鈥淓very man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person, it is fit and right that it should be so.鈥�
Or: self-interest is part of human nature, but it鈥檚 a self-interest of a very particular sort.
Self-interest drives capitalism. Capitalism鈥檚 friends and foes agree on this, even if they agree on nothing else. Ask a defender of capitalism why capitalism is preferable to socialism. You鈥檒l be told that it鈥檚 because human beings are naturally self-interested, and that we should live in a system that rewards what is natural to us. Ask one of capitalism鈥檚 critics why we should prefer socialism. You鈥檒l be told it鈥檚 because capitalism rewards our lowest and most selfish impulses and crowds out higher goods such as justice and equality. Both sides thus seem to agree that the guiding tenet of capitalism is that 鈥済reed is good,鈥� as Michael Douglas鈥檚 character Gordon Gekko memorably proclaimed in the movie Wall Street.
But what exactly is 鈥渟elf-interest鈥�? Adam Smith has some useful light to shed on the question. Smith himself is often regarded as a champion of self-interest; the Nobel laureate George Stigler once wrote that self-interest is the 鈥済ranite鈥� upon which Smith鈥檚 entire system is built.1 But we have to be careful here. Smith does think self-interest is natural to us. This is clear enough from the quote above, in which he tells us that 鈥渆very man鈥� is 鈥渂y nature鈥� first and foremost concerned with 鈥渉is own care.鈥� In some deep sense then, it鈥檚 right to say that he thinks we鈥檙e 鈥渉ardwired鈥� to be self-interested. But it鈥檚 also pretty clear that what Smith means by this is very different from what Dr. Stigler and Mr. Gekko are after.
First, look at what Smith thinks self-interest naturally leads us to pursue. The goal of someone driven by natural self-interest, Smith says, is 鈥渉is own care.鈥� We might make the same point today by saying that such a person is 鈥渢aking care of herself.鈥� By this we usually mean that such a person takes good care of her health: she eats well, doesn鈥檛 drink too much, gets sufficient exercise and sleep, and so on. But that鈥檚 exactly what Smith thinks we鈥檙e all led by nature first and foremost to do: to attend to our basic needs, and especially the needs of our bodies that we have to satisfy in order to stay alive. He says as much later: 鈥渢he preservation and healthful state of the body seem to be the objects which Nature first recommends to the care of every individual.鈥�2
The key point here is that our needs are different from our wants. Our body鈥檚 needs have been determined by nature, and are limited to specific goods: nourishment, rest, and so forth. Our wants and desires, however, come from somewhere else. Very few people, I suspect, even if they think it鈥檚 reasonable to want a Ferrari rather than a Ford, would say that it鈥檚 鈥渘atural鈥� to want a Ferrari. In any case, and what matters for us, is that Smith鈥檚 claim here isn鈥檛 that it鈥檚 natural to want a Ferrari. The self-interest he thinks natural to us is the self-interest that prompts self-care, rather than the self-interest that Mr. Gekko calls 鈥済reed.鈥�
Second, in claiming that self-interest is natural, Smith doesn鈥檛 quite come out and say that self-interest is good. Again, going back to Mr. Gekko: his claim isn鈥檛 just that greed is natural, but that greed is 鈥済ood.鈥� Those who say this could mean to say at least two different things. They might mean that greed is useful to society, perhaps insofar as greed-driven consumer behavior stimulates higher productivity and creates a wealthier society. But they might mean that greed is somehow moral or ethical, and that what we often call a vice is really a virtue鈥攁s suggested by the title of Ayn Rand鈥檚 book The Virtue of Selfishness. Which (if either) position is Smith鈥檚?
There鈥檚 a fair amount of evidence that suggests Smith agrees with the first claim. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (to say nothing of the Wealth of Nations) he tells us that 鈥渋t is well that nature鈥� has made us self-interested, as it 鈥渞ouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind.鈥� And this industry, in turn, has real benefits to society as a whole. Specifically, the rich, despite (or maybe because of) 鈥渢heir natural selfishness and rapacity,鈥� in time 鈥渄ivide with the poor鈥� the wealth that their self-interested activity has created. The famous invisible hand enters at this point, with Smith explaining that the rich 鈥渁re led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants.鈥� In short, the self-interest of some provides all with the 鈥渘ecessaries of life.鈥� Self-interest thus not only advances the individual鈥檚 interests, but also advances 鈥渢he interest of the society.鈥�3
So Smith clearly thinks self-interest is useful. But does he think it鈥檚 also good in a moral sense? Here we need to be careful. The short answer is that it depends. It depends in particular on how we go about pursuing our self-interest. Smith later will explicitly say that 鈥渞egard to our own private happiness and interest鈥� can seem 鈥渦pon many occasions very laudable principles of action,鈥� and that certain actions driven by 鈥渟elf-interested motives鈥� in fact 鈥渄eserve the esteem and approbation of every body.鈥�4 But Smith was hardly na茂ve. He knew quite well that people driven by the hope of attaining 鈥渢hose great objects of self-interest鈥� are often led to act in ways that are 鈥渘ot only unjust but extravagant.鈥�5 So at the very least Smith鈥檚 position on the goodness of self-interest is more nuanced than Mr. Gekko鈥檚. Self-interest, he thinks, can be pursued in a moral way. But it can also be (and often is) pursued in an immoral way. A key part of the challenge of living life well consists in understanding the difference between these two ways鈥攁 point to which we will return in what follows.
One last point about self-interest deserves mention here. Smith鈥檚 quote ends with the claim that every person is 鈥渇itter and abler to take care of himself than of any other person.鈥�6 This can be taken in two senses. First, it could be seen as saying that we can each take care of ourselves more effectively than anybody else can take care of us. It could also be read as saying we can each take care of ourselves more effectively than we can take care of other people. Smith himself, I think, agrees with both points. The key idea, here and elsewhere, involves personal responsibility鈥攖he notion that we are each our own best caretakers, and that everything goes better when we appreciate that other people are the best caretakers of their own selves as well. This is another point to which we鈥檒l have reason to return. But for now, the main point is that Smith indeed thinks we are naturally self-interested. Yet what he means by this is something very specific, and indeed something much more limited than what we鈥檙e often talking about when we talk about self-interest and capitalism today.
This essay is an excerpt from Our Great Purpose: Adam Smith on Living a Better Life by Ryan Patrick Hanley, now available in paperback.
Notes
1. George Stigler, 鈥淪mith鈥檚 Travels on the Ship of State,鈥� in Essays on Adam Smith, ed. Andrew S. Skinner and Thomas Wilson (Oxford, 1975), 237.
2. Theory of Moral Sentiments, 250.
3. Theory of Moral Sentiments, 214鈥�15.
4. Theory of Moral Sentiments, 357.
5. Theory of Moral Sentiments, 200鈥�201.
6. See also Theory of Moral Sentiments, 258.
av福利社 the Author
Ryan Patrick Hanley is professor of political science at Boston College. His books include Adam Smith and the Character of Virtue and Adam Smith: His Life, Thought, and Legacy (Princeton).