A Mystic Writes Arrant Nonsense About Adam Smith and Religion
‘G. K. Chesterton', writing in the Blog, The ChesterBelloch Mandate, a sort of cod catholic ‘distrubutist’ religious sect (HERE):
'Chesterton' posts the ‘Case of Adam Smith’, of which the following is included:
“In giving one or two examples, in this and the next article, I will start with the secular sciences of the early nineteenth century; those before being entangled in the theological struggles. For one case; does anybody realise what a queer and fantastic faith is covered by the very name of Adam Smith? He is considered a dull and stolid person who invented Free Trade; but he invented much more marvellous things. He had a philosophy and even a religion; and a very rum religion it was. Its theological thesis was this: that God had so made the world that He could achieve the good, if men were sufficiently greedy for the goods. If everybody worked meanly and sordidly for money, the result would be a prosperity that would prove the benevolence of Providence. Adam Smith’s idea of justifying the ways of God to men, was to tell the men to do unjustifiable things which God would justify. Adam Smith was a mystic. He was a sort of Quietist, except that he certainly did not tell people to keep quiet. His creed was that if business men would bustle about from purely business motives, the bringing of good out of evil was the business of God. But he believed that God was good; indeed God was apparently the only person required to be good.
Now, of course, most Englishmen do not take a creed in this clear-cut way; and even when they swallowed the Smith philosophy pretty completely for generations, it was mixed up with other things. But when all such allowance is made, what an extraordinary creed it was to swallow! What a weird cosmos it was to inhabit; in which everything was good because everybody was bad. A world in which the financial speculator grew thistles to attract donkeys; and the thistles grew figs to be the food of all the good and wise; in which your neighbour gathered grapes of the thorns you had planted in order to scratch him. The whole thing was much more rationally stated than are most modern expositions; it was also rank raving nonsense, as anyone would have seen in an age of creeds and common sense. Sanity sees at a glance that society finds it hard enough to hang together, with everybody taught to be unselfish; and that it would simply smash if everybody were taught to be selfish. Incidentally, I may add, it has already smashed. We have seen with our own eyes the Wealth of Nations wither into the Poverty of Nations. But there were stranger examples after Adam Smith; and I shall say something of them next week.”
Comment
I could simply dismiss ‘G.K. Chesterton’ as grossly misled as well as offensive in respect of Adam Smith’s legacy.
‘Chesterton’ has run together misleading ideas from the epigones, mainly associated with modern economics associated with Chicago and not with the Adam Smith born in Kirkcaldy in 1723.
'Chesterton' places Adam Smith in the ‘early 19th century’ – he was born in 1723 and died in 1790 – not an auspicious start for a claimed authority on Adam Smith.
“dull and stolid person who invented Free Trade” – not true; many others wrote about free trade (not least among them, David Hume).
“a religion; and a very rum religion it was. Its theological thesis was this: that God had so made the world that He could achieve the good, if men were sufficiently greedy for the goods” – close to being arrant nonsense; Smith never advocated ‘greed’; he called such vices ‘licentiousness’ and severly criticised its exponent ; his Theory of Moral Sentiments was solid (not ‘stolid’) in its advocacy of the virtues in all aspects of human social life.
“Sanity sees at a glance that society finds it hard enough to hang together, with everybody taught to be unselfish; and that it would simply smash if everybody were taught to be selfish” – how true, and how Smithian!
The practice of the positive virtues was an essential part of Adam Smith’s moral and economic teachings, plus the negative virtue of justice. And the instrument of keeping people from selfishness? Why, it was nothing less than the ‘impartial spectator’ from whom nobody could hide when tempted to selfishness. If an individual behaved badly, his impartial spectator would not approve, nor would other people.
If I catch the “promised stranger's” examples, next week, I shall report on them, though this week’s examples do not promise that next week’s will be much better.
Update: The 'Chesterton' Blog appears to be written by Richard Aleman HERE and a note on 'distributism' is HERE
'Chesterton' posts the ‘Case of Adam Smith’, of which the following is included:
“In giving one or two examples, in this and the next article, I will start with the secular sciences of the early nineteenth century; those before being entangled in the theological struggles. For one case; does anybody realise what a queer and fantastic faith is covered by the very name of Adam Smith? He is considered a dull and stolid person who invented Free Trade; but he invented much more marvellous things. He had a philosophy and even a religion; and a very rum religion it was. Its theological thesis was this: that God had so made the world that He could achieve the good, if men were sufficiently greedy for the goods. If everybody worked meanly and sordidly for money, the result would be a prosperity that would prove the benevolence of Providence. Adam Smith’s idea of justifying the ways of God to men, was to tell the men to do unjustifiable things which God would justify. Adam Smith was a mystic. He was a sort of Quietist, except that he certainly did not tell people to keep quiet. His creed was that if business men would bustle about from purely business motives, the bringing of good out of evil was the business of God. But he believed that God was good; indeed God was apparently the only person required to be good.
Now, of course, most Englishmen do not take a creed in this clear-cut way; and even when they swallowed the Smith philosophy pretty completely for generations, it was mixed up with other things. But when all such allowance is made, what an extraordinary creed it was to swallow! What a weird cosmos it was to inhabit; in which everything was good because everybody was bad. A world in which the financial speculator grew thistles to attract donkeys; and the thistles grew figs to be the food of all the good and wise; in which your neighbour gathered grapes of the thorns you had planted in order to scratch him. The whole thing was much more rationally stated than are most modern expositions; it was also rank raving nonsense, as anyone would have seen in an age of creeds and common sense. Sanity sees at a glance that society finds it hard enough to hang together, with everybody taught to be unselfish; and that it would simply smash if everybody were taught to be selfish. Incidentally, I may add, it has already smashed. We have seen with our own eyes the Wealth of Nations wither into the Poverty of Nations. But there were stranger examples after Adam Smith; and I shall say something of them next week.”
Comment
I could simply dismiss ‘G.K. Chesterton’ as grossly misled as well as offensive in respect of Adam Smith’s legacy.
‘Chesterton’ has run together misleading ideas from the epigones, mainly associated with modern economics associated with Chicago and not with the Adam Smith born in Kirkcaldy in 1723.
'Chesterton' places Adam Smith in the ‘early 19th century’ – he was born in 1723 and died in 1790 – not an auspicious start for a claimed authority on Adam Smith.
“dull and stolid person who invented Free Trade” – not true; many others wrote about free trade (not least among them, David Hume).
“a religion; and a very rum religion it was. Its theological thesis was this: that God had so made the world that He could achieve the good, if men were sufficiently greedy for the goods” – close to being arrant nonsense; Smith never advocated ‘greed’; he called such vices ‘licentiousness’ and severly criticised its exponent ; his Theory of Moral Sentiments was solid (not ‘stolid’) in its advocacy of the virtues in all aspects of human social life.
“Sanity sees at a glance that society finds it hard enough to hang together, with everybody taught to be unselfish; and that it would simply smash if everybody were taught to be selfish” – how true, and how Smithian!
The practice of the positive virtues was an essential part of Adam Smith’s moral and economic teachings, plus the negative virtue of justice. And the instrument of keeping people from selfishness? Why, it was nothing less than the ‘impartial spectator’ from whom nobody could hide when tempted to selfishness. If an individual behaved badly, his impartial spectator would not approve, nor would other people.
If I catch the “promised stranger's” examples, next week, I shall report on them, though this week’s examples do not promise that next week’s will be much better.
Update: The 'Chesterton' Blog appears to be written by Richard Aleman HERE and a note on 'distributism' is HERE
Labels: Adam Smith and Religous Belief
1 Comments:
The "negative" virtue of Justice? Now who speaks errant nonsense. More Adam. More in danger from his friends than his enemies.
Post a Comment
<< Home