Finally caught up enough to read this excellent piece! What I love is the fair treatment of a great mind who advanced civilization. Unlike some objectivist critics, you give Smith the credit he deserves. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Adam Smith was forming the concepts that brought untold wealth to all Western nations. Although he didn't reach a "moral Mecca," he took us further than any other economist. Adam Smith gave us a framework that asked all the right questions. Now we must strive to provide the right answers.
Doesn’t such a system have a fatal flaw?—the judge.
This person or persons hold the power to both interpret the laws and to misinterpret those laws.
John Marshall, many would argue, opened this Pandora’s box with Marbury v. Madison.
Ultimately, judges become corruptible and the result is the Conservation Movement (and Eugenics) and the New Deal and the Great Society and Government Schools and ….
Our lawmakers are now our rule makers.
PS—I have been reading too much Lysander Spooner so maybe I have become another grumpy old man who just wants to be left alone.
I'd like someone who knows The Enlightenment well to read the "James" the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by author Percival Everett. I've only read a review but I suspect that the lead character is unlikely to have read John Locke...does the author just assume that everyone is born knowing what is "right."
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
Adam Smith was a professor therefore he was already a man of system. Smith seems to build a bit off of David Hume's system. But with a greater emphasis on Sympathy. He is thus the father of DEI, or at the very least anti-bullying(of the selfish) and emotional intelligence. The middle of the fulcrum for Adam Smith is the "impartial spectator". What he seems to call morality is a state of being in mind or imagination that dwells on or accounts for others. Which raises the question of the partial spectator/friendship and even selfishness. Arguably a phosita is a partial spectator or a specialized spectator. In fact one could argue...basically Adam Smith was always lost in the clouds. So his account of selfishness as good is necessary for his view of the common good. Thus Selfishness in Adam Smith is good and self-evidently so because no one would show up to a game of baseball(to watch) and be happy that only the umpire arrived. In the same way the Constitution is Living, because imagine getting to the Supreme Court with no client or case (impossible of course unless someone can deep fake the Supreme Court into granting cert...secure presidential pardon ahead of time). John Roberts shows up and reads the document(a statute? an administrative decision?) within the 4 corners of the text, but "no pitch" is thrown, no "ball" or "strike" can be called. An argument for limited government is that the OG Rounders or various games of baseball, softball, t-ball can be played without even worrying about the rules too much(albeit especially in t-ball you have to teach the kids rules).
"Dabo Sweeney takes the common good (football) rather than the moral rights of the individual (NIL) as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded Clemson Football's moral development." (likely false? requires imagination to bridge gap on the question of other minds?)
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
I want to sue Adam Smith and his successors and assigns in Law, Psychology, and Political Economy under the Berne Convention and the Rhetoric on Education of Ron DeSantis from Yale and Governor of the Great State of Florida, for undermining the rights of an author to be credited as the author of their work (the right of attribution) and the right to prevent prejudicial distortions of the work (the right of integrity), because in his theory of moral sentiments he(Adam Smith) suggests that "readers" create "derivative works" using imagination and outlawed DEI (emotional intelligence) to whit: "Though our brother is on the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did, and never can, carry us beyond our own person, and it is by the imagination only that we can form any conception of what are his sensations. Neither can that faculty help us to this any other way, than by representing to us what would be our own, if we were in his case. It is the impressions of our own senses only, not those of his, which our imaginations copy." Moreover thinking/feeling along these lines may put people into a "Deep State" which distracts them from natural selfishness/ambition, and is the equivalent of driving drunk, which is why the State of Ohio via The OSU joins the suit and claims that the only way to never fall into DEI is to join with Oxford in banning Hume friend of Smith(what?) and replace DEI with AI, which most certainly will not harm the moral rights of authors/individuals.
No real disagreements on this presentation of Adam Smith. Perhaps not quite heavy enough on the theory of moral sentiments.
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
I would argue that an understanding of the "common good" is for Smith essentially an understanding of "Demand". Whoever best understands the "common good" understands "demand".
Now what is a "common good"? It could be a commodity in which case analysis is easier. A "common good" as a service within say a game of baseball might be a 3rd baseman. The value of a third baseman is his "common good" to his team. That is all baseball teams have a 3rd baseman as a "common good" due to the laws/rules of the game. But Phosita's (Persons having an ordinary understanding of the arts), in this particular case baseball fans or GM's can make fairly accurate assessments of the quality of a 3rd baseman. Bring to market as either a good or service the "common good" needed for a particular game/task/objective, and you align yourself with demand.
I suspect that in most ways this has boosted man's moral development, and continues to do so.
In some sense then a theory of moral sentiments is man's ability to do market research, to see what needs(demands) to be done and then execute(supply) it. Now this particular theory of moral sentiments means that man is mimetic. Which means that a theory of moral sentiments may not be able to invent say baseball but only mimic or mirror the greatness of a particular player emblematic of a "common good"/role within it. That said if I could have used american football as an example of a sport that did derive from mimetics of Rugby.
That said the capacity to improve upon the common good is present in anyone who has a sufficiently refined theory of moral sentiments, and since ultimately the theory of moral sentiments is a bit of a projection by the individual employing such a theory of moral sentiments or an understanding of the "other" and since the individual is in charge of supplying the good or service in question be it the commodity corn or Jose Ramirez, the rights of the individual are the rights of the supplier. The rights of the supplier or the individual are not paramount in part because as you note: "The distance between self-interest and self-deceit is too close for comfort." That is no one wants to grow corn since it is a commodity and margins are slim, "everyone" wants to be Jose Ramirez, but such self-deceit about ones capacities are easily detected even by those who do not qualify as phosita or fans of baseball.
There is nothing within the logic of Adam Smith that would argue against public education(as a necessity to refine moral sentiments). Nor is there really anything in Adam Smith that might argue against a "farm bill" or subsidies for agriculture. (This doesn't come about till Malthus) Apart from the Tulip bubble/mania the "common goods" which are in fact common goods/commodities aren't really where the graft is. Except of course nowadays even producing "commodities" is a complex capital intensive process.(and part of the reason we continually evade Malthusian peak X, where X is a natural resource corn, oil, lithium). Of course an understanding of where the common goods or commodities are may require phosita's such as geologists and phosita's who understand "best practices"(even those in the "deep state" who got axed by Doge such as those in the Office of Mine Safety and Health Administration.)
That is Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments with a focus on the "common good" gets refined down to individual Phosita's. So it is entirely possible that man's capacity for moral development is retarded by Capitalism's alienation/refinement of the "common good". But that is a hell of an argument to make, and it is hard to philosophize with a chain saw.
I find it curious, if not dismaying, that you make no mention of the body of work (both fiction and non-fiction) of Rand? Her moral defense of capitalism - i.e., the morality inherent in individual responsibility and the political rights necessary for its exercise, are unprecedented!
In selfishly satisfying myself of why you have chosen to not even mention her, I find only three possible explanations. You find her work unworthy of mention, or you do not know of it - which I simply dismiss, either out of my incredulity, ignorance, or both. The third explanation being you find challenging the morality of compulsory altruism to be illogical or morally unacceptable?
You correctly cite altruism's monopoly on morality of two-thousand years, correctly claiming Aristotle as perhaps the sole exception, and correctly assert Smith as the "prime mover" of what you cite as a "great leap forward," in that regard? How is it possible to ignore Rand's unprecedented "great leap," unless you judge it as perhaps not even a "step," or worse, one best described as "backward?"
Please put the fact that your essay can be listened to at the beginning, not at the end...where it will be seen after reading all of it.
I’m eager to read your entire essay. I hope you have recovered fully.
I haven't fully recovered, but I'm getting there. Thanks for the good thoughts.
Finally caught up enough to read this excellent piece! What I love is the fair treatment of a great mind who advanced civilization. Unlike some objectivist critics, you give Smith the credit he deserves. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Adam Smith was forming the concepts that brought untold wealth to all Western nations. Although he didn't reach a "moral Mecca," he took us further than any other economist. Adam Smith gave us a framework that asked all the right questions. Now we must strive to provide the right answers.
“freedom plus a constable and a judge”
Doesn’t such a system have a fatal flaw?—the judge.
This person or persons hold the power to both interpret the laws and to misinterpret those laws.
John Marshall, many would argue, opened this Pandora’s box with Marbury v. Madison.
Ultimately, judges become corruptible and the result is the Conservation Movement (and Eugenics) and the New Deal and the Great Society and Government Schools and ….
Our lawmakers are now our rule makers.
PS—I have been reading too much Lysander Spooner so maybe I have become another grumpy old man who just wants to be left alone.
That was delicious. I am waiting with great anticipation to see where this will lead. I have my suspicions.
I'd like someone who knows The Enlightenment well to read the "James" the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by author Percival Everett. I've only read a review but I suspect that the lead character is unlikely to have read John Locke...does the author just assume that everyone is born knowing what is "right."
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
Adam Smith was a professor therefore he was already a man of system. Smith seems to build a bit off of David Hume's system. But with a greater emphasis on Sympathy. He is thus the father of DEI, or at the very least anti-bullying(of the selfish) and emotional intelligence. The middle of the fulcrum for Adam Smith is the "impartial spectator". What he seems to call morality is a state of being in mind or imagination that dwells on or accounts for others. Which raises the question of the partial spectator/friendship and even selfishness. Arguably a phosita is a partial spectator or a specialized spectator. In fact one could argue...basically Adam Smith was always lost in the clouds. So his account of selfishness as good is necessary for his view of the common good. Thus Selfishness in Adam Smith is good and self-evidently so because no one would show up to a game of baseball(to watch) and be happy that only the umpire arrived. In the same way the Constitution is Living, because imagine getting to the Supreme Court with no client or case (impossible of course unless someone can deep fake the Supreme Court into granting cert...secure presidential pardon ahead of time). John Roberts shows up and reads the document(a statute? an administrative decision?) within the 4 corners of the text, but "no pitch" is thrown, no "ball" or "strike" can be called. An argument for limited government is that the OG Rounders or various games of baseball, softball, t-ball can be played without even worrying about the rules too much(albeit especially in t-ball you have to teach the kids rules).
"Dabo Sweeney takes the common good (football) rather than the moral rights of the individual (NIL) as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded Clemson Football's moral development." (likely false? requires imagination to bridge gap on the question of other minds?)
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
I want to sue Adam Smith and his successors and assigns in Law, Psychology, and Political Economy under the Berne Convention and the Rhetoric on Education of Ron DeSantis from Yale and Governor of the Great State of Florida, for undermining the rights of an author to be credited as the author of their work (the right of attribution) and the right to prevent prejudicial distortions of the work (the right of integrity), because in his theory of moral sentiments he(Adam Smith) suggests that "readers" create "derivative works" using imagination and outlawed DEI (emotional intelligence) to whit: "Though our brother is on the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did, and never can, carry us beyond our own person, and it is by the imagination only that we can form any conception of what are his sensations. Neither can that faculty help us to this any other way, than by representing to us what would be our own, if we were in his case. It is the impressions of our own senses only, not those of his, which our imaginations copy." Moreover thinking/feeling along these lines may put people into a "Deep State" which distracts them from natural selfishness/ambition, and is the equivalent of driving drunk, which is why the State of Ohio via The OSU joins the suit and claims that the only way to never fall into DEI is to join with Oxford in banning Hume friend of Smith(what?) and replace DEI with AI, which most certainly will not harm the moral rights of authors/individuals.
No real disagreements on this presentation of Adam Smith. Perhaps not quite heavy enough on the theory of moral sentiments.
"This means that Smith takes the common good rather than the moral rights of the individual as his standard of moral value. This idea has, more than any other, retarded man’s moral development."
I would argue that an understanding of the "common good" is for Smith essentially an understanding of "Demand". Whoever best understands the "common good" understands "demand".
Now what is a "common good"? It could be a commodity in which case analysis is easier. A "common good" as a service within say a game of baseball might be a 3rd baseman. The value of a third baseman is his "common good" to his team. That is all baseball teams have a 3rd baseman as a "common good" due to the laws/rules of the game. But Phosita's (Persons having an ordinary understanding of the arts), in this particular case baseball fans or GM's can make fairly accurate assessments of the quality of a 3rd baseman. Bring to market as either a good or service the "common good" needed for a particular game/task/objective, and you align yourself with demand.
I suspect that in most ways this has boosted man's moral development, and continues to do so.
In some sense then a theory of moral sentiments is man's ability to do market research, to see what needs(demands) to be done and then execute(supply) it. Now this particular theory of moral sentiments means that man is mimetic. Which means that a theory of moral sentiments may not be able to invent say baseball but only mimic or mirror the greatness of a particular player emblematic of a "common good"/role within it. That said if I could have used american football as an example of a sport that did derive from mimetics of Rugby.
That said the capacity to improve upon the common good is present in anyone who has a sufficiently refined theory of moral sentiments, and since ultimately the theory of moral sentiments is a bit of a projection by the individual employing such a theory of moral sentiments or an understanding of the "other" and since the individual is in charge of supplying the good or service in question be it the commodity corn or Jose Ramirez, the rights of the individual are the rights of the supplier. The rights of the supplier or the individual are not paramount in part because as you note: "The distance between self-interest and self-deceit is too close for comfort." That is no one wants to grow corn since it is a commodity and margins are slim, "everyone" wants to be Jose Ramirez, but such self-deceit about ones capacities are easily detected even by those who do not qualify as phosita or fans of baseball.
There is nothing within the logic of Adam Smith that would argue against public education(as a necessity to refine moral sentiments). Nor is there really anything in Adam Smith that might argue against a "farm bill" or subsidies for agriculture. (This doesn't come about till Malthus) Apart from the Tulip bubble/mania the "common goods" which are in fact common goods/commodities aren't really where the graft is. Except of course nowadays even producing "commodities" is a complex capital intensive process.(and part of the reason we continually evade Malthusian peak X, where X is a natural resource corn, oil, lithium). Of course an understanding of where the common goods or commodities are may require phosita's such as geologists and phosita's who understand "best practices"(even those in the "deep state" who got axed by Doge such as those in the Office of Mine Safety and Health Administration.)
That is Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments with a focus on the "common good" gets refined down to individual Phosita's. So it is entirely possible that man's capacity for moral development is retarded by Capitalism's alienation/refinement of the "common good". But that is a hell of an argument to make, and it is hard to philosophize with a chain saw.
A very instructive read, as far as it goes.
I find it curious, if not dismaying, that you make no mention of the body of work (both fiction and non-fiction) of Rand? Her moral defense of capitalism - i.e., the morality inherent in individual responsibility and the political rights necessary for its exercise, are unprecedented!
In selfishly satisfying myself of why you have chosen to not even mention her, I find only three possible explanations. You find her work unworthy of mention, or you do not know of it - which I simply dismiss, either out of my incredulity, ignorance, or both. The third explanation being you find challenging the morality of compulsory altruism to be illogical or morally unacceptable?
You correctly cite altruism's monopoly on morality of two-thousand years, correctly claiming Aristotle as perhaps the sole exception, and correctly assert Smith as the "prime mover" of what you cite as a "great leap forward," in that regard? How is it possible to ignore Rand's unprecedented "great leap," unless you judge it as perhaps not even a "step," or worse, one best described as "backward?"
Thank you. Great article!
Dave
There is another explanation. Please note that my essay on Smith is part of an ongoing series.
Yes! An erroneous premise. Thank you!
Was Smith educated in the trivium? That might explain his grammar metaphor.