----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
The idea that Smith thought (wealth-seeking) self-interested behaviour was innate cannot
suvive a reading of the Theory of Moral Sentiments (unless it is reduced to the trivial:
whatever individuals seek is defined as their 'interest'). Smith asked why people seek to
better themselves (meaning, here, to become richer) and gave a social answer - they want
to be noticed and admired by others (around p. 50 in the Glasgow edition of the TMS). It
is true that he said in the WN that the desire to better ourselves 'comes with us from the
womb', but 'an augmentation of fortune' is only the means by which 'the greater part of
men' pursue this aim, and one could plausibly add 'in the kind of society under
discussion'. Elsewhere he broadened the story greatly: self-sacrificing behaviour is
discussed in the TMS, and in the WN he argued that medieval landlords were more concerned
with dominating others than with becoming rich, but that this ordering of priorities had
changed as more tempting products became available to buy. The implication is that
(proximate) aims and behaviour depend on the context and change over time.
 
There clearly are things in Smith that are innate to humans (or, at least, universally
found among humans) - sympathy, for example - but they seem to be to do with basic
physical needs and then with our relations to others. Is this very different from Marx?
 
Tony Brewer 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]