Renata Biana da Silva
Smith generally recognized the moral importance of both views (stoic virtue and humean utility). However, he also pointed out the weaknesses demonstrated by each, seeking to promote the use of a new principle that could reconcile classical virtue with the need to consider “self-love”.
Virtue theory, associated with the stoics and classical thinkers such as Plato, defines virtue as the pursuit of excellence, something that rises “above the vulgar”. This pursuit certainly requires self-mastery (subordination of fears and desires) and inner strength (fortitude) and is often associated with war and the “magnanimity” it demanded.
Although Smith praised this ideal, detached from the theory’s entirety, he did not fail to recognize its limitations when applied to a political system, since a virtue-based political system would be incompatible with liberal ideas and indifferent to economic growth. Ancient philosophers, such as Plato, opposed commercial progress for fear that the values of commerce would weaken the “military spirit of the citizens”. Smith argues that, to universally inculcate high virtue, the system would have to be authoritarian and violent, requiring the imposition of conformity.
Smith saw the pursuit of virtue as a path whose ultimate goal was perfection, although he recognized that this pursuit was not, or was rarely, pursued to its fullest extent. For him, virtue should be an ideal to be achieved individually, not a guiding principle of a (collective) political system.
In contrast, David Hume formulated the theory of utility as the “philosophical signature of the modern world”. For Hume, virtue is a calculation that seeks the “greatest happiness”. His philosophy was humanistic and proposed to reorient society toward a cosmopolitan and commercial life, while still prioritizing progress, the arts, and science, as opposed to stoic moral virtue.
It is important to note that Smith sympathized with Hume’s approach to economic growth, but he did not appreciate what he considered the “spiritual nihilism” implicit in utility theory. This made it an incomplete philosophy and, at the same time, insufficient to explain human behavior. In other words, it was empty when treated as a matter of substance, as it failed to explain why people act as they do.
Smith adds that utility theory cannot explain love, social bonds, or why people are not entirely selfish. Smith argued that Hume neglected the existence of an “inner man” or “conscience” that acts as a judge of our conduct.
In an attempt to find a middle ground between the stoic theory of virtues (self-mastery) and the theory of utility (calculation), Smith proposes the “philosophy of the golden mean”, between conscience and sympathy.
Sympathy, interpreted by Smith as a natural principle that awakens our interest in the fates of others, is the original source of moderation and the “corresponding affection of the spectator”; conscience is an impulse capable of directing individuals toward what is “honorable and noble”, as well as toward the pursuit of “superiority of character”.
Therefore, morality (the theory of moral sentiments), for Smith, is not guided purely by self-love or benevolence, but separately, however, by the assistance of the “great judge and arbiter of our conduct” that resides within our breasts.
REFERENCE
Fitzgibbons, A. (1995). Adam Smith’s system of liberty, wealth, and virtue: The moral and political foundations of the wealth of nations. Oxford University Press.
