Adam Smith Theory of Moral Sentiments Introduction Why

Adam Smith Theory of Moral Sentiments

Introduction • Why are we studying Smith: what can someone who died over 200 years ago have to say to us? • Links to this course: what are we all up to this semester, last semester? – Last semester: an introduction to the social world by examining concrete issues, centering around poverty

– This semester: focus on how people think about the social world – “Race for the Double Helix”, “On Being a Scientist”; as ways of talking about how science is done, and stressing its social dimensions

– Kuhn, and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; the notions of paradigm and scientific revolution, to help us understand what it is we can say about the social world – “Groupthink”, as a way to help us understand human conduct as it occurs in small groups

– Metaphors We Live By; a way to understand that, in large part, we communicate by metaphor; it is a major way in which we provide order for society – Metaphor and story (along with facts and logic) as ways of imposing order on what we see happening around us: that is, as ways of doing science

Smith and This Framework • The social world as – Human conduct and behavior, as • Individuals • Groups – A set of events, processes, organizations, and rules of conduct that humans generate

• Niels Bohr: “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature. . We are suspended in language. . . The word ‘reality’ is also a word, a word we must learn to use correctly. ”

• Smith, and – His use of rhetoric to talk about the social world – His use of metaphor in thinking about the social world – As providing a new paradigm – As an “exemplar”

• As part of a long-standing conversation about the social world: – What’s society like? – Where did it come from? – Where is it going?

• More specifically: How is human society possible if the individuals comprising society make decisions based on selfinterest? Is it possible to reconcile individual, social interests? • Theory of Moral Sentiments: approaches this question from the perspectives of psychology, ethics

• Why read the original? – People make many claims about what Smith said; are those claims correct? – “Seeing the struggle”

Some Background • The Eighteenth Century “Climate of Opinion”: Newton’s influence • Smith, and doing for the social world what Newton did for the natural world: – Why order, not chaos? – Is there an underlying principle (Newton, and gravity) and a story connecting that principle with what we see around us?

• Hume, Hutcheson, and the Scottish Enlightenment • Reaction against Hobbes • Ancient philosophy, especially the Stoics

• Smith’s project: a comprehensive social science • Theory of Moral Sentiments as fitting into this project: provides – A psychology – An ethical framework – A way to help us understand the evolution of institutions

Smith and Human Nature • Following Aristotle and many others: Humans are meant to live in society • Concern for what’s virtuous: how do we determine the propriety of an action? – Motives – Consequences – Locus in agent, recipient of action

• Goal: Find the basis for ethical judgments in human psychology • Begin with idea of propensities (tendencies; dispositions; sentiments) to act in certain ways if placed in certain situations

• Generates an ethic: Smith sees moral feelings as a sufficient basis for moral judgments • That is: we judge an action as wrong when we have a feeling of disapproval when we consider that action • We might say: humans construct society on the basis of some kind of moral philosophy

• The idea of propriety – Smith’s way of talking about whether or not an action is “right” – In judging propriety we judge the appropriateness of the motives for the action to the agent’s (actor’s) situation

• The motive as a sentiment-a feeling: anger; love; gratitude • Why feel this sentiment? Because of something in the situation • Was the anger (for example) proportionate to the provocation? And how do we decide? • We imagine – Being in the same situation – What my reaction would be

• Thus, we – Approve another’s action if it is one with which we can sympathize – Do not approve if we can not “enter into” the feelings motivating the act

• This helps us understand Smith’s idea of sympathy, as a way of understanding how humans make moral judgements – Is it equivalent to “I feel your pain”? – A sense of “fellow-feeling”

– Importance of imagination: Putting ourselves in the place of another – Or: Entering into another point of view – Continued stress on humans as social; sympathy as a social act: If we can’t sympathize with one another, we can’t live together

• This is a way to judge the actions of others; How do we judge our own actions? – Begin again with certain tendencies of human nature: • To want others to feel toward us in a way consistent with the way we feel about ourselves • To want to be worthy of approval by others

– We can feel the motivating feeling for the action – Could another person (specifically: could an impartial spectator ) go along with this feeling? – That is: someone • Well-informed about the situation • But not related in any particular way to any of the persons in this situation

– So: I can approve of my act if the Impartial Spectator can sympathize with the feelings motivating my action – I must disapprove of my act if the Impartial Spectator can not sympathize with the feelings motivating my action

– To decide whether the Impartial Spectator would approve, what must I do? • Imagine myself in the Spectator’s place • Then imagine myself (as the Spectator) imagining the agent’s (that is, my own!) feelings • Then decide whether this Spectator (this imaginary person) could enter into those (that is, my) feelings. • Robert Burns, and “To a Louse”

– What’s required here? • Adequate knowledge of the situation of the actor • Impartiality; fairness; detachment; as the perspective for judgment • Sympathy • Imagination – These judgments always have a social reference

• What else can we say about the notion of the Impartial Spectator? – Is it the same as conscience? Smith says no; rather, is a way to explain where conscience might come from • We come to judge our own conduct by imagining whether an impartial spectator would approve or disapprove of it

• That is: conscience is a social product; a mirror of social feeling • Helps understand how conscience might be formed • Basis in our desire to be thought to be praiseworthy – Is it the same as social norms? Maybe not: • Not an actual bystander • Rather: myself, but in the character of an imagined spectator

• The person within (the Impartial Spectator) may judge differently from the person without (the actual spectator) – Linked to • Existence of imagination • Our social situation

– Do we need to appeal to some higher, or external, standard in judging someone’s motives? Smith says no: • No higher principles by which we can correct a perception: there are only other perceptions • No independent, abstract standard of propriety • We can only ask: would a well-informed, impartial human feel the same way?

– So: Moral judgments the product of interaction of • Human faculties • The social environment – That is, morality is natural: a part of human nature, being anchored in the moral sentiments – As well as being social: moral judgments can be rendered only by taking on the other’s point of view

Moral Rules • Will the Impartial Spectator be sufficient to assure moral conduct; to guarantee that society doesn’t degenerate into the “war of all against all”? • Potential problem: Hard to judge our own actions impartially! The existence of selfdeceit

• How to proceed? Role for, importance of, moral rules – Rules as generalizations based on our attempts to sympathize with particular actions – That is: based on experience of what, in particular instances, our moral faculties. . . approve or disapprove of – A role here for reason

– Moral rules formed by experience: that all actions of a certain kind are (dis-)approved of. – And they are supported by habit; education; and the state, by providing justice • Why obey such rules? – Our desire to be praiseworthy – Threat of God’s punishment

On Virtue • Why be virtuous? Concern for the approval of others • From society’s point of view: virtue as limiting the pursuit of self-interest • Again: goal is to find a basis for ethical judgments in human psychology

• What’s virtue? Smith considers several dimensions: – Prudence – Benevolence – Justice – Self-command • Morality requires a balance among these dimensions

• Prudence – Practical wisdom: the ability to make the right decision in particular situations – Basic concern: our own happiness – Self-love; achieving the necessary conditions for self-preservation: food; clothing; shelter – The strongest motive

• Benevolence – Concern for the happiness of others – The highest motive of human behavior – An “. . . ornament embellishing the building. . . “ – How far does benevolence extend: can we rely on it for virtuous action? The orders of concern

• Justice – Prudence, benevolence as necessary but not sufficient conditions for achieving human virtue – Why? Humans as potentially unruly; must be held within bounds (the Hobbesian problem) – The most important rules of behavior for social order, stability

– Point: Unclear that society can emerge from humans acting on principle of self-love – What problems arise as we move from the individual to small groups to large groups (civil society)? – Justice as society’s means of self-defense against opportunistic behavior; a way to make sure the race is fair

• Self-Command – We may think of this as strength of character – One of the Stoic virtues – Smith’s way to talk about how the Impartial Spectator’s judgments are to be enforced

– Generated by the sense of propriety, under the guidance of the Impartial Spectator – That is: the Impartial Spectator creates the respect for other people that prevents our own intemperate behavior

In the End. . . • Can self-interest be worthy of moral approval? – Frugality often approved of – The “watch passage”, and the “unanticipated consequences of purposive individual action”: the Invisible Hand at work

• Existence of a Design – The Newtonian paradigm applied to the social world; sympathy replacing gravity as the organizing principle – The machine metaphor – A scientific study of morality; a commonsensical, accessible analysis; a realistic view of human nature

• The Enlightenment project – Knowledge accessible through observation, human reason – Not just from received doctrine

• Reconciliation of private, common good – Is benevolence enough? Human frailty and the failure to realize the Design – Theory of Moral Sentiments as a guide for approximating the Design: a second-best solution

• Role for government: Does Nature generate social harmony? – Necessity for rules, and the state • To create, preserve order in human interactions • Factional interests could interfere with the operation of the invisible hand

– How do such rules/institutions evolve? “Moral sentiments as having adaptive significance” – Associated dangers: can we construct a planned utopia?