Our Great Purpose: Adam Smith on Living a Better Life

by Ryan Patrick Hanley

Invaluable wisdom on living a good life from the founder of modern economics

Adam Smith is best known today as the founder of modern economics, but he was also an uncommonly brilliant philosopher who was especially interested in the perennial question of how to live a good life. Our Great Purpose is a short and illuminating guide to Smith's incomparable wisdom on how to live well, written by one of today's leading Smith scholars.

In this inspiring and entertaining book, Ryan Patrick Hanley describes Smith's vision of "the excellent and praiseworthy character," and draws on the philosopher's writings to show how each of us can go about developing one. For Smith, an excellent character is distinguished by qualities such as prudence, self-command, justice, and benevolence―virtues that have been extolled since antiquity. Yet Smith wrote not for the ancient polis but for the world of market society―our world―which rewards self-interest more than virtue. Hanley shows how Smith set forth a vision of the worthy life that is uniquely suited to us today.

Full of invaluable insights on topics ranging from happiness and moderation to love and friendship, Our Great Purpose enables modern readers to see Smith in an entirely new light―and along the way, learn what it truly means to live a good life.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Finance

176 pages, Hardcover

First published September 17, 2019

About the author

Ryan Patrick Hanley is Professor of Political Science at Boston College, he was the Mellon Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, and held visiting appointments or fellowships at Yale, Harvard and the University of Chicago.

He is a specialist on the political philosophy of the Enlightenment period. His books include Our Great Purpose: Adam Smith on Living a Better Life (Princeton, 2019) and The Political Philosophy of Fénelon (Oxford, 2020).

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 4 out of 5]

هدف با شکوه ما ، کتابی ایست از رایان پاتریک هانلی . او در این کتاب کوشیده به پرسش مهم، زیستن یک زندگی بهتر از نگاه و دیدگاه آدام اسمیت پاسخ دهد . شور بختانه اسمیت به ویژه در ایران به عنوان پدر سرمایه داری ، آن هم از نوع سختش شناخته می شود و غالبا فراموش می شود که او فیلسوف اخلاق گرای برجسته ای هم بوده است .
هدف با شکوه ما از 30 بخش کوتاه تشکیل شده . هر بخش با نقل قول کوتاهی از آدام اسمیت که برگرفته از کتاب نظریه احساسات اخلاقی ایست ، شروع شده و سپس نویسنده به شرح مفهوم مورد نظر اسمیت پرداخته .
نظریات اسمیت را می توان به دو بخش تقسیم کرد ، اولین بخش ناشی از سرشت انسان هاست که با آن آفریده شده اند و بخش دوم از جهانی نشات گرفته که در آن زندگی کرده و با آن رودر رو هستند . در هر دو بخش ؛ می توان صفاتی را دید که با همدیگر متضاد و در تناقض هستند . بنابراین بخشی از پاسخ اسمیت به سوال چگونه زیستن یک زندگی بهتر را باید در یافتن تعادل میان صفات مختلف ، مانند نفع شخصی و هم دردی دانست .
سنگ بنای فلسفه اسمیت که پایه و اساس کتاب اول او یعنی نظریه احساسات اخلاقی را هم ساخته ، باید در همدردی دانست . همدردی یعنی حسی که باعث می شود ما بتوانیم تا اندازه ای حس انسان دیگر را تجربه کنیم . همدردی به نوبه خود توسط ساز و کار دیگری که اسمیت آن را ناظر بی طرف ، یعنی قاضی آرمانی که عاری از احساسات بوده و با آرامش و خونسردی تصمیم می گیرد ، یاری و کمک می شود .
آدام اسمیت، ، نفع شخصی را موتور محرکه اصلی نظام سرمایه‌داری می‌داند. وی معتقد است انسان به طور ذاتی و طبیعی به دنبال تأمین منافع شخصی خود است. با این حال، اسمیت بین نیازها و خواسته‌های انسانی تمایز قائل می‌شود. به باور او، انسان برای برآوردن نیازهای اساسی خود ناگزیر به دنبال منفعت شخصی است، اما در مورد خواسته‌ها، می‌توان با اتکا بر اصول اخلاقی رفتار معقول‌تری از خود نشان داد.
به عبارت دیگر، اسمیت بر این باور است که منفعت‌طلبی در انسان ریشه دارد و این ویژگی، نیروی محرکه اصلی پیشرفت اقتصادی است. اما او همچنین بر اهمیت اخلاق و کنترل خواسته‌های نامحدود انسان تاکید می‌کند تا تعادل لازم بین منافع فردی و جمعی برقرار شود.
آدام اسمیت، ضمن پذیرش منفعت‌طلبی ذاتی انسان، بر اهمیت علاقه‌مندی او به دیگران نیز تأکید می‌کند. به باور او، انسان نه تنها به دنبال منافع شخصی خود است، بلکه به شادکامی دیگران نیز اهمیت می‌دهد. اسمیت معتقد است که انسان قادر است هم به دنبال منافع شخصی خود باشد و هم به دیگران کمک کند. او بر این باور است که این تعادل میان منفعت‌طلبی و همدلی، نه تنها به نفع جامعه است، بلکه به رشد فردی نیز کمک می‌کند.
به عبارت دیگر، اسمیت انسان را موجودی اجتماعی می‌داند که هم به خود و هم به دیگران اهمیت می‌دهد. او از انسان می‌خواهد که با عمل به این دو ویژگی، به ایجاد جامعه‌ای بهتر کمک کند.
اسمیت ابعاد دیگری از میل به منفعت طلبی انسان را نیز مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. وی معتقد است که انسان نه تنها به دنبال برآوردن نیازهای جسمانی خود و همدردی با است، بلکه به شدت خواهان توجه و همدردی دیگران نیز می‌باشد. به عبارت دیگر، انسان نه تنها با دیگران همدردی می‌کند، بلکه انتظار دارد که دیگران نیز با او همدردی کنند. این میل به دیده شدن و تأیید شدن، یکی از انگیزه‌های اصلی رفتارهای انسانی است.
اسمیت با طرح این پرسش که چگونه می‌توان برای نیاز به توجه، حد و مرزی تعیین کرد، به یکی از چالش‌های اساسی در درک رفتار انسان اشاره می‌کند. او در تلاش است تا تعادلی میان منفعت‌طلبی فردی و نیاز به تعاملات اجتماعی برقرار کند.
آدام اسمیت بر این باور است که بسیاری از افراد ثروت را به عنوان ابزاری برای جلب توجه دیگران می‌بینند. این دیدگاه نه تنها در زمان اسمیت، بلکه در عصر حاضر نیز بسیار رایج است. افراد اغلب تلاش می‌کنند با کسب ثروت بیشتر، به کالاها و خدمات لوکس دسترسی پیدا کنند تا به این ترتیب جایگاه اجتماعی خود را ارتقا داده و مورد توجه دیگران قرار گیرند. این رویکرد باعث می‌شود تا ثروتمندان در مرکز توجه قرار بگیرند و فقرا به حاشیه رانده شوند.
با این حال، اسمیت معتقد است که ثروت تنها بخشی از نیاز انسان به توجه را برطرف می‌کند. به عبارت دیگر، اگرچه ثروت می‌تواند به انسان احساس ارزشمندی و اهمیت بدهد، اما نمی‌تواند تمام ابعاد نیاز انسان به توجه و تأیید را پاسخگو باشد.
همانند فیلسوفان رواقی، آدام اسمیت هم معتقد است خوشبختی بیشتر به وضعیت ذهنی انسان وابسته است تا شرایط فیزیکی او. به عبارت دیگر، خوشبختی را ذهن انسان تعیین می‌کند نه جسم. او زندگی پراسترس و بدون فرصت‌های فراغت را مخالف خوشبختی می‌داند و معتقد است که خوشبختی واقعی در آرامش و لذت بردن از زندگی نهفته است. اسمیت، برخلاف برخی دیدگاه‌های زاهدانه، معتقد نیست که برای رسیدن به آرامش باید از تمام لذت‌های زندگی دست کشید. او به دنبال راهی است که انسان بتواند هم به آرامش برسد و هم از لذت‌های زندگی بهره‌مند شود.
هانلی کوشیده دوست داشتن به عنوان یکی از پایه های اساسی فلسفه اسمیت را شرح دهد . اهمیت این اصل برای اسمیت تا آن اندازه است که می گوید : آن چه ما بیش از هر چیزی در طلبش هستیم ، بزرگی و عظمت نیست ، بلکه عشق ، یعنی نیاز به دوست داشتن و دوست داشته شدن است . آدام اسمیت معتقد است که افراد شیفته عشق، برای دریافت عشق ابتدا خود باید عشق بورزند. به عبارت دیگر، آن‌ها با عشق ورزیدن، امیدوارند که مورد عشق قرار بگیرند. جامعه‌ای که بر پایه چنین روابطی بنا شده باشد، جامعه‌ای شادتر و پویاتر خواهد بود.
آدام اسمیت معتقد است انسان نه تنها دوست داشته شدن را می‌خواهد، بلکه می‌خواهد سزاوار دوست داشته شدن نیز باشد. به عبارت دیگر، انسان تلاش می‌کند تا ارزش‌های اخلاقی داشته باشد تا از نظر خودش لایق عشق باشد. او به دنبال تایید وجدان خودش است نه دیگران.
اسمیت سپس مهمترین واصلی ترین عنصر فلسفه اخلاقی خود یعنی ناظر بی طرف را شرح می دهد .
او معتقد است که هر فرد یک قاضی داخلی دارد که به او کمک می‌کند رفتارهای درست و غلط را تشخیص دهد. این قاضی با توجه به یک قانون ساده می‌گوید: به دیگران همان‌طور رفتار کن که دوست داری با خودت رفتار شود." با استفاده از این قاضی داخلی، می‌توان روابط بهتری با دیگران داشت اسمیت می‌گوید که هر فردی دو بخش دارد: یک بخش که عمل انجام می‌دهد و یک بخش که عمل را قضاوت می‌کند. با استفاده از این ناظر بی طرف، می‌توان از دیدگاه دیگری به اعمال خود نگاه و آن‌ها را بهتر ارزیابی کرد .
نویسنده سپس به اهمیت وجود ناظر بی طرف پرداخته ، ناظر بی طرف به انسان کمک می‌کند تا به این حقیقت مهم پی ببرد که همه انسان‌ها برابرند و هیچ‌کس بر دیگری برتری ذاتی ندارد.
اسمیت معتقد است که تفاوت‌های بین افراد از تفاوت در عادات، آداب و رسوم و مهم‌تر از همه، آموزش آن‌ها ناشی می‌شود نه از تفاوت در ذاتشان. او با مثال‌هایی مانند مقایسه یک فیلسوف و یک کارگر نشان می‌دهد که چگونه دو فرد با توانایی‌های اولیه مشابه، تحت تأثیر محیط و آموزش، مسیرهای کاملاً متفاوتی را طی می‌کنند.
به عبارت دیگر، اسمیت می‌گوید که انسان‌ها به جای اینکه خودشان را برتر از دیگران بدانند، باید به برابری خود پی ببرند. این درک، یکی از سخت‌ترین درس‌های اخلاق است و به انسان دیدگاهی عمیق‌تر نسبت به خود و دیگران می‌دهد
آدام اسمیت ، معتقد است که آموزش انسان را در یک دوراهی اساسی قرار می‌دهد ، مسیر اول: کسب ثروت و عظمت: این مسیر ، با غرور و خودستایی همراه است. انسان در این مسیر، به دنبال برتری‌جویی و کسب قدرت است و کمتر به نیازها و احساسات دیگران توجه می‌کند و مسیر دوم، مطالعه خرد و فضیلت: این مسیر، بر اساس فروتنی، عدالت و درک برابری انسان‌ها بنا شده است. انسان در این مسیر، به دنبال شناخت حقیقت، بهبود خود و خدمت به جامعه است.
واضح است که اسمیت مسیر دوم را ترجیح می دهد ، زیرا فروتنی و عدالت، دو ویژگی اصلی فردی است که مسیر خرد و فضیلت را انتخاب کرده است. این فرد، خود را برتر از دیگران نمی‌داند و به حقوق همه احترام می‌گذارد.
نویسنده سپس به فضائل و تقسیم آن از نگاه اسمیت پرداخته ، او فضائل را به دو دسته تقسیم کرده ، فضائل هیبت انگیز که انسان را ملزم می کند انظباطی سخت بر خود حاکم کند و دسته دوم فضائلی که مربوط به چگونگی ادراک ما از دیگران هستند . به بیان دیگر فضائل هیبت انگیز مشغولیت انسان به خود را کاهش داده و دسته دوم مشغولیت انسان به دیگران را افزایش می دهد . این گونه یعنی با همدردی بیشتر با دیگران و همدردی کمتر با خود انسان به کمال می رسد .
اسمیت سرانجام روش و شیوه بهترین نوع زیستن را بیان می کند : همانند خردمند فاضل ، یعنی کسی که فضیلتش خبر از خرد او می دهد و خردش از فضیلت او می گوید . یا تلفیق خرد و فضیلت
خردمند فاضل کیست ؟

پاسخ به این سوال را باید سخت ترین قسمت کتاب دانست ، از نگاه اسمیت ، خردمند فاضل در هر زمانی خواهان آن است که منافع شخصی او باید فدای منافع همگانی جامعه شود این گونه انسان با قربانی کردن منفعت خود ، به نفع شخصی عمیق تری می رسد . او لذت هایی را که قربانی می شوند را شناخته شدن ، توجه و ستایش می داند . خردمند فاضل این گونه با عشق و کار بدون پاداش به رضایت و تایید شخصی ، یعنی بالاترین هدف زندگی می رسد .
در پایان هدف با شکوه ما را باید یک کتاب ارزشمند برای کسانی دانست که به فلسفه و اخلاق علاقه مند هستند . همچنین این کتاب به خواننده یادآور می‌شود که آدام اسمیت نه تنها یک اقتصاددان، بلکه یک فیلسوف بزرگ بود که اندیشه‌های او همچنان برای انسان مهم ، حیاتی و الهام‌بخش است.

[John Crippen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short book is wonderful! It will make you want to be a better person, teach you what Adam Smith thought about being wise and virtuous, and prompt you to read (or finish...) Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hanley does sort of a textual analysis of Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” He pulls out a key sentence or two from Smith, and then follows it with his, Hanley’s, own modernizing language of the same. This is then followed by two or three pages of discussion of how what Smith said back in the 1700s is relevant to us now. Hanley follows this format, chapter by chapter and, in the end, one has a fairly good idea of what Smith was all about as far as his theory of moral sentiments is concerned.

I found this rendering - both the substance and the format - of Smith painful. It is an idealization of Smith’s theory to make him relevant to the problems of today. The book reconciles pure self-interest and the problems attendant thereto with other-regarding behavior, and we mental people then attempt to put this ideal into place. What we come up with is personal happiness that is combined with social harmony. It is the best of both worlds. Everything is hunky dory, but it ignores some crucial understandings of evolutionary science that make claims for Smith and Hanley’s moral ideal a non-starter.

Hanley begins by noting Smith’s foundational point that we naturally pursue our own self interest. It is man’s nature to do so, and it is “right that it should be so.” Since this leads to people bumping into each other, it’s a problem for social order. Hanley’s next chapter addresses that concern by noting that we are not only self-interested, but that we are also interested in others” and the next several chapters describe Smith and Hanley’s view about how much our own happiness is tied to the happiness of others. It is this tie that keeps our self-interest in check, and preserves social order while at the same time providing for the economic well-being of everyone.

This is Smith’s, and Hanley’s, argument in essence. The rest of the book is filled out with all the caveats, nuances, etc., two of which are important to highlight. First, in examining our own behavior, we should take the position of the “impartial spectator.” Then we see we are not so special because everyone is in the same situation. There’s a fundamental equality that we come to know and respect. In looking at our own behavior impartially in this manner, we can see when the pursuit of self-interest can be done without harming the self-interest of others, but most importantly, we can see when we need to restrict our self-interest because of the negative impacts on others. We do pleasures in moderation because we are under the control of self-command. As Hanley summarizes, one martini is better than zero or two.

Second, the distinctive trait of humans is their imagination. Whereas bodily needs are limited, their wants/desires soar with imagination. Imagination emancipates mind from the body and puts human want/desire into unlimited territory. This is a problem for social harmony, but also it enables us to take the perspective of the impartial spectator so that we can see the impact of our behavior on others. Knowing when we go into the others’ space makes us able at the same time to restrict our own behavior. Mind is Plato’s mind, secularized. It sits as the charioteer in control of the passions (i.e., of self-interest).

Smith was a voice for his time. He articulated well the self-motivating energy that went into early capitalist economics and the overall benefits that came with that. Smith was also aware of the dangers that accompanied unbridled self-interest and made a reasonable attempt - through his observations on our sympathetic relations with others - to keep a check on unbridled self-interest. But Hanley’s attempt to update Smith and make him current - applicable - is misguided. We’ve had a long exposure to the motivations that underlie capitalist economics and we know well its soft underbelly. Human nature is not a unified entity as Smith and the author would have it. We are gradations of intensity. Some are more rawly self-interested than others; some are more socially respectful than others. Both are consistent with the variability that comes with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Most fall along the continuum between these twin poles of human nature (Hanley denies this variability - we are all more or less the same and it is nurture [“habit, custom and education”] that makes us different). Combine highly self-interested motivation with high capacity (skill, intelligence) and a full-suite of deceit and manipulation that can go along with that, and the social harmony ideal of Smith goes out the window. The self-interested take off in terms of wealth, power, and status that Smith acknowledges. Those who are socially sensitive and play by the rules get the hind tit or are forced, by situational dynamics, to play the same game in order not to fall behind. And then the great unravelling occurs.

To make his Smithian ideal work, Hanley has to put the mind in control to do good things and not do bad things. Whereas Smith lodges self-interested and other-regarding behavior in human nature, that’s pretty much it for Hanley. Mind takes it from there, and tells the body - regardless of the deterministic values it embeds in “human nature” - what to do. We keep self-interest in check and promote other-regarding behavior. Good luck on that front. How one minimizes selfishness and maximizes benevolence if one is not motivated to do either is neither a question Hanley asks nor addresses.

In the end, Hanley says we are to mold ourselves into “wise and virtuous” beings who set before ourselves a standard of excellence, which is the “minimization of selfishness and the maximization of benevolence.” Now he is on a roll. He gradually builds this perfection pitch into a divine crescendo. Like Plato, we are to seek perfection knowing that we will always come short. Hanley puts Socrates forward as one such model because of his supreme self-command regarding the acceptance of his own death. Hanley acknowledges that Smith himself was otherwise less than smitten with Socrates, but then tells us that, given how others view Socrates, Smith was probably wrong on that front. Actually, Smith was probably quite right on his view of Socrates who was an obnoxious agenda-pusher for a divine truth and was highly intolerant of those who saw the world differently. Hanley then pulls out his ace in the whole, Jesus, who was the ultimate model for his “minimize selfishness, maximize benevolence” mantra. This is Smithian virtue. And from Jesus, Hanley takes us to his climax point that the love of virtue leads to religious beliefs. Hanley, quoting Smith, writes that we in some sense '“cooperate with the Deity, and...advance as far as our power the Plan of Providence,”' to which Hanley adds that “The end of our goodness thus isn’t simply our own happiness but the promotion of the happiness of all, and thereby God’s will, here on earth.”

Hanley, thus, wraps up his book into one tidy package. He turns Smith’s this-world utopia into a religious utopia. But the hope-for justice that might come from the existence of that other-world is fruitless. That other-world doesn’t exist or, if it does, it doesn't care. It’s a this-world only that meaningfully exists and for that, Hanley’s Smithian world that counts on benevolence to effectively counter unregulated, capitalist self assertion is forever hopeless. A hefty dose of realism is needed in our assessment of human nature(s) and for that we need to look at who we really are. Where Hanley goes high, we need to go low and see ourselves for who we really are as fully-empowered biological beings, many of whom could care less, really, about the welfare of others or the good of the whole. In the 2016 election meddling, Obama tells Putin to "cut it out" as if a plea of this sort is all that was needed. Yes, there’s ample good will and benevolence - a point that Darwin made when discussing what made us good tribal members - but that’s the stuff for suckers unless or until we come to understand that only countervailing power works to preserve the order and harmony that is Hanley’s ideal. It is Neibuhr without the God stuff.

The book is laid out in near-Reader’s Digest, pop psychology format that is, superficially, thoughtful. “Want to be happy?...Feel less hate and more love,” as if the mind commands the feelings, and not - per Smith's good friend Hume - the other way around. It was a format that I found quickly tiring. About half way through, I decided that I could predict his line of thought by simply reading his opening quotation and the first and last paragraphs, and I could skip the filler in between. Throughout, there are some sloppy thinking instances that drove me nuts. Thus, for example, he writes of Hume that religious beliefs for people are “out of fear, or because they are anxious and worried,” as if anxiety and worry are not variations of fear. Since anger and hatred are negative emotions for the self and others, we should suppress them in all instances he says except for when the innocent are harmed and need to be protected. Well, obviously, hatred (dislike) and anger (action because there is dislike) are problems, but they are not as Hanley implies, bad per se. In fact, they are absolutely critical emotions involved with our own self-defense - sticking up for ourselves and not only to be employed for the innocent. As for God, Hanley just slips into his largely academic account of Smith that, as a factual statement, God exists. “Who then is God, and what role does he play in our lives,” he asks. His partial answer is that “It would of course take a theologian to do justice to this question….” Really? Talk about pre-empting the field. Hume for one had plenty to say on this topic, which Hanley discusses somewhat fully. Evolutionary science might have a thing or two to say about religion (solving the twin survival problems of needing to live forever and fearing not living forever). And, in his attempt to walk that fine line that separates the inner-directed from the other-directed person - and this centers on what Smith means that we “should be lovely” to become "beloved” - Hanley writes of the “Off-Duty” section in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal that “I adore “Off Duty,” partly because it gives me something to talk about at parties, but mostly because if offers an unparalleled window onto how we in advanced commercial societies envision the accoutrements of the good life.” That strikes me as being horribly other-driven. Finally, the book could use some refinement editing. There are more than a few hagiographical references that put Smith into an overly exceptional status. Smith, he says for example, has “the unique ability to see both sides,” as if other thoughtful writers/thinkers/philosophers do not. And an editor would surely limit his use of the word “here.” They are found on almost every page, used as landing ledges for his various thoughts, to catch a breather before moving on.

[Randall Hartman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Our Great Purpose introduces us to The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the lesser known of two major works by Adam Smith, a professor of moral philosophy famous for describing his well-known theories of economics in The Wealth of Nations. Hanley’s book overviews the former, acquainting us with a surprising side of a complex individual unfairly stereotyped as simply a dispassionate proponent of free market capitalism.

By means of key quotes from The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the author walks us through the progression of Smith’s integrated consideration of how to “live a better life,” the difference “between knowing how to get ahead in life and learning how to live life well” by a “synthesis of action and reflection — or, to use Smith’s own words, a synthesis of ‘wisdom’ and ‘virtue.’”

Smith’s vision of what constitutes a “perfect” life sounds quite similar, in many respects, to the life Jesus calls His followers to live. His diagnosis of the human condition as all inherently equal, none greater than another, the virtue of self-examination, humility, love, and others-centeredness are all surprising, given Smith’s reputation. He sees the most virtuous life not as one of taking and consuming and self-focus, but of giving and caring — even a life of love.

Our secular society could do well to listen to and appreciate Smith’s reasoning as well as to apply itself, as far as possible, to his prescription. The author notes how many people opt for the caricature of greed wrongfully imputed to Smith’s Wealth of Nations. It would be hard to deny that our culture is vehemently self-focused, rebellious toward any limitation of our personal rights, and increasingly acts out in words and deeds against others.

Smith put his convictions into action, fondly eulogizing his atheist friend David Hume, for which his motives and faith were questioned. He was “able to disaggregate his friend’s ideas on religion from the virtues of his character.” I agree with the author that we could learn much from this approach, even as our culture seems to reflect the same judgmental attitudes as Smith’s.

My take is that Smith’s approach fails, even though it appears similar to the Christian life, because it has both a flawed premise and a faulty prescription. Smith promotes a life of love with the good of others as its objective and doing this without a desire for others’ approval or hope of receiving something in return for ourselves. Shockingly, though, his inquiry into how to achieve this objective concludes that the highest motivation we have for living virtuously is to achieve the most important goal in life: approving ourselves! “What makes the wise and virtuous person’s life worth it is that it succeeds in gratifying the deepest interest of the best sort of human being...complete self-satisfaction.”

Sadly, Smith’s counsel for living this “better life” couldn’t be more different than that of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus calls us to acknowledge our inability to please God on our own, to accept His perfect life, sinless sacrifice, and by faith to trust His resurrected intercession for us with God as our only hope. Then, because we are undeserving yet forgiven children of God, we live and love for His glory and others’ good. Our highest calling and source of our joy and approval is the love of God, and it is evidenced of our “fruits” — good works done in His name.

Smith fails when he advocates for a secular solution that cannot account for the sinful human heart. He misses the futility of his prescription (erroneously believing virtue will draw people toward faith, whereas self-satisfaction is what Jesus condemned because it leads to the opposite of Smith’s conclusion - looking down on others, selfishness,etc.). Further, he is either unaware of or dismisses the utter absence of natural human motivation to pursue a wholly selfless life (since the natural person rejects God’s diagnosis of his sinful condition and does not desire to submit to God’s authority).

There is little mention of vibrant Christian faith in Smith’s book. His Enlightenment background sees God primarily as the omnipotent creator and eternal judge. When he comes to the fork in the road of responding in faith to the gospel and conforming his life to the revealed will of God, he opts for the other path. That road follows his Enlightenment roots into a secular dead-end that sounds attractive but fails to describe the real world or an effective means by which to achieve its objective because it elevates man’s judgment, his “moral faculties,” over God and His revelation.

Hanley’s book makes Smith’s progression of thought accessible, understandable, and logical. Having done so, this overview makes plain to me as a follower of Jesus that Smith misses the mark when viewed with a Biblical perspective and would have provided greater service to himself and his readers by sticking with his forte of observing and describing what is and why (such as the invisible hand in economics). Perhaps, in this regard, it is better that he is best known for his invaluable contribution to the world of economics in the Wealth of Nations.

A final note on the writing: The author has a unique style that is fraught with repetitive figures of expression and formulaic presentation. At first, the approach is different and interesting, but its repetitiveness (chapter after chapter) becomes annoying and leads one to conclude that the same things could have been said just as much or more clearly with far fewer words. The cumulative impact of this flaw is the primary reason for my 3-star rating.

[Vance Ginn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hanley writes an interesting book about the father of modern economics Adam Smith’s views on how to live a loved and loving life to live our great purpose. Ultimately, he notes that Smith was one who built on the Enlightenment with reasoning of religion and spirituality that had much been overlooked then. This sets him apart from many other philosophers. While I think Hanley does a good job of going through different aspects of Smith’s views, I think he could have done a better job of connecting it with human flourishing on earth with Smith’s views on economics. With that said, I recommend that you read it to see what you find.

[Fab · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book consists of quotes taken directly from Smith’s works which are expanded upon and explained by the author. For someone totally new to Smith, this was a nice introduction into his way of thinking although it seemed to me that the author was pushing his own ideas and beliefs, especially about religion (he admitted himself that Smith scarcely mentions it in his works). I also didn’t appreciate how we took pains to explain away his friendship with Hume as if it tainted Smith in some way while Smith’s own words (in the quote included) clearly express how much he admired Hume.
On the bright side this book really made me want to explore Smith’s own works and read from other authors to gain a better understanding of his moral philosophy.

[Jerry Wall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Adam Smith, but not his famous Wealth of Nations with the invisible hand. Instead it is philosophy with an impartial spectator. With good secular viewpoint most of the way he gets off into
Jesus and religion toward end, though I am not sure why other than to connect attenuated references to religion.
. . . Smith's philosophy of living . . . is founded on a synthesis of action and reflection -- or, to use Smith's own words, a synthesis of "wisdom" and "virtue." p. 1
Smith . . . moral judgment . . . cornerstone of which is his concept of sympathy: the sentiment that leads us to feel in some measure and to some degree, what other people feel, and which Smith thinks
is inherent to human nature. Sympathy, in turn, is assisted by another mechanism . . . the "impartial spectator" p. 6
. . . by nature we are not only self-interested; we're also naturally interested in others. p. 15
. . . an interest in others that is so strong and so powerful that "their happiness" is "necessary " to us. p. 16
. . . we are made not merely to be interested in other, but to act for others. p. 19
. . . our mandate is to ensure that whatever we do, we act in a way that we promote those changes that are "most favorable to the happiness of all." p. 21
[our approach should be] to try to see the world from the perspective of and through the eyes of those with whom we disagree. p. 24
. . . "sole advantage " of wealth and greatness is that they gratify our "love of distinction." p. 29 !!!!!
. . . unhappiness lies in over - valuing what we lack and under-valuing what we have. p. 32 !!!!!!!!!!
. . . the poor man's son, whom heaven in its anger has visited with ambition. p. 34
Question] are there other ways that we might go about bettering our condition -- ways that might be both good for our society and good for ourselves. p. 35 !!!!!!
. . . happiness lies within, and specifically in the healthy mind. p. 36
. . . happiness is less the result of our physical condition than our psychological condition. p. 37 !!!!!
. . . to be happy, we first have to be at peace with ourselves. p. 40
. . . real happiness lies not in getting a certain thing but in being a certain thing . . . p. 41
{Rousseau and Smith} show us how we might live well in light of both the divisions of our nature and the challenges of our world. p. 48
. . . we are not made to be alone, evident in that friendship promotes our tranquility. p. 49
. . . tranquility is threatened by hatred and anger, but promoted by gratitude and love . p 56
. . . when it comes to living life well . . . we need to discover a way of living that is at once good for others and good for ourselves. p. 57!!!!!
[we need a book like Moral Sentiments ] to explain how exactly we can come to hate less and love more. p. 59
"the chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being loved. p. 61
. . . in order to get the love we want, we need to give some love [in return]. p. 65
"the mysterious veil of self-delusion. p. 79
you aren't any better than anyone else -- and nobody else is any better than you. p. 83
nature made us all more or less the same. * * * . . . differences come "not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. p. 88
He (Smith) knows we often classify and rank people by their appearances and their jobs. p. 89
in the end, is it just sheer luck of the draw: the lottery of life that placed some of us in a position where we had more chances to flourish than those born into othrr positions? p. 91
. . . the outsized role of "custom, habit, and education" in this, gives us some reason to think that the successful aren't quite as much the masters of their fate as they sometimes think. p. 89
. . . it is only a "small party, who are the real and steady admirers of wisdom and virtue" -- a party dwarfed by that "great mob of mankind" who are the "admirers and worshippers" of wealth and greatness. p. 94
This leaves us with at least two questions that we'll need to answer. First, what in the world is "wisdom," and where exactly do we find it? Second, what exactly is "virtue," and why is it so important to us if we want to live our lives as well as possible? p. 95
our individual perfection is not only good for ourselves: it's also good for society. ** *
. . . the mark of perfection is minimization of selfishness and maximization of benevolence. * * * we need to strive to "feel much for others and little for ourselves." p. 101
the virtue of the wise and virtuous lies in their humility and beneficence. p. 109
. . . imagine what the rest of the world must look like to one who has seen the sort of perfection he's seen (a vision of perfection). p. 110
[with a vision of perfection, one would be tolerant of those who were not perfect and would tend to promote their attempts to improve]. p. 111
Smith emphasizes just how much fear of death shapes our lives. p. 117 !!!!!
{Author admires what he calls the natural principles of religion.} {discusses those who turn to religion as they feel sorrow and compassion for the suffering s of the innocent, especially innocent others who suffer at the hands of the wicked and unjust} this sounds like a perfect exercise of the threat religion holds over their adherents, i. e. those who are constantly threatened to not enjoy the afterlife if they do not follow the religious rules. obiter dicta
Two contrasting visions of the good and how it comes to be know: one by reason and philosophy, the other by revelation and faith. p. 124 religion and faith is based on the principle that if it is pronounced by a sage of prophet, it cannot be proved or tested but must be given faith. ********

[Siti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easy reading, good for the search of an impartial spectator to achieve perfection

[Lance Cahill · Rating 3 out of 5]

A so-so book. Hanley summarizes crisply the aim of The Theory of Moral Sentiments regarding the ‘nobility of self-command, relationship of tranquility to happiness, and the superiority of praiseworthiness to praise’.

But, it’s hard to tell who the intended audience is for this book. Certainly provides a brief intro to an underemphasized side of Adam Smith. But, the discussions are too brief and informal to be considered a serious treatment and better popularized treatments of Smith are available elsewhere. Leads to certain drive-by treatments that seem cribbed from secondary sources (such as a barb directed at George Stigler) without the appropriate context - presumably to make a rhetorical point. Part of me is concerned that Hanley didn’t read the original source of the Stigler quote as he would’ve been able to reconcile his point with Stigler’s discussion (that Smith, at times, had explanations which didn’t necessarily align with a self-interested paradigm in an environment of open competition).

This almost seems a devotional structured around The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Nearly 30 short chapters (4-5 pages each) that is led off by a direct quote and then paraphrase of the quote and then brief discussion. Devotionals may serve a purpose if the reader has some engagement with the underlying text.

Book does contain a great postscript that has sources for future reading relating to Smith that will serve as a great reference.

Not sure who I’d recommend this book too. For TMS, I’d probably recommend Russ Roberts’ book. For WN, I’d probably recommend Heilbroner’s.

[Arttu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic gateway to the moral philosophy of Adam Smith, viewed through the lense of living a good life. The short chapters cover a variety of simple yet profound issues, such as friendship, love, and dignity. The chapters are thought-provoking: after every chapter, I felt like as I could go write an essay on the subject. This is what I really liked throughout the book.

But even more I enjoyed how the chapters build up my wisdom to grasp, discuss and understand the main thesis of this inquiry: the best life is the life of wisdom and virtue. In essence, the main thesis explains two key points: why there's no shortcut to good life, but a bottom-up approach to build sufficient wisdom; and why, having gained this wisdom, we shouldn't simply withdraw from the world's imperfections but instead purse an active life of virtue.

This is a brief read that I will happily revisit someday.

[Glenn Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Love then is good not just for the beloved, but also (and perhaps especially) for the lover. In this way love and gratitude play central roles in Smith's vision of living life well. As we have already had occasion to note, Smith's master question when it comes to living life well is that we need to discover a way of living that is at once good for others and good for ourselves. And love and gratitude are perhaps the preeminent sentiments that are at once good for others and good for ourselves."

[Chesna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. It's organized in brief, topical chapters that can be read stand-alone, but build to a compelling vision of the good life. Having not much (if any?) exposure to Smith before, this book piqued my interest and gave me a framework for reading him more productively. An interesting take on self-interested capitalism, too.

[Philip Bunn]

An excellent treatment of Smith applied to general questions of right living. Hanley is a compelling writer, and he makes Smith's moral theories and prescriptions clear and applicable for the reader in a concise and delightful way.

[Shivang Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book. One time read. Short read.

[Nick Berk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting idea, mediocre execution. It has some interesting ideas, but I think there are a lot of other more useful (and better written) books in the "how to live a better life" genre.

[Evans]

Fresh practical context for Adam Smith. Dispels myths, enjoyable to read & would recommend.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reviews Wealth of Nations predecessor book.