----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Milton L. Myers in his The Soul of Modern Economic Man argues that Smith’s project,
particularly in WN was specifically to reconcile the role of self-interest with public
welfare, an issue that had engaged the best minds in moral philosophy for almost a century
before Smith. And this was to counter Thomas Hobbes’ harsh indictment of mankind as driven
to self-destruction by aggressive self-interest. Smith agreed with the conclusions of the
others, but not their method.
 
Myers writes: "He finds those methods too abstract, dealing with forms and essence rather
than with the realities of life. Smith decides that a different method must be used, that
it is necessary to investigate self-interest in terms of the real and the factual, in
terms of efficient rather than final causes. [This seems to echo Tony Brewer’s post]. This
interest in the near rather than remote causes of things moves Smith to seek an economic
solution to the problem of self-interest because business life is filled with plainly
visible activities which are near at hand".
 
Smith's innate faith in Nature’s Design was  an important force behind all his pursuits.
It always led him to optimistic final outcomes, even when he was at pains to list the
negatives of a situation. T. E. Cliffe Leslie criticizes the 'Code of Nature' so embraced
by the 18th century thinkers as "a quasi-philosophical basis on which to build a complete
economic system of natural liberty." But the most salient fact about Smith, unmatched by
most political economists was his understanding of human nature, in all its complexity;
from sympathy; envy; need for approbation; to the desire to better oneself. I think it
would be difficult to reduce it to one overriding sentiment. And in his insights in human
nature he probably most differs from Marx.
 
Sumitra Shah 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]