Textual Analysis of the Adam Smith Problem

Sympathy and self-interest, when examined superficially, seem like conflicting notions. For this reason, Adam Smith is often criticized for writing two philosophical books – one about the human nature to exhibit sympathy, and one about the market’s reliance on our self-interest – that contradict each other. Through careful examination of Smith’s explanations, however, these two apparently separate forces that drive human behavior become not only interwoven, but symbiotic.
In his first work, Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith seems to argue that sympathy is the guiding force that produces most human behavior. He writes that it is human nature to be concerned with both the wellbeing and misfortunes of others, and that this concern for others is felt so deeply in us that we modify all our behavior in order to act in its accordance. Because we feel the pain and happiness of the others, we generally act in such a way as to extend the happiness and minimize the pain of those around us – especially those closest to our hearts, like loved ones and heroes. With this in mind, sympathy looks like a very altruistic principle, quite void of any self-interest at all. This view of sympathy, however, is not the view that Smith sustains throughout Theory of Moral Sentiments. In fact, as Smith continues to dissect the causes and effects of our sympathetic nature, it begins to look more and more as if sympathy is based in concern for oneself. This notion is rooted in one of Smith’s primary definitions of sympathy; that sympathy is a sentiment that arises from observing passion in others, but does not necessarily reflect the exact same passion in the observer as it does in the observed. Instead, when humans are observing a situation that elicits passion in others – whether it is anger, misery, or happiness – they imagine themselves in the same situation and are overcome with the emotion that they feel is appropriate for the situation. To illustrate this point, Smith, when speaking of the suffering-based side of sympathy, states that “The compassion of the spectator must arise altogether from the consideration of what he himself would feel if he was reduced to the same unhappy situation.”
With this in mind, the Smithian ideas of sympathy begin to entwine with his ideas of self-interest. Since it is humanly impossible to feel the exact emotions of anyone but yourself, any effort to better the situation of another is only made so that the observer of the suffering can elevate the discomfort caused by the emotions that their judgment of the situation has excited within them. Sympathy, then, may be an altruistic reaction, but any behavior or interaction that is propelled by sympathetic feelings is done out of interest for ones own comfort and well being. Therefore, without self-interest, sympathy would be inconsequential.
As it is, sympathy and self interest work together to profoundly affect not only human psychology, but also the structural of society, including economics. Smith illustrates this using arguments from both Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. Employing the idea of mutual sympathy from Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith explains that the sympathetic nature of humans leads to a strong desire to feel emotions that are relatable to others. Since sympathy is based in judgment, people wish to react to a situation in a way that will be judged as appropriate to an outsider, so that the outsider’s sympathies may cause them to feel similar sentiments. From a self-interested desire to be understood – to be the object of sympathy – people adjust their reactions and behavior to be more universally acceptable and relatable.
In this way, social conventions are formed. Humans curb or alter their passions and reactions to a socially acceptable level. At the same time, we continue to base many of our actions in our concern for others. Doing so not only makes us feel more at ease (since it leases our own negative sentiments), but it also makes us feel as though we stand for socially acceptable practices, and are thus relatable. In this way, society is guided by a morality, which is based in sympathy and enabled by self-interest.
In Wealth of Nations, self-interest seems to be synonymous with selfishness, and be the driving force of capitalism and the necessary ingredient for personal and economic wealth. This is, however, and partial and superficial view. Although in Wealth of Nations Smith does declare that human’s primary motive for most actions is self-love, all of their actions are still made within the moral parameters of society, which were created because of sympathy. A man, for example, will not pursue his self-interest at any cost to the people around him. He has to be ethical and fair in his interactions in order to be seen as morally and socially acceptable. In this way an understanding of, and cooperation with the sympathetic nature of society proves to further one’s self-interests. Therefore, to act morally and sympathetically is in fact an act out of self-interest.
When applied to economics, Adam Smith’s ideas of sympathy and morality actually drive his ideas of the division of labor and capitalism. Firstly, as Smith explains in Theory of Moral Sentiments, sympathy actually creates a longing and appreciation for wealth, as wealth is seen as an escape from suffering. He says that since humans want others to want to sympathize with them, they flaunt their wealth and hide their misery. This is because, due to the nature of sympathy, seeing misery will elicit discomfort in others, which will drive them away. Seeing one’s wealth, on the other hand, will elicit happiness in others, and thus make fellow-feeling allies of them. This sets up a social dynamic necessary for capitalism in which wealth is prized, and the accumulation of wealth is constantly at the forefront of the mind.
Not only does the human sympathetic nature create the mentality that drives capitalism, but it also gives capitalist societies more longevity. Because of our sympathy and morals, we are able to pursue our self-interests while still looking out for the greater good of society. Although this proves that we aren’t selfish, it definitely appeals to our self-interest, since bettering the society in which we live will eventually benefit us personally. Acting with this in mind, we strive to develop our markets. We do this primarily by improving our own ability to “get ahead” in the economy, however we are also interested in working with others with different talents in order to create a healthy division of labor. Additionally, we create structures in our society – like schools and transportation routes - that will benefit the proliferation of both personal and global wealth and markets. Our world slowly shifts then, to accommodate a market society that will appeal to both our self-interest and our moral interests.
Although at first glance Adam Smith’s ideas of the sympathy in Theory of Moral Sentiments and self-interest in Wealth of Nations seem like contradicting notions, upon examination it becomes clear that he really does philosophize with some continuity. His overarching argument is that the feeling of sympathy in general, though altruistic in nature, becomes self-interested when put into action. Because of this, natural human sympathy creates the desire for wealth that feeds capitalism. This desire for wealth is self-interested, however one must act in accordance with sympathy-based morals when trying to pursue the desire, or else fewer personal benefits can be gained in the pursuit. Tying this all together, you get the picture of the society that Adam Smith saw, and you come to realize that he was not the father of free-market capitalism, who praised selfishness at all costs. Instead, he saw a world that is a lot less black and white, and in fact a lot less greedy than we would expect. In this world, a sympathetic man must be a self-interested man, and simultaneously, a self-interested man must be guided by sympathy in order to satisfy his self-interest in a society that is so morally driven.