We are what's left

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: We are what's left
by Forstater, Mathew
02 April 2002 18:21 UTC

clip-

Now, there is no doubt that in the TMS, Smith explicitly criticized
those who view self-interest as the source of all 'affections and
sentiments' as
suffering from 'some confused misapprehension of the system of
sympathy.'
And that, for Smith, 'sympathy' (what we today call empathy) is the
"effective cement of society".  So, if one argues that self-interest is
the prime motivator for Smith in the WN, then they must be arguing for
the old 'Das Adam Smith problem'--that the two works are inconsistent.

-clip-

Macfie, argues that when Smith's notion of empathy is combined with the
reason of the 'impartial spectator' (something like 'conscience'), the
result is a "rational sympathy" (or "sympathetic reason"), from which
arise the social codes and rules of behavior necessary if "*proper* self
regard" is to benefit the community.


^^^^^^^^

CB: Could the "impartial spectator" and the institutions creating the social rules and codes of behavior include  holistic overall planners and coordinators of the social and economic whole, within Smith's conception ? What is to be done about the anarchy of production that results from the pursuit of self-interested behavior ? In other words , the proposition that self-interested behavior results in some socially desirable outcomes , does not contradict the proposition that self-interested behavior simultaneously results in socially undesirable outcomes, such as lack of fit between supply and demand, mass poverty  etc.  That " it ( is not) always the
worse for the society that it was no part of it ", many times society is the worst for not being part of the decisions.  What about organizing society holistically to take care of these,limit self-interested behavior's anti-social consequences ? Would Smith oppose this dreaded "centralized" planning, or planning from the "center of the circle "  ?

^^^^^^^^


The analysis goes on... The upshot is that self-interested behavior
*may*
result in socially desirable outcomes *if* it is moderated by
self-control
and socially responsible adherence to other social rules and codes of
behavior (Smith's 'self-command' and 'sense of duty'). Thus, the _Theory
of Moral Sentiments_ lays out the institutional framework necessary for
a
'society of perfect liberty' (not to be confused with perfect
competition) and the _Wealth of Nations_ assumes that framework in its
discussion of the 'self-interested' economic actor. In Heilbroner's
terms, TMS is about the 'socialization of the individual' and WN is
about the consequences of socialized individual action within the
institutional framework of a 'society of perfect liberty'. Excessive
greed is socially undesirable. As a NY Times piece put it a couple years
ago, "Adam Smith ain't no Gordon Gekko."


-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky [mailto:sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 9:51 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:24575] RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left

"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and
it
is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be
more
likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and
show
them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires
of
them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do
this.
Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is
the
meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain
from
one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in
need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the
baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their
self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their
advantages."

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he
intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a
manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his
own
gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible
hand to
promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own
interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually
than
when he really intends to promote it."