The Essential Adam Smith forum discussion. Literature & Language Essay

Go through his example and try to imagine what a 'humane person' might go through. Then check your imagination against Smith's.



Here is how Smith begins:



"Let us suppose that the great and populous empire of

China was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and

let us consider how a humane man in Europe—one with

no sort of connection with China—would be affected when

he heard about this dreadful calamity. I imagine..."



Let me give you a bit of background that sets this problem up:



(1)Smith is famous for his theory of 'invisible-hand' Capitalism. In Wealth of Nation he explains how our gentle but persistent passion for self-betterment leads us to both cooperate and compete with others. We look to see how we can most benefit ourselves by being of value to others--that is, we will present to others the goods and services we are best at producing and trade for all other needs. And so it is not from altruism but self-interest that the needs of people are met.



But Smith, in his time was more famous for his moral theory of the sentiments--in a nutshell this is the idea that the human animal has 'sympathies'--for Smith 'sympathy' includes empathy, the ability to feel what others feel. This is what binds us on a very basic and biological level, and allows us to be moral creatures. An important historical question is whether Smith takes his theory of the sentiments as part of the background of his economic theory, or whether his economic theory replaces this theory of the sentiments.



(2) This particular passage in the sentiments is derived from a thought experiment from Smith's friend, the philosopher and historian David Hume. Hume took very seriously the idea that human beings are first and foremost animals that are driven by passion and not reason. He made the following claim 'that reason is and ought to be the slave of passion'. This is the moral position that Kant is trying to defeat with his deontological theory. What Hume claimed is that it follows from our nature that we never have a reason to do X or not do X--either we are motivated by our passions to do X or to not do X, reason has no role except instrumentally. That is reason can calculate the consequences of doing or not doing X and so help our passions reach satisfaction, but that is all. Thus Hume claimed that 'there is no reason to prefer avoiding a cut on my little finger to saving half the world from death' (and vice versa). Smith is responding to this (to his ears) shocking claim. But Smith's theory, like Hume's is built from the ground of human passion, and so it is not clear how (or if at all) normative moral reasoning can be added.



(3)I am going to begin the discussion by making some observation about what Smith is up to, and I would like you to comment on Smith's observation: do you think he captures a 'humane' reaction? If so why, if not why not?



(a) Smith picks China for his example because China at the time represents for the English and Scots a place distant not just in geography but in imagination--European people had all kinds of crazy beliefs about China. This is important for Smith because he wants an example where our passions are not likely to be directly activated--if like today's Covid-19 pandemic, we and people we know are being effected then our passions, including care and concern will kick in and do the hard moral work. But Smith wants to set up a problem where we have no ongoing connection, and so our passions are weak and barely motivate us.



(b) notice his line of his reasoning--when we hear about a disaster that does not directly elicit our sympathies most of us do get on with our daily business, but if we knew that tomorrow our little finger was going to be chopped off (imagine you took out a loan from the wrong people and can't pay it back) we would hardly be able to put that out of our minds.



(c) so now he wants to rebut Hume, but he has also shown Hume's point to be correct: far away disaster harming thousands of people produces a weak or non-existent passion BUT loosing my little finger produces a strong and continual passion (to avoid pain to myself). Thus why isn't Hume right in saying there is no reason to prefer one outcome to the other?



Please think and comment on this--I am going to bring this round to Smith's question about the moral viability of Capitalism, and if you are so disposed try to guess at what link I want to make.