« Free? | Main | "If Only People Had Half a Clue as to Why this is Happening!"» Don Boudreaux
May 14, 2008
Adam Smith on the China tragedy
Russell Roberts
Here is Adam Smith on the human capacity for selfishness and for something that goes beyond selfishness:
Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. It is he who, whenever we are about to act so as to affect the happiness of others, calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it; and that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration. It is from him only that we learn the real littleness of ourselves, and of whatever relates to ourselves, and the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator. It is he who shows us the propriety of generosity and the deformity of injustice; the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves. It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.
Yes, we are selfish. Yes, many of us slept well last night in the aftermath of the death of thousands in China. But our selfishness does not tell the whole story. Yes, we are self-centered. But there is more to the human enterprise or at least we like to think so.
d
Posted by Russell Roberts in Charity | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/29077666
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Adam Smith on the China tragedy:
Comments
interesting post. What makes us act in noble ways? does it really matter if it is self interest? whether it is pure altruism or that great feeling of being genereous and nice? i don't know...but one thing is for sure, humans are capable of showing love and compassion for other human beings in the most incredible ways. The truth seems to be that we just don't like to think that we are capable of doing that, even when we are not able to "realize" that we are doing good. Like our cooperation through markets. It may not be direct love, but the results of market cooperation and voluntary exchange surely show that humans are able to do great things for other people in many different ways and for many different reasons. That is what some people should think a little bit more about.
Posted by: Mauricio Flores | May 14, 2008 1:21:25 PM
Smith sounds more like a mystic than an economist. He was a true student of human nature. More wise than any guru or priest.
Posted by: jorod | May 14, 2008 2:19:07 PM
Adam Smith considered himself a moral philosopher, not an economist.
This, from his Theory of Moral Sentiments, presaged the distinction between moral action and coerced charity, ultimately encapsulated by "the separation of church and state." Jefferson, for instance, believed that any entity (i.e., church or state) that forced someone to "do good" actually robbed them of their opportunity for moral action.
In this view, the welfare state actually results in a less moral nation because it robs individuals of the resources (and, to some extent, reasons) to allocate their personal wealth among charitable ends.
Posted by: M. Hodak | May 14, 2008 3:47:34 PM
It seems that he has an almost scholastic approach to the study of economics..as a study of full human nature and not just an understanding of supply and demand.
Theres more to Smith that most of us realize...guess I'll be dusting off "moral sentiments" ;)
Posted by: Philip Fortuna | May 14, 2008 4:06:09 PM
Ah, reading this brought fond memories of reading Smith as a philosophy major. Simply excellent.
Posted by: vulcanhammer | May 14, 2008 6:32:57 PM
M. Hodak,
Right. If I were to stub my toe on the doorstep tomorrow then I would not hold that doorstep morally responsible for my pain, and nor would I hold it responsible for my good fortune if in my moment of pain I were to spot $100 which I would otherwise have not noticed. The doorstep is not a decision-making agent, and no punishment nor reward could have any consequence on its future behaviour. The doorstep will not move aside to prevent me stubbing my toe in the future, and nor will it leap into my path to draw my attention toward some item of worth.
An entity, such as the state, which forces someone to "do good", denies that someone the opportunity to be a decision-maker, and therefore, denies to them any responsibility for any subsequent behaviour.
It is only for of our status as decision-makers, in contrast to my doorstep, that we are regarded as responsible for our behaviour, whether our behaviour is right or wrong. Therefore, by substituting the decisions of many individuals for the decisions of a few powerful elites, those individuals are denied their opportunity for moral action. That is, whether their behaviour is right or wrong does not reflect on their moral character.
Unfortunately, I think that many people actually find this prospect attractive (even though few would ever state so explicitly)--they would rather not be responsible for their decisions, instead adopting some authority, perhaps a politician or ideology, to take every decision out of their hands.
Regards,
Lee
Posted by: Lee Kelly | May 15, 2008 12:46:56 AM
All comments up to his point have been spot on. Smith did have a larger view of the world than the one that is traditionally foisted on him by those who often claim his mantle.
Smith's Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments, taken together, establish a foundation for a free market populated by moral actors.
Posted by: Tim | May 15, 2008 7:31:00 AM
Adam Smith is greatness in and of himself. Your comment at the end however lacked the same repose and thought. Selfish is not the same as self-centered. They are polar opposites. Self cenetered is the evil that is in certain people, that forces others to take care of them, whether it is physical or mental manipulations. "Self Love is not so vile a sin as self neglect." Shakespeare Henry V. "God helps those who help themselves" Benjamin Franklin. SELF is the opposite of herd, the opposite of collectivism, and the opposite of self centered.
Posted by: Don | May 15, 2008 9:55:35 AM
My eyes glazed over about halfway down the excerpt. I can't read insufferable stuff like that, and the fine print wasn't helpful either. Can someone paraphrase the point(s) he was trying to make? People die and suffer injustices and who really gives a damn? Just why should we become overwrought? How's that going to help the victims? Send cash.
Why did he pick on poor China? Why not the Dickensian slums of his own country, or the death of miners in the coal mines that surely he knew about? And verbosity is not a virtue these days. Even Thomas Sowell (ick), or Krugman can make a point or two in fewer and more concise sentences. If I write anymore, I'll be guilty of the same pomposity as Smith.
Posted by: Trumpit | May 15, 2008 8:35:44 PM
Trumpit,
If pomposity were all that you were guilty of then your comments would be greatly improved.
Posted by: Lee Kelly | May 15, 2008 11:39:17 PM
Trumpit
"Why did he pick on poor China? Why not the Dickensian slums of his own country...?
He picked the example of China because in the 1750s that was the furthest place a European could go to - a sea trip of about two years return - and as longer land trip, more dangerous (banditry), and was even further in the popular imagination.
He didn't pick on 'Dickensian slums' because the novellist wrote a century later than Smith about the towns of the industrial revolution, not about anything Adam Smith knew about.
In Glasgow, where he was teaching in the 1750s and early 1760s, it was a 'garden city', smaller than Edinburgh, with a sea port and warehouses, not industrial slums.
In Edinburgh, where he lived from 1788-90, the Old Town was unique in the nature of the intermingling of the very poorest with the richer middle class and aristocracy in the same apparment buildings or next door to them.
Pomposity comes from speaking about that which you know too little to impress those who know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Gavin Kennedy | May 16, 2008 2:21:02 AM
"If I write anymore, I'll be guilty of the same pomposity as Smith." - Trumpit
If you'd written even less, you'd have spared us all your muirdiocy.
Posted by: brotio | May 16, 2008 4:18:35 AM
In the 11th century, the demands for charcoal of the Song Dynasty (960-1279) Chinese iron industry led to widespread deforestation.[6] With the advent of coal replacing charcoal in the iron smelting process, thousands of acres of prime timberland were spared in China.[6] China remained the world's largest producer and consumer of coal until the 18th century. - Wikipedia
The Chinese created their own environmental disasters even in the 11th century causing "widespread deforestation." Sadly, Smith didn't have Wikipedia handy, or else he would have realized that humans for the most part create their own misery, with greed Capitalism being the main engine for environmental destruction worldwide. The foolish Chinese government gave in to the greed system to rapidly enrich a small group at the expense of the nation's land, water, and air, fouling it wherever Capitalism encroaches. If there was any wisdom in old Smithy, then why hasn't it been successfully applied to make the world a better place to live in. Bushshit and Reaganomics is the out growth of laissez-faire, and look at the heinous inequity that it has caused. The Fed has to constantly labor to fend off economic collapse both domestically and internationally. Greed hurts and the greedy are to blame. Rest in peace, old dotty Smithy; I'm sorry you weren't more up on 11th century Chinese "coal" history or perhaps you would have recognized your folly . Your present-day followers are too greedy and blind to see your numerous shortcomings. We are living the nightmare that those misguided, misinterpreted beliefs have fostered. Global Warming should be your epitaph.
Posted by: Trumpit | May 16, 2008 11:41:14 AM
Trumpit
You seem to be selective in your assessment of modern living. Wikipedia is a product of modern technology unknown earlier than a few years ago. Before its creation, its benefits were denied to everyone, not just Adam Smith, including your good self.
Capitalism was unknown to Adam Smith; he neither knew the phenomenon nor the word (first used in English in 1854: Thackeray’s novel, The Newcomes).
Laissez faire has nothing to do with Adam Smith; he knew the words and knew the men who advocated them as a system (the French Physiocrats) but never used them in the million words he published. He favoured a commercial political economy, under the rule of law and liberty, and did not favour rule by ‘merchants and manufacturers’, to which you can add rule by legislators influenced by protectionists.
He recognised that legal intervention was necessary to prevent monopolists restricting competition and raising prices; he did not favour wars for colonies, nor wars over jealousies of trade. He favoured the spread of opulence to the labourers from economic growth.
His moral philosophy specifically rejected licentious systems of ‘greed’ and he considered selfishness and greed as anathema to the harmony of society.
You confuse him with Bernard Mandeville (Fable of the Bees, 1704-1724). In fact it is clear that you have a lot of reading to do before pontificating on the causes of the current problems of life on earth.
Capitalism may have many defects, but it is the least worst of the practical alternatives that have been tried and of those advocated by some for trial.
Posted by: Gavin Kennedy | May 16, 2008 3:45:06 PM
I wish I had a dime for every time some self-described "libertarian" has called me a "socialist" for advocating some policy advocated by Adam Smith.
Posted by: Martin Brock | May 17, 2008 9:28:40 AM
We'd be rich I tellz you! (and Libertarians poor)
Posted by: Gil | May 17, 2008 10:56:20 AM
Capitalism may have many defects, but it is the least worst of the practical alternatives that have been tried and of those advocated by some for trial.
My problem with this statement is that "capitalism" is far too vague. Is capitalism what we have in the U.S. or what the Canadians have or what the Swedes have or what the Chinese have? Is the U.S. with a progressive consumption tax "not capitalist"?
Posted by: Martin Brock | May 17, 2008 1:58:53 PM
The "man within" or "reason, principle, conscience" or "the great judge and arbiter of our conduct" is your connection to your species. Biology and Darwin can explain this-I will post more on a related item on my blog one of these days.
The desire to preserve your species or your tribe is more important than trying to preserve yourself. Why? What is a single individual of a species to do living all alone by himself/herself? They know that they will perish. You are genetically programmed to protect your species (against another species. In a war between tribes of the same species, you will kill individuals of the other tribes. In the modern day these tribes are called countries).
That is the reason one wont kill a hundred million Chinese to save their finger. Would you kill a hundred million ducks? Probably not. The same reason is there-all life forms are connected-and you will feel lower and lower bonds as the life form becomes less connected with you.
Would you burn 100 million stalks of dry grass to save your finger? You probably would.
See the connection?
The "higher self" of Adam Smith, the "Moral man" is your genetic affinity to your own species in disguise.
Sanjay
www.sanjayjohn.com
Posted by: Sanjay "John" Gandhi | May 18, 2008 10:07:50 PM
