===================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
[In response to Jeff Young's posting:] 
 
Jeff 
 
You tell us what Smith meant by 'value in use' as if it were an obvious  
fact. It isn't obvious to me, so perhaps you could explain what it is  
based on.  
 
As far as I can see, Smith used the phrase in one paragraph only in the  
Wealth of Nations - the famous one (I.iv.13) - where it is defined as  
'the utility of some particular object' and treated as a synonym for  
'useful'. This is quite circular (because 'utility' is not defined  
anywhere else) and says nothing about sustaining life. Water clearly is  
functional in sustaining life, but there is nothing to say that that is  
the only way in which something can be useful (and, of course, water has 
many other uses). That diamonds have 'scarce any value in use' is  
consistent with your reading, but you seem to rest a heavy weight on a  
few words.  
 
The phrase 'value in use' does not occur in the Theory of Moral  
Sentiments (in the text I have). I don't have an electronic text of the  
Lectures, but 'value in use' does not occur in the index to the Glasgow  
edition. Smith did say quite a lot about wants and needs (what he said  
does not seem to me to be summarizable as simply as you imply), but not  
in the context of the particular phrase under discussion here (see the  
editors' footnote to WN I.iv.13 in the Glasgow edition for references). 
 
I remain unconvinced that Smith gave either 'utility' or 'value in use'  
a clear-cut meaning. He just mentioned them and set them aside. 
 
Tony ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]