----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Tony Brewer's intervention comes very much to the point. What is innate in human beings,
besides sympathy, is 'the desire to better one's own condition', which takes the form of
desire for riches in a definite historical context, where riches are the best way to be
recognized and admired. I always explain to my sudents that the desire for individual
betterment could induce a monk to more prayers and longer fasting, if that were the road
to become an abbot. The 'love to domineer' is more natural than the quest for riches and
even stronger than the inclination to persuade (which, in the Glasgow Lectures is said to
be the fountain-head of the tendency to barter) (WN: III.ii.10); indeed it is the simplest
way to 'improve one's condition' and only a good institutional context can check its power
(WN: V.vii.c).
 
These are only a few examples of the fact that Smith's anthropology is wider and more
complex than usually thought (not only by those interpreters who insist on the key role of
self-interest, but also by more recent interpreters which point out the role of moral
values and benevolence). If I were to single out the main difference between Smith's and
Marx'a anthropology, I would point to their different attitude towards the pliability of
human nature: for Smith, human nature is much more resistent than for Marx and has an
intrinsic element of self-affirmation (even when it implies sacrifice). This is a common
feature of the Enlightenment.
 
Tiziano Raffaelli 
Università di Pisa 
 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]