In the words of Walt Whitman, “I have perceived that to be
with those I like is enough, To stop in company with the rest at evening is
enough, To be surrounded by beautiful, curious, breathing flesh is enough.”
I went into reading Adam Smith thinking I was going to find
an account of self-interested “morality.” To my surprise, I found an account of
morality that evoked many of the themes which I felt were missing in Gauthier’s
account and reminded me a lot of my favorite words from Walt Whitman. In fact, the very first words of Smith’s
account are, “how selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some
principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and
render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it
except the pleasure of seeing it” (1).
By stating that rationality consists of pursuing our personal
preferences, we are missing key aspects of human nature: our love of fellow
humans and the empathy that accompanies that love. (Quick point: Smith uses the word sympathy,
and oftentimes I was concerned that he really meant empathy. The Oxford English Dictionary alleviated my
worries by showing that empathy actually was not a word when Smith wrote his
work, thus I believe he often uses the word “sympathy” when he means
“empathy.”)
Outside of all rationality and wealth-accumulation, Smith,
unlike many previous philosophers we have studied, highlights the importance of
fellow-humans. Unlike Posner or Gauthier, Smith places great emphasis on the
way in which we interact with others and our interactions’ influences on our
wellbeing. Smith points out, “the mirth
of the company, no doubt, enlivens our own mirth, and silence, no doubt,
disappoints us,” which demonstrates to us how reliant we are on the emotions of
others. He emphasizes that “we can
scarce express too much satisfaction in all the little occurrences of common
life, in the company with which we spent the evening last night, in the
entertainment that was set before us, in what was said and what was done, in
all the little incidents of the present conversation,” which helps show how
much our wellbeing is related to being around others (6). He also shows in his discourse on the discontent
of “the man who, by some sudden
revolution of fortune, is lifted up all at once into a condition of life,” the
perhaps greater importance of being around people than accumulating immediate
wealth with the explanation that “if the chief part of changes of human
happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved, as I believe it does,
those sudden changes of fortune seldom contribute much to happiness” (32).
I think that there are a lot of very interesting subjects
within Smith’s work driven from this dependence on others. I think that, as Smith notes, our
relationship with others drives a lot of variability in our action towards
others. We can empathize in certain
situation much better than we can in others; these are points that are really
key and influential in our world today (i.e. media attention in Brussels v.
media intention in Pakistan following this past week’s bombings). Furthermore, as Smith notes, we empathize
differently depending on our emotions. I think these issues and so many more
are so interesting, and I could keep rambling for a long time, but I think
overall I was just so happy that Smith seemed to ground his argument in the
day-to-day realities of what affects our wellbeing. I was so excited that Smith was able to bring
some life into the picture (pun definitely intended). Moreover, I was most surprised that this
humanistic account came from the creator of our “Invisible Hand” rhetoric.
Hey Ellen! I'd like to start with your last point first, because I totally agree: I definitely think that leaving Smith's moral philosophy out of his legacy doesn't do him justice; and it was cool to read this after Sen pointed out that our contemporary discourse about the "father of modern economics" neglects the "moral sentiments" he deemed so important.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a way to construe self-interest which (in my view) actually makes the very motivation behind Smith's sympathy a selfish endeavor. While his discussion leads us to conclusions that we think intuitively reflect the broader human experience (your poetry and "day-to-day realities"), I'm not sure that pursuing them means we are acting morally -- or at least that we aren't acting selfishly. I'm writing a post on this now, so I don't want to ramble here.
Additionally, I was a bit more pessimistic about Smith's conclusions, especially regarding his overarching theme. While Whitman is concerned with merely being around people (and that is enough for him), Smith seems to focus on one aspect of companionship, and I honestly don't think it's even the most worthwhile. Smith's discussion of sympathy suggests that our goal should be to minimize dissonance between our passions and that of our companions, creating a sort of echo-chamber because this "fellow feeling" makes us feel loved/secure/as if we belong. The results of this approval-seeking tendency seem to be desirable, but its never-ending pursuit seems undermine Whitman's ultimate goal/sentiment of contentment. In Smiths scheme, you can never really be content, because you can always foster more fellow feeling.
This restlessness rears its ugly head in the chapter on ambition, where Smith claims that our primary motivation for "bettering our condition" is "vanity" and fear of shame. We don't seek to better ourselves in order to live a more meaningful/fulfilling life, but rather to appear more admirable/virtuous to our fellow man, and that this ambition is natural. In his view, the only way to "live free, fearless, and independent" is to do your utmost to avoid ambition; however since in this picture avoiding ambition would mean caring less for the approval of others (and thus fellow feeling), would somebody pursuing Smith's sympathy ever choose to do that? In any case, I'm curious to see how you reconcile your reading of Smith with the claims he makes in Section III.