« Political and Economic Freedom in Afghanistan | Main | This just won't go away... »
October 10, 2004
Adam Smith and Self-Interest
Reader Mike Harvey forwarded me a recent article by Sam Fleischaker called "Economics and the Ordinary Person: Re-reading Adam Smith".
Contemporarily, Smith is best known for his description of "the invisible hand" which he used to describe how people acting on behalf of their own self-interests promote the public good, although this is not their original intention. Many assume then that Smith's major contribution to the science of economics was describing the idea that people inevitably act on behalf of their self interest. Yet, Fleischacker challenges this notion:
Far more important to Smith's work is the belief that ordinary people normally understand their own interests without help from politicians or professional philosophers. The distinctive mark of Smith's thought is his view of human cognition, not of human motivation: he is far more willing than practically any of his contemporaries to endorse the ability of ordinary people to know what they need to know in life.
The idea that "ordinary people needed guidance from their 'betters' " was prevalent during his time. As such, where Smith left his true mark is the recognition that it is the individual (whether poor, rich, cultured or uneducated) who is most qualified to make the decisions that affect his or her life.
Smith's rejection of the idea that politicians should control the choices of the common man is directly reflected in his view of politicians themselves:
Smith has a much darker view of politics. If I participate in the political arena, I am likely to be constantly under the pressure of professing a greater concern for "the public good" than I really feel: constantly under pressure, therefore, to be a hypocrite. I will also, more generally, be far too concerned with what people think of me rather than what I am really like. For reasons like these, Smith was far less convinced of the value of politics to morality than were either his ancient predecessors -- Plato, Aristotle -- or his contemporaries Hutcheson and Rousseau. He was indeed quite cynical about the likelihood that politicians would normally be particularly good people, or that good people would be attracted by the political life.
It always amazes me how the writings of centuries past are still so relevant today. The entire article is well worth the read it you have the time.
Posted by Peter Mork at October 10, 2004 3:12 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.economicswithaface.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/24/[What is Peter Mork's first name?]
(Please add the answer to the question to the end of the link in order to trackback this entry.)
Comments
Email Comments Here