4
Selected Papers No. 50
man of speculation, enter into many
reasonings concerning the effects which
this disaster might produce upon the
commerce of Europe, and the trade
and business of the world in general.
And when all this fine philosophy was
over, when all these humane sentiments
had been once fairly expressed, he
w o u l d p u r s u e
his business or his
pleasure, take his repose or his diver-
sion, with the same ease and tranquillity
as if no such accident had happened.
The most frivolous disaster which could
befall himself would occasion a more
real disturbance. If he was to lose his
little finger to-morrow, he would not
sleep to-night; but, provided he never
saw them, he will snore with the most
profound security over the ruin of a
hundred millions of his brethren, and
the destruction of that immense multi-
tude seems plainly an object less in-
teresting to him than this paltry mis-
fortune of his own.6
Note that Adam Smith is maintaining that
people do behave in the way so vividly
described in the example - and if we recall
how few of us lost our appetites on hearing
of the tremendous loss of life in recent years
in Bangladesh or Chad or Guatemala, and
in other places, w e n e e d n o t d o u b t t h e
accuracy of Adam Smith’s account. The
quotation clearly can be used, rightly in my
view, as an illustration of the strength of
self-interest in determining human behaviour.
What does at first sight appear strange is
that this quotation is to be found in a chapter
entitled, “Of the Influence and Authority
of Conscience,” since Adam Smith’s de-
scription of the response of a man of humanity
to this appalling disaster in China, seems
R. H. Coase
5
designed to demonstrate the absence of
conscience.
But this is to ignore the subtlety of Adam
Smith’s mind.
Given that people would
r e s p o n d t o t h i s d i s a s t e r i n t h e w a y h e
describes, he now asks the question: suppose
that it were possible to prevent the loss of
those hundred million lives by sacrificing
his little finger, would a man of humanity
be unwilling to make the sacrifice? Adam
Smith gives this answer:
Human nature startles with horror at
the thought, and the world, in its
greatest depravity and corruption, never
produced such a villain as could be
capable of entertaining it. But what
m a k e s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e ? W h e n o u r
passive feelings are almost always so
sordid and so selfish, how comes it that
our active principles should often be
so generous and so noble? When we
are always so much more deeply affected
by whatever concerns ourselves than by
whatever concerns other men; what is
it which prompts the generous upon all
occasions, and the mean upon many, to
sacrifice their own interests to the greater
interests of others? It is not the soft
power of humanity, it is not that feeble
spark of benevolence which Nature has
lighted up in the human heart, that
is thus capable of counteracting the
strongest impulses of self-love. . . . It
is a stronger love, a more powerful
affection, which generally takes place
upon such occasions; the love of what is
honourable and noble, of the grandeur,
and dignity, and superiority of our own
characters.’
Professor Macfie thinks that the ending of
this eloquent passage strikes a false note.*
6
Selected Papers No. 50
But I do not think so. It is the last sentence
which states (no doubt a little too ornately
for our modern taste) the essence of Adam
Smith’s position. It is not the love of mankind
which makes the “man of humanity” willing
to make this sacrifice, but because he sees
himself through the eyes of an impartial
spectator. As we would say today, if he
were to act differently, had chosen to retain
his little finger by letting a hundred million
die, he would not have been able to live
with himself. We have to appear worthy
in our own eyes. It is not love for the
Chinese (for whom he might have no feeling
at all), but love for the dignity and super-
iority of his own character which, if he had
to face such a choice, would lead the man
of humanity to sacrifice his little finger.
Of course, Adam Smith presents us with
an extreme case. But it enables him to make
h i s p o i n t i n a s e t t i n g w h i c h b r o o k s n o
objection. It is easy to see that if the man
of humanity had been faced with the loss,
not of his little finger, but of his arms and
legs, and had the number of Chinese who
would have been saved by his sacrifice been
one hundred rather than one hundred million,
he might, indeed probably would, decide
differently. But this does not affect Adam
Smith’s point. He knew, of course, that the
extent to which we follow any course of
action depends on its cost. The demand for
food, clothing and shelter similarly depends
on their price, but no one doubts their
importance when we are discussing the
working of the economic system.
The force of conscience in influencing our
actions is, of course, weakened by the fact,
which Adam Smith notes, that while some
men are generous, others are mean and less
responsive to the promptings of the impartial
Dostları ilə paylaş: |