R. H. Coase Graduate School



Yüklə 99,99 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə2/9
tarix08.08.2018
ölçüsü99,99 Kb.
#62016
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

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



Yüklə 99,99 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə