“While some men are born small and some achieve smallness, it is clear that Adam Smith has had much smallness thrust upon him.” – Amartya Sen, p. 54
While Adam Smith certainly advocated for the channeling of self-interested behavior through markets to benefit the whole of society, most historians of economic thought warn that his theories have been interpreted too narrowly. Sen focuses on Smith’s notion of human motivation, contrasting it with what later rational choice economic theorists would have you believe are Smith’s ideas. He also points out that Smith was concerned with poverty and inequality. Rasmussen, who wrote the article in the Atlantic, also discusses Smith on poverty and inequality, with a focus on the reasons why Smith drew upon his ideas about human nature and “sympathy” to determine that inequality was bad for society. Integrating the readings, the Smith excerpts from the Wealth of Nations, the excerpt from Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, and/or the Sen reading, discuss the ways that common narrow framings of Smith fall short of understanding his ideas about human nature and. Questions to consider include:
1. Did Smith have a singular view of human nature of entirely self-interested (and a moral view that “greed is good”) or did he have a broader view of human psychology and moral behavior?
2. Did Smith think that self-interest would always lead to optimal economic outcomes?
3. What are the implications of Smith’s views on human nature for our contemporary world? (you could discuss financial fragility, or inequality, or…)
