1

ADialecticalReadingofAdamSmithonWealthandHappiness

ErikW.Matson

NewYorkUniversity,DepartmentofEconomics

ForthcomingintheJournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization

Abstract:InthisessayIconsidertherelationshipbetweenwealthandhappinessinAdamSmithbyaclosereadingofafamoussectionofTheTheoryofMoralSentiments(TMSIV.i.8-10).IinterpretSmithaspresentinganopen-endeddialecticbetweenthepursuitofwealthandthepursuitofhappinesswiththegoalofcontributingtohisreaders’moraleducation.WithinthedialecticSmithplacessomeimportantsocialanalysis,whichheusestostimulatereflectionandsynthesis.Uponreflectionandobservationofthetensionswithinthepassagesandthelargerscopeofhisworks,Smithpushesthereadertoconfrontaquestion:giventheknowledge—knowledgethatoneacquiresuponreadingTMSIV.i.8-10—that(1)peopletendtobedeceivedintothinkingthatpursuingandacquiringwealthwillmakethemhappy,andthat(2)actingontheirdeceptionhasbeneficialunintendedconsequences,howshouldoneproceedinone’sownpursuitofwealthandhappiness?

JELCodes:B12,B31,D01

Keywords:AdamSmith,happiness,wealth,moraleducation,prudence

Acknowledgements:I’mgratefultoJohnAlcorn,RichardBoyd,SteveEaly,BrentOrrell,MarioRizzo,andthreeanonymousrefereesfortheirhelpfulcomments.IthankJaneShawStroupforherexcellentcopyediting.

2

ThatSmithshouldattributetoalmostalleconomicactorsanillusionthatgreaterwealthyieldsgreatersatisfaction,anillusionthatisperhapsneverpierced,isoneofhisgreatestidiosyncrasies.

GeorgeStigler(1976,1207)

1.Introduction

TherelationshipbetweenwealthandhappinessinSmithisapuzzlewithimportant

bearingforhisintellectualproject.InTheWealthofNations,Smithdefendsapoliticaland

economicsystemofnaturalliberty.1Insodoing,hemorallyauthorizesindividualsto

pursueandacquirewealthinanefforttobettertheircondition.ButinTheTheoryofMoral

Sentiments,herepeatedlyconnectsthepursuitofwealthwithunhappiness,self-deception,

andmoralcorruption.ThepuzzleisreinforcedbythefactthatSmithseemstotakethe

happinessofcitizensasthemaincriterionbywhichpoliticalandeconomicsystemsshould

bejudged.Ashesays,“allconstitutionsofgovernment,however,arevaluedonlyin

proportionastheytendtopromotethehappinessofthosewholiveunderthem”(TMS

IV.i.11).DanielDiatkine(2010)suggeststhatthesemattersconstitute“anewversionofthe

AdamSmithProblem,”whichonceagaincallsintoquestion“thedegreetowhichSmith’s

twobooksarecompatible,and,moregenerally,thequestionofhoweconomicsrelatesto

moralphilosophy”(384;italicsoriginal).Givenhisconcernforindividuals’happiness,how

canSmithconsistentlysupportliberalsocietywhileassertingthatwealth-seekingtendsto

1 References to The Theory of Moral Sentiments, hereafter “TMS,” are to Smith (1982b), followed by part, section, [when one exists], chapter, and paragraph. References to The Wealth of Nations, hereafter “WN,” are to Smith (1981), followed by book, chapter, part, and paragraph.

3

produceunhappiness,leavingpeople“asmuch,andsometimesmoreexposedthanbefore,

toanxiety,tofear,andtosorrow;todiseases,todanger,andtodeath”(TMSIV.i.8)?

Thequestionhasbeenansweredinvariousways.CharlesGriswold(1999,222-227)

arguesthatSmithseesthepursuitofwealthasironicallyleadingtotheunhappinessof

some,butthegoodofthemany.HepointstohowSmithseesthepursuitofwealthas

leadingtoscientificprogress,economicdevelopment,andrefinementinthearts—all

thingswhichcontributetotheflourishingofcivilizationovertime.SamuelFleischacker

(2004)takesissuewithGriswold’sinterpretation,suggestingthatheexacerbatesthe

apparenttensioninSmith’sposition:“IfGriswold’sinterpretationisright,Smithurgesus

throughoutTMStoseethepursuitofwealthasmorallycorruptingandconduciveto

unhappiness,butalsoapplaudsasocialsystemthatdependsupon,andencourages,that

verypursuit.Thisdoesn’tmakesense”(104).ByprivilegingSmith’sanalysisinWN,

FleischackerarguesthatforSmithitisinfactonlythepursuitofwealthfortheself-

deceivedsakeofvanitythatendsinunhappiness.Heseestheretobeamodest,positive

relationshipbetweenproperlycultivatedwealthandhappinessinSmith.Dennis

Rasmussen(2008)takesadifferentapproach,explainingSmith’sviewbyemphasizingthe

tendencyofcommercialsocietyto“[pave]thewaytowardlibertyandsecurity...thereby

removingthegreatobstaclestohappiness”(38).RasmussendrawsonSmith’sanalysisin

WN(whichitselfexplicitlydrawsfromHume’sHistoryofEngland)ofthetransitionoutof

feudalisminEnglandtowardsanintegrated,stablepoliticalorder.Thistransition,

accordingtoSmithandHume,wasinlargeparttriggeredbyatransformationofnobles’

interests,instantiatedbytheirdemandforluxurygoods.Rasmussen’sviewcanperhaps

seenasaclarificationanddevelopmentofGriswold:thepursuitofwealthmaywellleadto

4

unhappinessforsomeindividuals,butitnaturallytendstosecureaninstitutional

frameworkoflibertyandsecurityinwhichpeoplehavethefreedomtopursuehappiness

astheyseefit.

InthepresentessayIreconsiderthesemattersbypresentingaclosereadingofone

ofthemostrelevantsetofpassagesinSmith’scorpus:TMSIV.i.8-10.Thesepassages

containthecentralexpressionofSmith’swealthandhappinesspuzzle.Herehe

dramaticallyspeaksofwealthandgreatnessasnothingbut“operosemachines”readyto

“crushinruinstheirunfortunatepossessor”(IV.i.8).Yettwoparagraphslaterhecuriously

maintainsthatitisnonetheless“well”thatNaturedeceivesusintopursuingwealthinlight

ofitssocialeffects(IV.i.10).Thetensionhereatthesurfaceofthetextwarrantsclose

attention.Smith’slanguageinthepassages,moreover,suggeststhatheisdirectlyengaging

withRousseau,Mandeville,andHumeinalargerdiscourseonwealthandvirute.Istvan

HontandMichaelIgnatieff(1983)claimRousseautobe“animportantifunavowed

interlocuter”inthesepassages(seealsoRasmussen2008,88–89).AlongwithMandeville’s

importanceinthegeneralcontextoftheeighteenth-centuryluxurydebate(seeBerry1994,

126–34),theeditorsoftheGlasgoweditionofTMSsuggestthatSmith’smentionof

“operosemachines”inTMSIV.i.8specificallyconnectstoMandeville’sdiscussionof

“operosecontrivances”inhisFableoftheBees(inSmith1982b,182n4).Smith’sgeneral

engagementwithHumethroughoutTMSIViswell-known.MatsonandDoran(2017)point

tosomeadditionaltextualconnectionsbetweenTMSIV.i.8-10andthefamousconclusion

toBookIofHume’sTreatiseofHumanNature.

5

IinterpretSmithinthesepassagesaspresentinganopen-endeddialecticbetween

thepursuitsofwealthandhappinessthatheleavestothereadertosynthesizeinthe

broadercontextofhisthought.Inotherwords,IcontendthatSmith’sintentionsinthese

passageshaveasignificantpedagogicaldimension:Smithdrawsoutanaturaltension

betweenthedesireandpursuitofwealthandthedesireandpursuitofhappinesswiththe

goaloffacilitatinghisreaders’moraleducation.2Hebeginsbyillustrating,throughthe

storyofthepoorman’sson,howournaturaldriveforwealthandstatuscanleadusto

overestimatethecontributionsofwealthtoourhappiness,causingustosacrifice

tranquilityandenjoyment.Hecontinuesbyanalyzingthesocialeffectsofthesenatural

drives.Hepointsoutthatourdesireforwealth,andespeciallythestatusthatwealth

brings,leadstomaterialprosperity,technologicaldevelopment,and,ashepointsoutina

numberofothercontexts,politicalstability(fordiscussion,seeHill2012).Thepedagogical

dimensionofthepassagesimplicitlyplacesthissocialanalysisincontext,firstwithinthe

surroundingpassages,andthenwithinthewiderframeofhiscorpus.Smithpusheshis

readerstoconfrontthefollowingquestion:Giventheknowledge—theknowledgethatone

acquiresuponreadingTMSIV.i.8-10—(1)thatpeopletendtobedeceivedintothinking

thatpursuingandacquiringwealthwillultimatelymakethemhappy,and(2)thattheir

deceptionhasbeneficialunintendedsocialconsequences,howshouldoneproceed?Put

differently,howshouldtherecognitionofbothourtendencytobedeceivedandtheeffects

2 For some comments on the role of moral education in TMS, see Hanley (2009); Otteson (2002, 227-239); Griswold (1999, 210-217).

6

ofactinguponthattendencyaffectourongoingattitudesanddecisionsconcerningourown

pursuitsofwealthandhappiness?

2.AsummaryofTMSIV.i.8-10

InTMSVII.iii.3Smithanalyzes“thosesystemswhichmakesentimenttheprinciple

ofapprobation.”Hedisassociateshismoralphilosophywiththemoralsensetraditionof,

amongothers,ShaftesburyandHutcheson.Intheprocesshepresentsasuccinctsummary

ofhisownaccountoftheprocessofmoralapproval:

Whenweapproveofanycharacter,thesentimentswhichwefeel,are,accordingto

theforegoingsystem,derivedfromfoursources,whichareinsomerespects

differentfromoneanother.First,wesympathizewiththemotivesoftheagent;

secondly,weenterintothegratitudeofthosewhoreceivethebenefitofhisactions;

thirdly,weobservethathisconducthasbeenagreeabletothegeneralrulesby

whichthosetwosympathiesgenerallyact;and,lastofall,whenweconsidersuch

actionsasmakingapartofasystemofbehaviourwhichtendstopromotethe

happinesseitheroftheindividualorofthesociety,theyappeartoderiveabeauty

fromthisutility,notunlikethatwhichweascribetoawell-contrivedmachine.(TMS

VII.iii.3.16)

ThesefoursourcesofmoralapprovalcorrespondtothefirstfourpartsofTMS.PartI,“Of

theProprietyofAction,”treatstheissueofassessingmotivation;PartII,“OfMeritand

Demerit,”treatstheissueofgratitudeandresentment;PartIII,“OftheFoundationofour

7

JudgmentsconcerningourownSentimentsandConduct,andoftheSenseofDuty,”treats

theissueofgeneralmoralrules;andPartIV,“OftheEffectofUtilityupontheSentimentof

Approbation,”treatsutility.ItisnoteworthythatTMSIV.i.8-10comestowardtheendof

Smith’saccountofthesourcesofmoralapproval.Afterworkingthroughthefirstthreeand

ahalfpartsofthebook,whichdescribehisaccountoftheoperationofourfacultiesof

moralapproval,perhapsSmithcanbeseeninthesepassagesasdrawinghisreadersto

reflectandapplywhattheyhavelearned.

TMSIV.i.8-10beginsinparagraph8withastoryofapoorman’sson,“whomheaven

initsangerhasvisitedwithambition.”Thepoorman’sson“admirestheconditionsofthe

rich,”thinkingthatifhehimselfweretoobtainpowerandriches,“hewouldsitstill

contentedly,andbequiet,enjoyinghimselfinthethoughtofthehappinessandtranquility

ofhissituation.”Tothatend,hesubmitshimselfto“fatigueofbody”and“uneasinessof

mind.”He“servesthosewhomhehates,andisobsequioustothosewhomhedespises.

Throughthewholeofhislifehepursuestheideaofacertainartificialandelegantrepose

whichhemayneverarriveat,forwhichhesacrificesarealtranquilitythatisatalltimesin

hispower.”Butattheendofhislife,thepoorman’ssoncomestoaprofoundandtragic

realization:“wealthandgreatness,”whichhehasspenthiswholelifepursuing,“aremere

trinketsoffrivolousutility,nomoreadaptedforprocuringeaseofbodyortranquilityof

mindthanthetweezer-casesoftheloveroftoys.”Uponthisrealization,he“curses

ambition,andvainlyregretstheeaseandindolenceofyouth,pleasureswhicharefledfor

ever.”Tohim,inhispresentstateofmind,“powerandrichesappearthentobe,whatthey

are,enormousandoperosemachines...readyeverymomenttoburstintopieces,andto

crushtheirunfortunatepossessor.”

8

SmithmovesintoIV.i.9andoffersaninitiallevelofcommentary.Hespeaksofthe

poorman’sson’sendviewofpowerandrichesasapartofa“spleneticphilosophy,which

intimeofsicknessorlowspiritsisfamiliartoeveryman.”Smithsaysthesplenetic

philosophy“entirelydepreciatesthosegreatobjectsofhumandesire,”which“whenin

betterhealthandhumour,”weviewunder“amoreagreeableaspect.”Hesaysthat“in

timesofeaseandprosperity”ourimagination“expandsitselftoeverythingaroundus.”To

ourmoreelevatedandengagedimaginations,“thepleasuresofwealthandgreatness”

strikeus“assomethinggrandandbeautifulandnoble,ofwhichtheattainmentiswell

worthallthetoilandanxietywhichwearesoapttobestowuponit.”

InIV.i.10Smithofferssomeglobalcommentary.Hesays,“Anditiswellthatnature

imposesuponusinthismanner[i.e.,themannerelaboratedinIV.i.8].Itisthisdeception

whichrousesandkeepsincontinualmotiontheindustryofmankind.”Nature’sdeception

drovemankind“tocultivatetheground,tobuildhouses,tofoundcitiesand

commonwealths,andtoinventandimprovealltheartsandscience.”3Asaconsequenceof

mankind’spursuitofwealth,theearth“hasbeenobligedtoredoublehernaturalfertility,

andtomaintainagreatermultitudeofinhabitants.”Smithbrieflyproposestheeconomic

mechanismbywhichsuchdevelopmentoccurs:Ambitiousandaspiringindividualswho

pursuepowerandrichesfortheirownends,e.g.,“theproudandunfeelinglandlord,”are

deceivedinthinkingthattheywillreapthebenefitsofthe“wholeharvest”oftheir

“extensivefields.”Butgiventheirlimitedphysicalcapacityforconsumptionoffood,andthe

3 This line in particular seems to engage with Rousseau, drawing on language from his Discourse on Inequality. See Hont and Ignatieff (1983, 10); Rasmussen (2008, 88-89).

9

needtohirelabortomaintaintheirestatesastheygrow,theyare“obligedtodistribute”

muchoftheirmaterialwealth“amongthose,whoprepare,inthenicestmanner,thatlittle

which[theythemselvesmake]useof...allofwhomthusderivefrom[their]luxuryand

caprice,thatshareofthenecessariesoflife.”

Afewlineslaterappearsthefirstofthetwopublished“invisiblehand”passagesin

Smith’swork.4Smithsaysthattheserich

areledbyaninvisiblehandtomakenearlythesamedistributionofthenecessaries

oflife,whichwouldhavebeenmade,hadtheearthbeendividedintoequalportions

amongallitsinhabitants,andthuswithoutintendingit,withoutknowingit,advance

theinterestofsociety,andaffordmeanstothemultiplicationofthespecies.5

SmithconcludesIV.i.10byremarkingthatprovidence,throughthedescribedinvisiblehand

mechanism,“neitherforgotnorabandonedthosewhoseemedtohavebeenleftoutinthe

partition.Theselasttooenjoytheirshareofallthatitproduces.”Heendstheparagraphon

acuriousnote,apparentlyremarkingthatthepoorarenotmuchworseoffthantherich:

“Ineaseofbodyandpeaceofmind,allthedifferentranksoflifearenearlyuponalevel,and

thebeggar,whosunshimselfbythesideofthehighway,possessesthatsecuritywhich

kingsarefightingfor.”

4 There is a third “invisible hand” passage in Smith’s posthumously published essay on the history of astronomy.

5 For a helpful interpretation of the implicit economic model underlying the invisible hand in TMS, see Brewer (2009).

10

ThefinalsentenceofIV.i.10hasbeenthesubjectofcriticism.ItmotivatesMartha

Nussbaum(2000),inanarticleontheinfluenceofCicero,toclaimthatSmithis“prepared

toletthemarketdoitsworstwithlittleconstraint,partlybecausehebelievesthatthepoor

donotsufferattheirverycore,retainingadignitythatlife’sblowscannotremove.”

PartiallyinresponsetoNussbaum’sclaim,Fleischacker(2004,108)disavowsTMSIV.i.8-

10,arguingthatthepassagesexpressviewsthatSmithdidnotholdinhismatureyears.6

ThomasMartin(2014),however,arguesthatthereisinfactmoretothefinalsentencein

TMSIV.i.10thanmeetstheeye.HesuggeststhatSmith’smentionofthebeggarsunning

himselfbytheroadisanallusiontothestoryofDiogenestheCynicandAlexanderthe

Great.OnMartin’sreadingthissentenceshouldbereadassayingthatkingsareoften

tacitlyfightingforthetranquilitypossessedbyDiogenesthephilosopher.Theimplicationis

thatSmithshouldnotbetakenhereasdiminishingthepainsofpoverty,sincethebeggar

hereferencesisactuallyaphilosopher,turnedbeggarbychoice.Smith’sdeepermessage

maywellbethatthemeansforhappinessareoften,thoughnotalways,alreadywithinour

power.ThepotentialallusionheretoDiogenesmayalsobetakenasasignalthatthe

underlyingmessageofthesepassagesismorecomplexthanitimmediatelyappears.

3.Theunresolveddialecticofwealthandhappiness

6 I find Fleischacker’s disavowal of TMS IV.i.8-10 difficult to sustain given that Smith substantially revised the book in 1790 and didn’t see fit to remove or alter the passages in any way. As Steve Ealy has suggested to me in conversation, we may consider the passages to be among Smith’s first and last words on political economy, published in 1759 and then again the end of his life in 1790—after his final edition of Wealth of Nations.

11

SpeakingofDavidHume’sapproachtophilosophy,DonaldLivingston(1984)says,

“philosophicalinsightisgainedbyworkingthroughthecontrarietiesofthoughtwhich

structureadramaofinquiry”(35).Livingston’scharacterizationofHume’sphilosophical

methodcaninthepresentcasebeusefullyappliedtoSmith.Indeed,Griswold(1999)

maintainsthatinTMSSmithoften“focusesourattentiononparticularsandexperienceand

attemptstogetusto‘see’thingsinacertainlightratherthansimplytoargueusinto

acceptingaphilosophicalposition”(61).InTMSIV.1.8-10Smithbuildsadramaofinquiry,

presentingadialecticbygettingusto‘see’twocontradictoryviewsontherelationship

betweenwealthandhappiness.

Smithpresentsthedialecticacrossthreephases—oneineachparagraph.Thefirst

phasepresentswhatI’llcallthe“spleneticview,”whichistheviewheldbythepoorman’s

sonattheendofhislife.Thesecondphasepresentswhatappearstobeourunreflective,

instinctive,orcommonsensicalview,whichI’llcallthe“activeview.”Thethirdphase

appearstoresolvethetensionbetweenthespleneticandactiveviewsbyselectingthe

activeviewasthemorenaturalperspective.Butthislastphaseactuallyendsup

reemphasizingthetensionsbetweenthesetwopointsofview.Thedialecticisnotresolved

inTMSIV;itisintentionallylefttothereadertoconsiderhisorherownpotentialsynthesis

inthelightoftherestofSmith’swork.

ThespleneticviewisoutlinedinTMSIV.1.8.Itistheviewthatcomesuponthepoor

man’sson“inthelanguorofdiseaseandthewearinessofoldage”when“thepleasuresof

thevainandemptydistinctionsofgreatnessdisappear.”Itleadsthepoorman’ssonto

regret:he“regretstheeaseandindolenceofyouth...whichhehasfoolishlysacrificedfor

12

what...canaffordhimnorealsatisfaction.”Theunderlyingmessageofthespleneticview

isthatpowerandriches—thingstowardwhichweunreflectivelyinclineandaroundwhich

weoftenorganizeourlivesandpurposes—distractusfromthethingsthattrulyenhance

ourwell-beingsuchascompanionship,reflection,andthepursuitofvirtue.Theuncertainty

inSmith’sconsiderationofthewealth-happinessrelationshipcomespartlyfromthefact

thatheunderstandstheplausibilityofthespleneticview.Hesays,“Inthismiserableaspect

doesgreatnessappeartoeverymanwhenreducedeitherbyspleenordiseasetoobserve

withattentionhisownsituation,andtoconsiderwhatitisthatisreallywantinginhis

happiness”(italicsadded).Fromthespleneticview,“powerandrichesappearthentobe,

whattheyare,enormousandoperosemachinescontrivedtoproduceafewtrifling

conveniences.”(italicsadded).Thislastsentenceisespeciallyinterestinginthatitshows

Smithhimselfassentingtothespleneticpointofview.Fromthespleneticviewpowerand

richesappearwhattheyare—i.e.,whatSmithhimselfunderstandsthemtobe!Againstour

unreflectiveviews,thespleneticviewpointstotherelativemeaninglessofwealthinthe

grandschemeofourlives.7

TheactiveviewappearsinTMSIV.i.9andmakesupthesecondphaseofSmith’s

dialectic.Theactiveviewascendswhenwearein“betterhealthandinbetterhumour.”

Wealthandgreatnessappearas“grandandbeautifulandnoble,ofwhichtheattainmentis

7 This point perhaps connects to Hume’s famous “melancholy and delirium” in the conclusion to his Treatise of Human Nature: “Smith notes that the poor man’s son’s view of the meaninglessness of wealth is a function of splenetic humor. Hume notes that his conviction of [skepticism] is likewise a function of spleneticism and over-reflective contemplation” (Matson and Doran 2017, 36). A proper outlook on wealth and a proper philosophical method each seem to require one to synthesize the logic of a splenetic view with a broader social or active perspective.

13

wellworthallthetoilandanxietywhichwearesoapttobestowuponit”(IV.i.9).Wealth

andhappinessnaturallyseemtobecomplementarypursuits.Whenweareengagedinour

dailybusiness,theideathatthereislittletonoconnectionbetweenourwealthandour

happinessseemsstrangeanddistant.Theactiveviewappearsnatural:“wenaturally

confound[thepursuitofwealthandgreatness]withtheorder,theregularandharmonious

movementofthesystem,themachineoroeconomybymeansofwhichitisproduced”

(IV.i.9).8Aswiththespleneticview,Smithappreciatesaspectsoftheactiveview.

ThroughoutTMSSmithemphasizestheimportanceofactiveandsocialperspectiveover

passivespeculation.Inconsideringthepropernessofanyparticularview,wedowellto

consulttheviewpointsofothers:“Societyandconversation,therefore,arethemost

powerfulremediesforrestoringthemindtoitstranquility,if,atanytime,ithas

unfortunatelylostit;aswellasthebestpreservativesofthatequalandhappytemper,

whichissonecessarytoself-satisfactionandenjoyment”(I.i.4.10).Althoughitmaybetrue

that“thedispositiontoadmire,andalmosttoworship,therichandpowerful...[is]the

greatandmostuniversalcauseofthecorruptionofourmoralsentiments”(I.iii.3.1),itis

alsotruethatourpassivefeelingsandspeculationsare“sordidandselfish”(III.3.4),

correctedonlybyactiveengagementandaparticipationin“theordinarycommerceofthe

world”(III.3.8).

8 Smith does always equate naturalness with goodness (see, e.g., Waterman 2002). As Spencer Pack (1991) has pointed out, “nature” in general (and especially in Smith), is “an extraordinarily rich, complex, contradictory, [and] no doubt dialectical concept” (32). “Nature” and “natural” in TMS IV.8-10 are especially difficult, being associated both with Providence (i.e., “when Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters” [IV.i.10]) and with something more like instinct.

14

Inthethirdphaseofthedialectic,whichoccupiesTMSIV.1.10,Smithoffersan

apparentresolutionthatinfactservestoheightenthetensionbetweenthespleneticand

activeviews.Inreferencetotheactiveview,Smithsays,“Anditiswellthatnatureimposes

uponusinthismanner.”PeterMinowitz(1993)rightlyasks,"Butwhyisit'well'that

naturehasdeceivedmankindintoceaseless'industry'(IV.1.10)?Don't'powerandriches'

leavetheirpossessorasmuchifnot'moreexposed'tofear,sorrow,danger,anddeath

(IV.I.8)”(125)?Putanotherway,thenaturalprevailingoftheactiveviewshouldonlybe

seenasbeneficialifthespleneticviewismisguidedorflawed.Butifthespleneticview

stands,ournaturalinclinationtowardtheactiveviewshouldn’tbeseenasbeneficialatall.

Ifpeoplewhopursuewealthendupbeingmiserablelikethepoorman’sson,andthefruits

oftheirindustrydon’treallycontributemuchtothehappinessofanyoneelse,whyisit

“well”thattheydosointhefirstplace?

Insum,Smith’sdialecticconsistsinbothaninitialcontrarietyandanattempted

resolutionofthatcontrariety,whichinfactservestointensifyratherthanresolvethe

originaltensions.SmithcontraststhespleneticandtheactiveviewsinTMSIV.1.8and

IV.1.9.Hebeginsbyleaningtowardthespleneticview,claimingthat“powerandriches

appearthentobe,whattheyare,enormousandoperosemachines”(IV.8).Hesubsequently

appearstoresolveinfavoroftheactiveviewattheoutsetofIV.1.10—“Anditiswellthat

natureimposesuponusinthismanner.”Buthisveryreferencetotheactiveviewasakind

ofimposition,andthenas“thisdeception”inthenextsentence,immediatelycallshis

apparentresolutionintoquestion.Indeed,ifonelooksclosely,theentiretyIV.1.10is,like

IV.1.8andIV.1.9,akindofback-and-forthbetweenthespleneticandactiveviews.Weare

leftwithagenuineandunresolveduncertaintyaboutthewealth-happinessrelationship.

15

Thediversityofperspectivesandpronounsemployedthroughouttheseparagraphs

reinforcetheirdialecticalstructure.Griswold(1999,50-52)considersperspectiveand

pronounvariationtobeasignificantpartofSmith’srhetoricalstrategyandapproachto

moralphilosophy,againpartofhisprogramtogetreadersto“see”fromdifferentvantage

points,tofullyenterintoparticularperspectivesandconsiderthemontheirownterms.

SmithbeginsTMSIV.1.8byspeakingfromtheperspectiveofthepoorman’sson,primarily

usingthepronouns“he”and“his.”Mixedintothelongparagraphisbutone“our”andtwo

instancesof“we.”The“our”servestodrawthereaderintotheparable,remindinghimof

hisaffinityandsharedtendencieswiththepoorman’sson:“Ofourownaccordwereadily

enterinto[theviewoftheconvenienceofpalaces,gardens,equipage,etc.],andby

sympathyenjoyandtherebyapplaudthesatisfactionwhichtheyarefittedtoaffordhim”

(italicsadded).Thetwousesof“we”intheparagraphseektopullthereaderbacktoa

pointofmoreabstractcontemplation:“weconstantlypaymoreregardtothesentimentsof

thespectator”and,inthenextsentence,“ifweexamine,however,whythespectator

distinguisheswithsuchgreatadmirationtheconditionoftherichandthegreat”(italics

added).Afterhisuseof“we”inIV.1.8,Smithturnsbacktotheperspectiveofthepoorman’s

son,tellinghow“inhishearthecursesambition”(italicsadded).Theninthefinal

sentences,Smithagainshiftsperspectives,adoptingadistanced,philosophicalvantage

pointfromwhichhecomments:“Inthismiserableaspectdoesgreatnessappeartoevery

manwhenreducedeitherbyspleenordisease.”

InIV.1.9,Smithreturnstospeakfrom“our”perspective.The“we”inthefirstthree

sentencesofIV.1.9is“we”quaactors,thatis,aninvocationofcommonwaysofactingand

thinkinginourregular,active,andsocialcontexts.“Wearecharmedwiththebeautyofthat

16

accommodationwhichreignsinthepalacesandoeconomyofthegreat”(italicsadded).

Halfwaythroughtheparagraph,however,Smithseemstoshifttheconnotationof“we”

towarda“we”ofphilosophers(Griswold1999,51),againseekingtodrawusintoan

abstractcontemplationofouractingselves:“ifweconsidertherealsatisfactionwhichall

thesethingsarecapableofaffording....”(italicsadded).InIV.1.10,Smithcontinuesto

speakfromtheperspectiveofa“we”ofphilosophers,saying,“Anditiswellthatnature

imposesuponusinthismanner.”ThroughouttherestofIV.1.10,thephilosophical“we”

perspectivelooms.

Griswold(1999)asks,“Whatisthepurposeoftheinterplayofperspectivesimplicit

inSmith’suseof[adiversityof]pronouns?Itleadsthereadertosee,first,thatthereareno

simpleanswers,thatfurtherquestionsandproblemsalwaysariseinethicalreflection,both

practicalandtheoretical”(52).Theobservationofthediversityofpronounsand

perspectivesinthesepassagessupportsthepointthatSmithisnotsimplyseekingtoargue

usintothespleneticviewortheactiveviewbutratherischallengingustoworkthrough

andsynthesizethedialecticonourownterms.

4.Luxuryandsocialscience

Eighteenth-centuryBritainsawanumberofremarkablesocialchanges.Inthe

decadesfollowing1688,afterthetumultuousseventeenthcentury,Englandbeganto

coalesceasastablepoliticalorder.Itdevelopedapowerfuladministrativestatewith

significantfiscal,legal,andmilitarycapacity.EnglandandScotlandlegallyjoinedtogether

inthe1706/1707ActsofUnion,creatinganewpoliticalandsocialspace.Amiddleclass

17

composedof“honestgentlemen”(touseHume’sterm)beganemergingtoformanew

economicandintellectualorder.Thesebroadsocialchangesandtheemergingintellectual

spacefosteredgrowingliteraryandphilosophicalcirclesinwhichideasaboutthetimes

werediscussed.Inlightofachangingsocial,political,andeconomiclandscape,a

particularlyimportantdiscussionconcernedtheideaof“luxury,”i.e.,seemingly

extravagantorunnecessaryconsumption,inconnectionwithvirtueandpoliticalpower.

AlthoughtheluxuryconversationstretchesatleastbacktoPlato,thereisevidencethatit

tookonaspecialintensityinBritaininthe1750’s—rightwhenSmithwrotethefirst

editionofTMS(Sekora1977,66;fordiscussionseeBrewer2009,521–24).

IntheclassicaltraditionofPlatoandAristotle,luxury,whichwasdefinedas

consumptionunnecessaryorsuperfluoustohumanpurpose,wasunderstoodbyitsvery

definitiontocorruptvirtueanddenigratehumanlifetothegratificationofbodilypleasures

(Berry1994,58).Itwasseenaspromotingeffeminacyattheexpenseofmartialspirit;it

wasseenasharmfultopoliticalandmilitarypowerandsocialorder.Modernthinkersin

theseventeenthandeighteenthcenturycriticallyengagedwithandreassessedthe

prevailingclassicalperspective.TwonotableaccountsforSmith’spurposeswere

MandevilleandHume’s.

Mandeville(1988)hadnodesiretodenythemoralviciousnessofluxury,whichhe

strictlydefinedas“everything...thatisnotimmediatelynecessarytomakeMansubsistas

heisalivingCreature”(107).Buthearguedthatluxurycould,ifproperlymanagedbythe

state,leadtooutcomesthatmostpeoplewouldagreewerebeneficial.Theseoutcomesin

particularwereeconomicgrowthandstatepower.Concerningeconomicgrowth,

18

Mandeville’smainpoint(laterseeminglyechoedbySmithinTMSIV)wasthatthedemand

forluxuriesnecessarilyemploys“amillionofthepoor”(107).Hethenbelievedthata

properlycontrolledtradebalancecouldtranslatethatgrowthintopoliticalpowerthrough

wealth.Mandeville’slong-lastingcontributioninthismatterwashisdecouplingofthe

traditionalpairingofbeneficialcausesandworthyeffects(Berry1994,128).

HumeembracedMandeville’sdecouplingofintentionsandoutcomes,butrejected

thecoreofhismoralevaluation.Heunderstoodthesignificationoftheterm“luxury”tobe

ambiguous;ageneralevaluationof“luxury”consumptionorthepursuitof“luxury”is

impossibleoutsideofone’sparticularsituationanditsmaterialandsocialconventions.

Second,heunderstoodthatalthoughtheindividualpursuitofwealthbeyondthenecessary

mightnotbevirtuous,itsetsinmotionasocialprocessbywhichtheconditionsbestsuited

fortheattainmentofvirtueandhappinessarerealized–thelibertyandruleoflaw

providedbythepoliticalandsocialframeworkofcommercialsociety(fordiscussion,see

Sabl2012,Chapter2).Humeunderstoodthat“industry,knowledge,andhumanity,are

linkedtogetherbyanindissolublechain,andarefound,fromexperienceaswellasreason,

tobepeculiartothemorepolished,and,whatarecommonlydenominated,themore

luxuriousages”(Hume1987,271;italicsoriginal).

MandevilleandHume’sperspectivesonluxuryilluminateSmith’sanalysisinTMS

IV.i.8-10.Smithdecouplestheconnectionbetweengoodintentionsandgoodoutcomesand

badintentionsandbadoutcomes.Hearguesthatevenmisguidedpursuitsofwealthhave

historicallyhadanimportantbeneficialaspect.Suchpursuitsledhumankind“tocultivate

theground,tobuildhouses,tofoundcitiesandcommonwealths,andtoinventandimprove

19

allthesciencesandarts”(IV.1.10).FromanhistoricalperspectiveSmithcansaythatitis

unambiguously“well”thatindividualswere“deceived”intopursuingwealthanditemsof

luxuryinthattheirdeceptionwasinstrumentalinbringingaboutimportanteconomic,

social,political,andmoraldevelopments.

InWNSmithdirectlybuildsonHume’stheoryofthe“indissolublechain”that

connectsindustry,knowledge,andhumanity(hementionsHumebynameinWNIII.iv).He

elaborateshisviewofthehistoricalprogressionthatimplicitlyunderwriteshisshort

analysisinTMSIV.i.10,describinghowluxurydemandandthepursuitofwealthled,at

leastintheBritishcase,totheemergenceofamoderncommercialsocietyoflibertyand

security.Inthepre-commercial,agrarianworld,consumptionoptionswerequitelimited—

allthatthefeudalbaronsandlordscoulddowiththesurplusproduceoftheirland,

accordingtoSmith,wasdirectlyconsumeitoruseittomaintain“amultitudeofretainers

anddependents”(WNIII.iv.5).Lordslargelyusedtheirsurplustosecuretheirownpolitical

andsocialauthoritybytyinganumberofdependentstothemselves,becomingthe“judges

inpeace,andtheleadersinwar,ofallwhodweltontheirestates”(WNIII.iv.7).Smith

continuesthat“theycouldorderandexecutethelawwithintheirrespectivedemesnes,

becauseeachofthemcouldthereturnthewholeforceofalltheinhabitantsagainstthe

injusticeofanyone”(WNIII.iv.7).ThecentralizedimpositionoffeudallawinEnglanddid

littletodiminishthepowerofthesegreatlords,and“theopencountry[inEngland]still

continuedtobeasceneofviolence,rapine,anddisorder[betweenlords,barons,etc.]”(WN

III.iv.9).

20

Whatchangedthepoliticalandsocialfabricofthecountryfromacollectionof

warringstatestoamoreintegratedpoliticalorderwastheintroductionofcommerceand

theextensionofthemarket.Luxuryitemsappearedtothelordsasasubstitutefor

maintainingretinuesofdependents;theseitemsbecamepreferablebecausetheir

consumptionwasperceivedtobeexcludable.9Butthepursuitoftheseluxurycommodities

hadunintendedconsequences—itcausedabreakdowninfeudalpowerstructuresand

createdanindependentmiddlingrankofmerchantsandartificers:

Forapairofdiamondbucklesperhaps,orforsomethingasfrivolousanduseless,

they[landlords,liketheonehespeaksofinTMSIV.i.10]exchangedthe

maintenance,orwhatisthesamething,thepriceofthemaintenanceofathousand

menforayear,andwithitthewholeweightandauthoritywhichitcouldgiveto

them....[For]thegratificationofthemostchildish,themeanestandthemost

sordidofallvanities,theygraduallybarteredawaytheirwholepowerandauthority.

(WNIII.iv.1)

Thepursuitofluxurygoodsgraduallybroketheconnectionbetweenthelordsandtheir

dependents.Theadministrationofjusticewasnolongercarriedoutbyindividualbarons

andlords.Thelocusofactuallegalpowershiftedupwardstowardthekingandthe

centralizedstate.Thelong-runresultinBritainwastheestablishmentofanintegrated

9 Note that the underlying psychology of the lords in Smith’s WN account is directly parallel to that of the selfish and rapacious landlord treated in the invisible hand passage in TMS IV.i.10. His description in WN elaborates the same principle: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they [the proprietors] could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other person” (WN III.iv.10).

21

politicalorderwithinwhichanetworkofmutuallybeneficialtransactionsbetween

independentpoliticalequalsreplacedthetraditionalnetworkofsubordination.Libertyand

securityemergedastheunintendedconsequenceofluxurypursuit.Smithreiteratesthe

point:

Havingsoldtheirbirth-right,notlikeEsauforamessofpottageintimeofhunger

andnecessity,butinthewantonnessofplenty,fortrinketsandbaubles,fittertobe

theplay-thingsofchildrenthantheseriouspursuitsofmen,they[theproprietors

andlords]becameasinsignificantasanysubstantialburgherortradesmaninacity.

Aregulargovernmentwasestablishedinthecountryaswellasinthecity,nobody

havingsufficientpowertodisturbitsoperationsintheone,anymorethaninthe

other.(WNIII.iv.16).

ItisalsoimportanttonotetheconnectionSmithseesinthesesectionsofWN

betweenluxurypursuitsandeconomicgrowth.10Hesaysinpassingthatduetothedivision

oflaborandextendingmarket,theproprietorsandlordscouldindirectlymaintain“as

greatorevenagreaternumberofpeoplethan[they]couldhavedonebytheantient

methodof[direct]expence”(WNIII.iv.11).Thepurchaseofadiamondbuckledirectly

supportsthemerchantfromwhomitispurchased,butindirectlysupportsawholehostof

artificersandlaborersthatcontributetotheproductionprocess.Smithelaboratesthe

directandunintendedindirectsupportofdifferentkindsofworkthatexchangeandthe

divisionoflaboraffordinhisdiscussionofthewoolencoatinWNI.i.ElsewhereinWN,and

10 For a detailed analysis of the role of luxury taste in Smith’s theory of economic development see Rosenberg (1968).

22

inclearconnectionwithTMSIV.i.10,Smithmakesarelatedpoint,sayingthat“thepoor,in

ordertoobtainfood,exertthemselvestogratifythosefanciesoftherich,andtoobtainit

morecertainly,theyviewithoneanotherinthecheapnessandperfectionoftheirwork”

(WNI.xi.c.7).Therich“havethecommandofmorefoodthantheythemselvescan

consume”andtradethesurplusawaytothepoorfor“theamusementofthosedesires

whichcannotbesatisfied,butseemtobealtogetherendless”(WNI.xi.c.7).Theendresult

ofthevainpursuitsoftherichisthehiringofmoreworkersandthedistributionofproduct

whichleadstoanincreaseinsustainablepopulationlevels.Thustheselfishnessandvanity

oftherich,ofthelordsandbaron,throughthemechanismofluxurydemand,inadvertently

leadstopoliticalstabilityandsecurityandpopulationandeconomicgrowth.

5.Onhappiness

SmithcloseshisdiscussioninWNonthemoveawayfromfeudalismtoward

commercialsocietybycommentingonitseffectonhappiness.Hespeaksofthecomingof

commercialsocietyas“arevolutionofthegreatestimportancetothepublickhappiness”

unintentionallybroughtaboutbyproprietorsandmerchants,neitherofwhom“hadeither

knowledgeorforesightofthatgreatrevolutionwhichthefollyoftheone,andtheindustry

oftheother,[would]graduallybringabout”(WNIII.iv.17).Thiscommentusefullysumsup

thethrustofSmith’ssocialanalysisinTMSIV.i.10.Inmovingthenfromthisimportant

pointtowardanattemptedsynthesisofthewealth-happinessdialecticitisusefulto

considertwoquestions:(1)HowdoesSmithconceiveofhappiness?(2)Whyexactlydoes

23

Smithviewthecomingofcommercialsocietyasarevolutionofthegreatestimportanceto

happiness,especiallyinlightofthespleneticpoleofhiswealth-happinessdialectic?

Happinessisanbroadconcept.11ItisaphenomenonthatSmithwouldlikely

consider“loose,vague,andindeterminate,”admittingofa“generalidea”butresisting

preciseformulation(TMSIII.6.11).Smithdoesn’ttreatthenotionofhappinessdirectlyor

systematicallyinhiswork.Butfromhisscatteredcommentswemightsaythathappiness

forSmithseemstohavethreeprincipalelements:(1)basicmaterialwelfare,(2)social

relationships,and(3)thetranquilityconferredbytheapprovalofconscience.

Thebasicmaterialcomponentofhappinessistheconsumptionwhichisrequired

forhealthandself-preservation.Humansarenaturallyconstitutedtoseektheirown

physicalpreservationandhealthfulnessbeforeturningtoanythingelse.Happiness

requiresalivingpersontobehappy.Smithspeakstothisconnectiondirectlyinsection1of

Part6ofTMS,titled“OftheCharacteroftheIndividual,sofarasitaffectshisown

happiness;orofPrudence”(italicsadded):“Thepreservationandhealthfulstateofthe

bodyseemtobetheobjectswhichNaturefirstrecommendstothecareofevery

individual.”(TMSVI.i.1).Beyondself-preservation,thematerialelementofhappinessin

Smithisasocially-determinedbaselinelevelofwealthcontributingtoaperson’s“healthful

state.”Smithspeaksofsuchabaseline,forexample,whenhereferstothe“necessitiesof

11 There are different ways to think about happiness. Happiness can be taken as a transient state of mind, reflected by statements like “I feel happy when the weather is nice.” But happiness can be taken in a broader sense as a concept of human flourishing, hearkening back to the Greek notion of eudaimonia. In this paper, I’m concerned with happiness of the second kind. For an overview of the two kinds of happiness, see Haybron (2011).

24

nature,”whichcanbesuppliedby“thewagesofthemeanestlabour.”Thesenecessitiesare

“foodandclothing,thecomfortofahouse,andofafamily”(I.iii.2.1).Inthemodernworld

thenecessitiesandevenconveniencesofnatureare“veryeasilysupplied”(VI.i.3).The

materialcomponentofhappiness,thoughreal,isrelativelyminimal.ThematerialinSmith

providesaframeworkinwhichthemoresignificantelementsofhappinesstakeform.

AmoreimportantelementofhappinessforSmithisrelationships—genuine

communityandfriendshipwithothers.Humanstakepleasureincommunicatingand

sharingsentimentswithothersthroughsympathy.Suchsocialdesiresandaffectionsare

“felt,notonlybythetenderanddelicate,butbytherudestvulgarofmankind.”Our

relationshipsare“ofmoreimportancetohappinessthanallthelittleserviceswhichcould

beexpectedtoflowfromthem”(TMSI.ii.4.1).Smithputsthisadifferentway,saying,“the

chiefpartofhumanhappinessarisesfromtheconsciousnessofbeingbeloved”(I.ii.5.2).

Oneoftheproblemswithambitiouslyseekingwealthisthatitmayactuallycomeat

thecostofourrelationships.Therearetworeasonsforthis.Firstissimplythefactthat

timeisscarce.Spendingtimehaplesslypursuingwealth,likethepoorman’sson,meansnot

cultivatingfriendshipandenjoyingone’sfamily.Partofthepoorman’sson’smiserycomes

fromthefactthathisambitionleadshimtoserve“thosehehates,and[be]obsequiousto

thosewhomhedespises.”Insodoinghe“sacrificesarealtranquilitythatisatalltimesin

hispower”(TMSIV.i.7).Partofthatsacrificeisthelikelythecostofhisrelationships.Smith

makesasimilarpointinrecountingastoryinPlutarch:

WhenthefavouriteofthekingofEpirussaidtohismaster,maybeappliedtoall

menintheordinarysituationsofhumanlife.WhentheKinghadrecountedtohim,

25

intheirproperorder,alltheconquestswhichheproposedtomake,andhadcometo

thelastofthem;AndwhatdoesyourMajestyproposetodothen?saidthe

Favourite.—Iproposethen,saidtheKing,toenjoymyselfwithmyfriends,and

endeavourtobeagoodcompanyoverabottle.—AndwhathindersyourMajesty

fromdoingsonow?repliedtheFavourite.(TMSIII.3.32)

Smithclosesthestorywithhisowncommentary:“Inthemostglitteringandexalted

situationsthatouridlefancycanholdouttous,thepleasuresfromwhichweproposeto

deriveourrealhappinessarealmostalwaysthesamewiththosewhich[wealreadyhavein

ourpower]”(III.3.32).Insofarasourownhappinessisconcerned,wealthshouldbe

cultivatedandmanagedtoprovideamaterialframeworkorstateofaffairsinwhichwecan

enjoyourfamilyandfriends.

Thesecondreasonthatambitiouswealth-seekingcomesatthecostofrelationships

isbecauseitcantendtoalienateusfromourrelationships.Rapidchangesinfortuneand

statuscansowdiscordanddisrupttheflowofsympathy.Ourfriendsandfamilyarenot

normallydisposedtofullysympathizewithdramaticincreasesinourfortunes—winning

thelottery,forinstance—butratherareinsuchcasespronetoenvyandjudgment.Smith

warnsusthatarapidchangeinfortunewillgenerallyleadustoleaveouroldfriends

behindanddrifttowardisolation(seeTMSI.ii.5.1).

Athirdelementofhappinessisthetranquilitythatcomesfromtheapprovalofthe

conscience,anapprovalwhichisearnedthroughthecultivationandpracticeofvirtue.

“Warrantedself-approbationyieldsthegreatestpleasureofall,namelytranquility”

(Griswold1999,134;ontheimportanceoftranquilityseeTMSIII.2.3,III.3.30,33)We

26

aren’tcontentifwedon’tfeelwehaveactedproperly.Thebeliefthatwehavebehaved

contemptibly,orsimplywithheldduegratitudeorresentment,weighsonourconsciences.

InoneofhisdirectcommentsonhappinessSmithspeakstotheimportanceoftheapproval

ofourconscienceforourhappiness:“Whatcanbeaddedtothehappinessofthemanwho

isinhealth,whoisoutofdebt,andhasaclearconscience?”(TMSI.iii.1.5).

Thetranquilitythatcomeswithaclearconscienceandleadstohappinesshasan

activecomponent.Tohavetheapprovalofone’sconscience,orinSmith’sterminologythe

manwithinthebreast,impliesthepracticeofvirtue.Thisisclearinanumberofplacesin

TMS,especiallyinthewell-knownearthquakepassage(III.3.4).Smithsaysthataman

wouldinfactbemoreconcerned,moreaffected,bythelossofafingerthanbyhearingofa

tragicearthquakeinwhichhundredsofmillionsofpeopledied.Butthemanalsowould,

giventheopportunity,readilysacrificehisfingertosavetheearthquakevictimsinan

activecontext.Theapprovalofconsciencedependsuponhimfulfillinghisduty.Tranquility

isnotdisengagementwiththeworldbutvirtuousengagementandconsequent

contentment.

IfhappinessinSmithcanbeapproximatedby,basicmaterialprovision,community,

andtheapprovalofconscience,whythendoeshedescribetheemergenceofcommercial

societyfromfeudalismas“arevolutionofthegreatestimportancetothepublick

happiness”?IagreewithRasmussen(2006)thattheanswertothisquestionisthatSmith

understandscommercialsocietytoalleviateahostofmiseriesfromhumanlifeandprovide

thebestarrangement,relativetorealisticalternatives,inwhichhappinesscanbepursued.

27

Commercialsociety’salleviationofmiseriesisachieved,inSmith’saccount,through

economicgrowthandthematerialprovisionforthepoorandtheestablishmentofliberty

andsecurity.Economicgrowthenablesmorepeopletohavetheirbasicneedsmet;liberty

anditsinstitutionalcounterpartoftheruleoflaw,inadditiontofacilitatingeconomic

growth,provideproperconditionsinwhichgenuinerelationshipscanbedevelopedand

virtuecanbepursued.

Smith’sanalysisofcommercialsocietyisfilledwithapprovingreferencestothe

beneficialeffectsofeconomicgrowthonthepoor.Throughallhisworksheviewsthe

welfareoftheworstoffasamatterofgreatimportance:“nosocietycansurelybe

flourishingandhappy,ofwhichthefargreaterpartofthemembersarepoorand

miserable”(WNI.viii.36).Itiscommercialsociety,throughthedivisionoflaborandthe

accumulationofcapital,thatmakes,inSmith’smind,thefrugalEnglishpeasantricherthan

“manyanAfricanking”(WNI.i.24);itiscommercialsocietythatmoveshumankindoutof

theworldof“universalpoverty,”whichismisguidedly(andunknowingly)applaudedby

thechampionsof“universalequality”(WNV.i.b.7);itiscommercialsocietythatallows

eventhepersonofthe“lowestandpoorestorder,ifheisfrugalandindustrious,tohave

accesstoandenjoyagreatshareofthenecessariesandconveniencesoflife”(WNIntro.4).

Theprovisionofrealgoodsthatmakesupthewealthofnationsenablespopulationtogrow

andimprovesphysicalconditionsformany.Itenablesmorepeopletolivebyincreasing

populationgrowthanddecreasingmortalityrates.Itenablesmoreofthepeoplewholive

tohavetheirbasicneedsmet,satisfyingtheirownbasicmaterialpreconditionsfor

happiness.

28

Liberty,security,andeconomicgrowthinterrelate—thefreemovementoflaborand

capitalandfreeflowsofgoodsandservicesinawell-governedsocietyareattheheartof

Smith’spoliticaleconomyandhistheoryofthewealthofnations(e.g.,WNIV.ix.51).

Liberty,asfarashappinessisconcerned,derivesindirectvaluefromtheeconomicgrowth

itfacilitates.Butonamorefundamentallevel,libertylaysthegroundworkforhappinessby

givingpeoplefreedomofchoiceandfacilitatingthedevelopmentofrelationshipsandthe

practiceofvirtue.Peoplevaluefreedomintheirpersonandpossessions:theyare“jealous

oftheirliberty”(WNI.x.c.59).TheveryideaofhappinessforSmithasanobjectorstateof

pursuitseemstorequirefreedomofchoice,understoodnegativelyasalackofphysical

restraintonpersonorproperty.Smithinfactindicatesthebasicimportanceoflibertyto

happinessdirectlyinTMS:“Exceptthefrivolouspleasuresofvanityandsuperiority,we

mayfind,inthemosthumblestation,wherethereisonlypersonalliberty,everyother

[pleasurefromwhichderiveourrealhappiness]whichthemostexaltedcanafford”(TMS

III.3.32;italicsadded).Concerningthepleasureofrelationships,theexchangeofsympathy

(andgoodsandservices),andthepracticeofvirtueinSmithareallarticulatedwithina

frameofself-possessionandvoluntarism.TheverytitleofTMSinitsfullintendedform

makesthisclear:“TheTheoryofMoralSentiments,orAnEssaytowardsandAnalysisofthe

PrinciplesbywhichMennaturallyjudgeconcerningtheConductandCharacter,firstof

theirNeighbours,andafterwardsofthemselves”(RaphaelandMacfie1982,40).Political

powerandmaterialdependencydistortrelationshipsand,alongwithriches,rankasamong

thechiefcorruptorsofourmoralsentiments(TMSI.iii.2.3).Thediscoveryofthegoodand

thenatureofvirtuousconductinparticularsituationsrequiresongoingsocialconversation

29

betweenfreepoliticalequals—virtueis,byandlarge,notthebusinessofthepolitical

superior(seeTMSII.ii.1.8).

6.Apotentialresolution

OnceSmith’ssocialanalysisinTMSIV.8-10isunderstood,alongwiththecharacter

ofhisviewofhappiness,thequestionremainingisthis:givenknowledgethatwe,likethe

poorman’sson,areapttobedeceivedintoambitiouslypursuingwealthatthecostofour

ownhappiness,butalsothatourpursuitofwealthmaycontributetothecontinuationof

commercialsociety,whatshouldwedo?Itistruethatcommercialsocietyfacilitates

deceptionandcanleadtounhappiness.Beyondafairlyminimalthreshold,material

improvementsdon’tcontributemeaningfullytoourlives.Wecanpursuethemsometimes

atthecostofrelationshipsandvirtue.Butitisequallytruethatcommercialsociety

providesfortheneedsofthemany,liberatesfromdirectdependenceonmastersandlords,

andprovidesasecureframeworkinwhichindividualshavethefreedomtoorganizetheir

lives.Howshouldthisallbesynthesized?WhatkindoflifeisSmithimplicitly

recommending,andwhatshouldafuturepoorman’sson,asitwere,do?

InaninterpretationofTMSIV.i.8-10,LisaHill(2017)arguesthatthe“storyof‘the

poorman’sson’pointstoasignificanttensionbetweenhispersonalidealofhappinessand

his…recommendationsasasocialscientist”(10).Sheconcludesthatheultimatelybecomes

a“cheerleaderforthekindofersatzorsecond-ratehappinessthatisthemainstayandvery

engineofcommercialsocieties”(15).Iagreewiththespiritofthisclaiminasmuchasit

reflectsthefactthatSmithultimatelyauthorizesthepursuitofincomeandthebustleof

30

commercialactivity.TheanalysisembeddedwithinSmith’sdialecticinTMSIV.1.8-10helps

ustoseetheunintendedbeneficialeffectsofthepursuitofwealth,evenifthemotivations

behindthatpursuitareimperfect.Smithdoesnotmorallyendorseavarice;heclearly

disapprovesofit.Butbypresentingadramaticargumentoftheunintentionalbenefitsof

avaricious,wrong-headedwealth-seeking,thenafortiorihemakesacaseforproperly

motivatedwealth-seekingboundedbytherulesofjustice.

Inthewiderarcofhisthought,however,IsubmitthatSmithpushesforsomething

beyondthekindofersatzorsecond-ratehappinessthatHillsayshefavors.Hill(2017)

contendsthat“Smith’spositivityabouteudaimoniaisreallyonlyhispersonalratherthan

hisprofessionalposition”(22;italicsoriginal).Ithinkthismaybeanoverstatement.By

wayofthetensioninTMSIV.i.8-10,Smithactivelyencouragesthereadertoreflectonhow

thepursuitsofwealthandhappinessmaybecomebalancedandcomplementary,not

oppositionalmodesoflife.Heisnotadvocatingthatpeoplegiveuptheircommercial

enterprisesforthesakeofasceticpursuitsofwisdomandvirtue.Butheispushinghis

readerstoreflectuponhowcommercialenterprisemightbeundertakeninanappropriate

mannernotinconsistentwithcultivatingone’srelationshipsandpursuingvirtue—not

inconsistentwithcultivatingrealhappiness.

IfollowRyanHanley(2009,100–132)—whoarguesthatSmithwasatruefriendof

commercialsociety,clearlyseeingbothitsvirtuesandflaws—andsuggestthatthekeyhere

isSmith’selaborationofprudenceinTMSVI.Whereasprudenceissometimesassociated

with“economic”endsor“utilitymaximization”(e.g.,McCloskey2008),Smith’sconception

runsdeeper.Itistruethatanimportantpartofprudenceis“economic,”i.e.,concerningthe

31

industriousandfrugal“careofthehealth,ofthefortune”and“oftherankandreputationof

theindividual”(TMSVI.i.5),alongwiththegradualaccumulationofmaterialwealth

(VI.i.12).ButSmith’sdescriptionofprudenceencompassesotherimportantaspectsof

character.Smithianprudenceincludesanumberofcharactertraitsthatseemtotakeinto

accountthespleneticviewofwealth.Smith’schapteronprudencealmostreadsasifitwere

writtenwithTMSIV.i.8-10inmind,whichsupportsHanley’s(2009)readingofthefinal

editionofTMS,especiallyPartVIwhichwasnewtothefinaledition,asaguidebookto

virtueintheageofcommerce.Forpresentpurposes,IhighlighttwoaspectsofSmithian

prudencethatwardoffthepotentialmaleffectsanddeceptionsofwealth-seeking:sincerity

andcontentment.

Theprudentmanissincereinhisinteractionswithothersandinhisself-regard.

Thishastwoimportantimplications.First,sincerityrenderstheprocessofwealth

acquisitionagreeable.Theprudentmanseekstoincreasehiswealthandpracticesan

honestcommercecomprisedofgenuinerelationshipsandinteractions,wherehetrades

uponthelegitimatevalueofhistalentsandinterests.Histalents“maynotalwaysbevery

brilliant”but“theyareperfectlygenuine”(TMSVI.i.7).Whereasthepoorman’sson“serves

thosewhomhehatesandisobsequioustothosewhomhedespises”(IV.i.10),theprudent

manis“simpleandmodest,…aversetoallthequackishartsbywhichotherpeopleso

frequentlythrustthemselvesintopublicnoticeandreputation”(VI.i.7).Ifthepoorman’s

sonhad,insteadofsubjectinghimselftomisery,simplyandhonestlypresentedhimselfand

hisabilities,hemaynothaveregrettedhislifechoices;hisprocessofwealthacquisition

couldperhapshavebeenmorepleasant.

32

Second,thesincerityaspectofprudenceemphasizesakindofself-affirmationthat

providesapartialantidotetovanity.NotethatSmithconceivesofthepoorman’sson’s

desireforwealth,particularlyforluxuryitems,asstemmingnotfromdirectconsiderations

ofutilitybutfromanimaginationofhowwealthwouldappeartootherpeople(TMSIV.i.8).

Itisnotwealthpersethatmotivates,butratherhisdesireforthesocialdistinctionthat

wealthconfers.12Itisnotonlytherestlessindustryandsacrificeofeasethatcontributesto

thepoorman’sson’sunhappiness,butalsohisdesperatemoveto“bring[his]talentsinto

publicview”(IV.i.8).Theprudentman,thoughconcernedwithbecomingaproperobjectof

confidence,esteem,andgood-will(VI.i.4),seemstoberelativelyimmunized,bySmith’s

description,fromsuchvanity:“Heneitherendeavourstoimposeuponyoubythecunning

devicesofanartfulimposter,norbythearrogantairsofanassumingpedant,norbythe

confidentassertionsofasuperficialandimprudentpretender”(VI.i.6).Thesincerityaspect

ofprudencesomewhatdiscountsthepubliclight;theprudentmancareslittleforthefavor

of“littleclubsandcabals”(VI.i.7)and“convivialsocieties…distinguishedforthejollityand

gaietyoftheirconversation”(VI.i.8).Theprudentpursuitofwealththusentailsasincere

andauthenticcommercewitharelativelylimitedconcernforpublicappearanceandstatus

signaling.

ThesecondimportantcharacteraspectofSmithianprudenceiscontentmentand

limitedaspiration.Theprudentmanrecognizesthatchanginghispermanentmaterial

12 Hill (2012) usefully distinguishes two parts of self-interest in Smith: one which involves desire or appetite, and one which involves ambitious spirit or “thumos.” The latter part often seems to be the more psychologically powerful. Knud Haakonssen (1981) even goes as far as claiming that “taste and vanity constitute the ‘invisible hand’ that leads and directs all the individual human lives into a more or less orderly social process” (183).

33

situationbeyondacertainpointwillnotsignificantlyaffecthishappiness.Theanxiety

associatedwiththatchange“mightendanger,butcouldnotwellincrease,thesecure

tranquilitywhichheactuallyenjoys”(TMSVI.i.12).Consequently,hesimplyseemstoview

wealthasinstrumentaltohistranquilityandenjoyment.Heisdriventoimprovehis

materialsituationsothathemight“gradually…relax,bothintherigourofhisparsimony

andintheseverityofhisapplication”(VI.i.12).Buthehasnoambitionforpublic

recognitionorvainglory.“Inthebottomofhishearthewouldprefertheundisturbed

enjoymentofsecuretranquility,notonlytoallthevainsplendorofsuccessfulambition,but

totherealandsolidgloryofperformingthegreatestandmostmagnanimousactions”(TMS

VI.i.13).

PrudenceisofcoursenottheendofvirtueforSmith.Itisabaseline.Butitdoes

appeartoprovideawayinwhichwealthcanbepursuedandkeptinitsproperplace.By

wayofaprudentpursuitofwealth,wecancontributetothecontinuationofcommercial

society,supportingtheindependency,liberty,security,andmaterialwelfareofothers,

whilestillleavingspaceforthemoresignificantelementsofourhappiness.Perhapsthisis

aplausiblewaytosynthesizethedialecticofIV.i.8-10.

7.Concludingremarks

Smith’sthoughtisattimespuzzling.Inthecaseofthestoryofthepoorman’sson,I

thinkitisintentionallyso.Theopen-endeddialecticthatSmiththerepresentsmaywellbe

anefforttoflagourattention,togetus,Smith’sreaders,towrestlewithandattemptto

resolveasignificanttensioninmoderncommerciallife.MyinterpretationisthatSmith

34

implicitlyrecommendsinTMSIV.i.8-10thatwepursuewealth,butthatwedoso

prudently,inawaythatwon’tdetractfromotherimportantaspectsoflife,namelyour

relationshipsandourcultivationofvirtue.Smiththinksthatasocietycharacterizedby

individualsprudentlypursuingwealth,whileperhapsstrictlyonthatdimensiononly

worthyofa“coldesteem”(TMSVI.i.14),willtendtowardsliberty,security,andeconomic

growth.Theseconditionswhichtheprudentpursuitofwealthbringsareworthyofa

warmerandhigheresteeminthattheysustainasocial,political,andmaterialframework

inwhichhappinessmighthaveopportunitytoflourish.

35

References

Berry,ChristopherJ.1994.TheIdeaofLuxury:AConceptualandHistoricalInvestigation.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Brewer,Anthony.2009.“OntheOther(Invisible)Hand...”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy41(3):519–43.

Diatkine,Daniel.2010.“VanityandtheLoveofSystemin‘TheoryofMoralSentiments.’”TheEuropeanJournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought17(3):383–404.

Fleischacker,Samuel.2004.OnAdamSmith’sWealthofNations:APhilosophicalCompanion.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Griswold,CharlesL.1999.AdamSmithandtheVirtuesofEnlightenment.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Haakonssen,Knud.1981.TheScienceofaLegislator:TheNaturalJurisprudenceofDavidHumeandAdamSmith.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hanley,RyanPatrick.2009.AdamSmithandtheCharacterofVirtue.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Haybron,Dan.2011.“Happiness.”InTheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta.https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/happiness/.

Hill,Lisa.2012.“AdamSmithon‘Thumos’andIrrationalEconomicMan.”TheEuropeanJournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought19(1):1–22.

———.2017.“‘ThePoorMan’sSon’andtheCorruptionofOurMoralSentiments:Commerce,Virtue,andHappinessinAdamSmith.”TheJournalofScottishPhilosophy15(1):9–25.

Hont,Istvan,andMichaelIgnatieff.1983.“NeedsandJusticein‘TheWealthofNations.’”InWealthandVirtue,editedbyIstvanHontandMichaelIgnatieff,10–44.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hume,David.1987.“OfRefinementintheArts.”InEssays,Moral,Political,andLiterary,editedbyEugeneF.Miller.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.

Klein,DanielB.,andBrandonLucas.2011.“InaWordorTwo,PlacedintheMiddle:TheInvisibleHandinAdamSmith’sTomes.”EconomicAffairs31(1):43–52.

Livingston,DonaldW.1984.Hume’sPhilosophyofCommonLife.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

36

Mandeville,Bernard.1988.TheFableoftheBees.Vol.1.2vols.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.

Martin,Thomas.2014.“TheSunbathingBeggarandFightingKings:DiogenestheCynicandAlexandertheGreatinAdamSmith’sTheoryofMoralSentiments.”TheAdamSmithReview8:217–40.

Matson,ErikW.,andColinDoran.2017.“TheElevatedImagination:ContemplationandActioninDavidHumeandAdamSmith.”JournalofScottishPhilosophy15(1):27–45.

McCloskey,Deidre.2008.“AdamSmith,LastoftheFormerVirtueEthicists.”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy40(1):43–71.

Minowitz,Peter.1993.Profits,Priests,andPrinces:AdamSmith’sEmancipationofEconomicsfromPoliticsandReligion.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Nussbaum,MarthaC.2000.“DutiesofJustice,DutiesofMaterialAid:Cicero’sProblematicLegacy.”TheJournalofPoliticalPhilosophy8(2):176–206.

Otteson,James.2002.AdamSmith’sMarketplaceofLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Pack,SpencerJ.1991.“AdamSmith’sUnnaturallyNatural(YetNaturallyUnnatural)UseoftheWord‘Natural.’”InPerspectivesontheHistoryofEconomicThought,editedbyIngridH.Rima.Vol.11.Aldershot:EdwardElgar.

Raphael,D.D.,andA.L.Macfie.1982.“Introduction.”InTheTheoryofMoralSentiments,byAdamSmith,editedbyD.D.RaphaelandA.L.Macfie.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.

Rasmussen,DennisC.2006.“Does‘BetteringOurCondition’ReallyMakeUsBetterOff?AdamSmithonProgressandHappiness.”TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview100(3):308–18.

———.2008.TheProblemsandPromiseofCommercialSociety:AdamSmith’sResponsetoRousseau.UniversityPark:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress.

Rosenberg,Nathan.1968.“AdamSmith,ConsumerTastes,andEconomicGrowth.”JournalofPoliticalEconomy76(3):361–74.

Sabl,Andrew.2012.Hume’sPolitics:CoordinationandCrisisinHume’s“HistoryofEngland.”Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Sekora,John.1977.Luxury:TheConceptinWesternThought,EdentoSmollet.Baltimore:JohnHopkins.

37

Smith,Adam.1981.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations.EditedbyR.H.CampbellandA.S.Skinner.2vols.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.

———.1982.TheTheoryofMoralSentiments.EditedbyD.D.RaphaelandA.L.Macfie.Indianapolis:LibertyFund.

Stigler,GeorgeJ.1976.“TheSuccessesandFailuresofProfessorSmith.”JournalofPoliticalEconomy84(6):1199–1213.

Waterman,Anthony.2002.“EconomicsasTheology:AdamSmith’sWealthofNations.”SouthernEconomicJournal68(4):907–21.