent
manis“simpleandmodest,…aversetoallthequackishartsbywhichotherpeopleso
frequentlythrustthemselvesintopublicnoticeandreputation”(VI.i.7).Ifthepoorman’s
sonhad,insteadofsubjectinghimselftomisery,simplyandhonestlypresentedhimselfand
hisabilities,hemaynothaveregrettedhislifechoices;hisprocessofwealthacquisition
couldperhapshavebeenmorepleasant.
32
Second,thesincerityaspectofprudenceemphasizesakindofself-affirmationthat
providesapartialantidotetovanity.NotethatSmithconceivesofthepoorman’sson’s
desireforwealth,particularlyforluxuryitems,asstemmingnotfromdirectconsiderations
ofutilitybutfromanimaginationofhowwealthwouldappeartootherpeople(TMSIV.i.8).
Itisnotwealthpersethatmotivates,butratherhisdesireforthesocialdistinctionthat
wealthconfers.12Itisnotonlytherestlessindustryandsacrificeofeasethatcontributesto
thepoorman’sson’sunhappiness,butalsohisdesperatemoveto“bring[his]talentsinto
publicview”(IV.i.8).Theprudentman,thoughconcernedwithbecomingaproperobjectof
confidence,esteem,andgood-will(VI.i.4),seemstoberelativelyimmunized,bySmith’s
description,fromsuchvanity:“Heneitherendeavourstoimposeuponyoubythecunning
devicesofanartfulimposter,norbythearrogantairsofanassumingpedant,norbythe
confidentassertionsofasuperficialandimprudentpretender”(VI.i.6).Thesincerityaspect
ofprudencesomewhatdiscountsthepubliclight;theprudentmancareslittleforthefavor
of“littleclubsandcabals”(VI.i.7)and“convivialsocieties…distinguishedforthejollityand
gaietyoftheirconversation”(VI.i.8).Theprudentpursuitofwealththusentailsasincere
andauthenticcommercewitharelativelylimitedconcernforpublicappearanceandstatus
signaling.
ThesecondimportantcharacteraspectofSmithianprudenceiscontentmentand
limitedaspiration.Theprudentmanrecognizesthatchanginghispermanentmaterial
12 Hill (2012) usefully distinguishes two parts of self-interest in Smith: one which involves desire or appetite, and one which involves ambitious spirit or “thumos.” The latter part often seems to be the more psychologically powerful. Knud Haakonssen (1981) even goes as far as claiming that “taste and vanity constitute the ‘invisible hand’ that leads and directs all the individual human lives into a more or less orderly social process” (183).
33
situationbeyondacertainpointwillnotsignificantlyaffecthishappiness.Theanxiety
associatedwiththatchange“mightendanger,butcouldnotwellincrease,thesecure
tranquilitywhichheactuallyenjoys”(TMSVI.i.12).Consequently,hesimplyseemstoview
wealthasinstrumentaltohistranquilityandenjoyment.Heisdriventoimprovehis
materialsituationsothathemight“gradually…relax,bothintherigourofhisparsimony
andintheseverityofhisapplication”(VI.i.12).Buthehasnoambitionforpublic
recognitionorvainglory.“Inthebottomofhishearthewouldprefertheundisturbed
enjoymentofsecuretranquility,notonlytoallthevainsplendorofsuccessfulambition,but
totherealandsolidgloryofperformingthegreatestandmostmagnanimousactions”(TMS
VI.i.13).
PrudenceisofcoursenottheendofvirtueforSmith.Itisabaseline.Butitdoes
appeartoprovideawayinwhichwealthcanbepursuedandkeptinitsproperplace.By
wayofaprudentpursuitofwealth,wecancontributetothecontinuationofcommercial
society,supportingtheindependency,liberty,security,andmaterialwelfareofothers,
whilestillleavingspaceforthemoresignificantelementsofourhappiness.Perhapsthisis
aplausiblewaytosynthesizethedialecticofIV.i.8-10.
7.Concludingremarks
Smith’sthoughtisattimespuzzling.Inthecaseofthestoryofthepoorman’sson,I
thinkitisintentionallyso.Theopen-endeddialecticthatSmiththerepresentsmaywellbe
anefforttoflagourattention,togetus,Smith’sreaders,towrestlewithandattemptto
resolveasignificanttensioninmoderncommerciallife.MyinterpretationisthatSmith
34
implicitlyrecommendsinTMSIV.i.8-10thatwepursuewealth,butthatwedoso
prudently,inawaythatwon’tdetractfromotherimportantaspectsoflife,namelyour
relationshipsandourcultivationofvirtue.Smiththinksthatasocietycharacterizedby
individualsprudentlypursuingwealth,whileperhapsstrictlyonthatdimensiononly
worthyofa“coldesteem”(TMSVI.i.14),willtendtowardsliberty,security,andeconomic
growth.Theseconditionswhichtheprudentpursuitofwealthbringsareworthyofa
warmerandhigheresteeminthattheysustainasocial,political,andmaterialframework
inwhichhappinessmighthaveopportunitytoflourish.
35
References
Berry,ChristopherJ.1994.TheIdeaofLuxury:AConceptualandHistoricalInvestigation.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Brewer,Anthony.2009.“OntheOther(Invisible)Hand...”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy41(3):519–43.
Diatkine,Daniel.2010.“VanityandtheLoveofSystemin‘TheoryofMoralSentiments.’”TheEuropeanJournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought17(3):383–404.
Fleischacker,Samuel.2004.OnAdamSmith’sWealthofNations:APhilosophicalCompanion.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Griswold,CharlesL.1999.AdamSmithandtheVirtuesofEnlightenment.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Haakonssen,Knud.1981.TheScienceofaLegislator:TheNaturalJurisprudenceofDavidHumeandAdamSmith.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hanley,RyanPatrick.2009.AdamSmithandtheCharacterofVirtue.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Haybron,Dan.2011.“Happiness.”InTheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta.https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/happiness/.
Hill,Lisa.2012.“AdamSmithon‘Thumos’andIrrationalEconomicMan.”TheEuropeanJournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought19(1):1–22.
———.2017.“‘ThePoorMan’sSon’andtheCorruptionofOurMoralSentiments:Commerce,Virtue,andHappinessinAdamSmith.”TheJournalofScottishPhilosophy15(1):9–25.
Hont,Istvan,andMichaelIgnatieff.1983.“NeedsandJusticein‘TheWealthofNations.’”InWealthandVirtue,editedbyIstvanHontandMichaelIgnatieff,10–44.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hume,David.1987.“OfRefinementintheArts.”InEssays,Moral,Political,andLiterary,editedbyEugeneF.Miller.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.
Klein,DanielB.,andBrandonLucas.2011.“InaWordorTwo,PlacedintheMiddle:TheInvisibleHandinAdamSmith’sTomes.”EconomicAffairs31(1):43–52.
Livingston,DonaldW.1984.Hume’sPhilosophyofCommonLife.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
36
Mandeville,Bernard.1988.TheFableoftheBees.Vol.1.2vols.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.
Martin,Thomas.2014.“TheSunbathingBeggarandFightingKings:DiogenestheCynicandAlexandertheGreatinAdamSmith’sTheoryofMoralSentiments.”TheAdamSmithReview8:217–40.
Matson,ErikW.,andColinDoran.2017.“TheElevatedImagination:ContemplationandActioninDavidHumeandAdamSmith.”JournalofScottishPhilosophy15(1):27–45.
McCloskey,Deidre.2008.“AdamSmith,LastoftheFormerVirtueEthicists.”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy40(1):43–71.
Minowitz,Peter.1993.Profits,Priests,andPrinces:AdamSmith’sEmancipationofEconomicsfromPoliticsandReligion.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Nussbaum,MarthaC.2000.“DutiesofJustice,DutiesofMaterialAid:Cicero’sProblematicLegacy.”TheJournalofPoliticalPhilosophy8(2):176–206.
Otteson,James.2002.AdamSmith’sMarketplaceofLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Pack,SpencerJ.1991.“AdamSmith’sUnnaturallyNatural(YetNaturallyUnnatural)UseoftheWord‘Natural.’”InPerspectivesontheHistoryofEconomicThought,editedbyIngridH.Rima.Vol.11.Aldershot:EdwardElgar.
Raphael,D.D.,andA.L.Macfie.1982.“Introduction.”InTheTheoryofMoralSentiments,byAdamSmith,editedbyD.D.RaphaelandA.L.Macfie.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.
Rasmussen,DennisC.2006.“Does‘BetteringOurCondition’ReallyMakeUsBetterOff?AdamSmithonProgressandHappiness.”TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview100(3):308–18.
———.2008.TheProblemsandPromiseofCommercialSociety:AdamSmith’sResponsetoRousseau.UniversityPark:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress.
Rosenberg,Nathan.1968.“AdamSmith,ConsumerTastes,andEconomicGrowth.”JournalofPoliticalEconomy76(3):361–74.
Sabl,Andrew.2012.Hume’sPolitics:CoordinationandCrisisinHume’s“HistoryofEngland.”Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Sekora,John.1977.Luxury:TheConceptinWesternThought,EdentoSmollet.Baltimore:JohnHopkins.
37
Smith,Adam.1981.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations.EditedbyR.H.CampbellandA.S.Skinner.2vols.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.
———.1982.TheTheoryofMoralSentiments.EditedbyD.D.RaphaelandA.L.Macfie.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.
Stigler,GeorgeJ.1976.“TheSuccessesandFailuresofProfessorSmith.”JournalofPoliticalEconomy84(6):1199–1213.
Waterman,Anthony.2002.“EconomicsasTheology:AdamSmith’sWealthofNations.”SouthernEconomicJournal68(4):907–21.