Ilgn Bahar EVCL

ON VIEWS ON HUMAN NATURE AND SOCIAL COHESION IN AN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

As a well-known philosopher who contributed economics literature with his main
works Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith put his analysis on
the nature of capitalism and society in his time 18th century. Starting from Theory of Moral
Sentiments, first he elaborates the human nature with sentiments of individuals within the
society. Then, he builds up his theory on economy based on what he analyzed about human
nature in TMS1. Therefore, we would say that there is a sequence of thought between these
two books of Smith.
In TMS, basically he sets forth a theory of how we come to be moral, of how this
morality functions on both individual and societal levels, and of what forces are likely to
corrupt our sense of morality. As natural to its own, Smith emphasizes the self-interested
action of human. For example, he in the book rephrase continuously the statement every
man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care (Smith, 1976,
p. 8). However, the self-interested action of human beings does not solely be understood as
only ones own well-being, since self-interested rich also act to serve societys interest by
helping the poor. In that regard, he put special emphasis on sympathy as shared feelings for
anything, that is for being approved in morality. Here, what is accepted as proper, benevolent
action is also meritorious. Then, the judgement of merit expresses a double sympathy, both
with the benevolent motive of the agent and with the gratitude felt by the person benefitted
(??) (Smith, 1976, p. 13). For that part, Smith puts utility in the last, since what is important in
the moral judgement is the agents motive in his/her action.
With connected to feeling of sympathy, he also mentions that peoples feeling of
conscience acts as a judgement mechanism for their actions. This impartial spectator as the
great inmate of the breast (1976, p. 134) led people to compare their own interest with the
other people even though they have no connection. This judgement mechanism, for him, has
been taught by our habit and experience, so we can do it easily. In our passive sentiment
people are naturally selfish in their passive sentiments, but when the well-being of other
depends upon their behaviors, they view the situation through the eyes of the impartial
spectator and realize that they cannot favor themselves at the expense of others. On the
contrary, when the well-being of others does not depend on their behavior, there is no need
to restrain selfishness or sympathize with others situation (Smith, 1976, pp. 136-38).
Later parts, Smith also mentions that the pleasure is given by the utility of an object,
and how people burden themselves with trinkets of frivolous utility (page). He talks about
how a poor man will work himself into the ground to pursue the convenience of wealth, when
he could have just enjoyed himself. He says that trinkets and wealth are little different in
utility, only that spectators sympathize more with wealth. It is not even that the spectators
think the rich man is happier, only that he has the means to happiness. Then, he points out
that the wealthy cannot actually consume all of the food their land produces, so they sell it to
others, and they provide wages to their workers, which serve to distribute the necessities of

1
For the rest of the paper I will use TMS as an abbreviation for Theory of Moral Sentiments.
life. Smith later goes on to tie this principle into public policy, that people want to see society
functioning well and maximize social welfare, and that this is the sole use and end of
government.