Better than a Rope of Sand: cohesion in commercial society

• Authors: Christopher J Berry
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

  RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Do Smith, Hume and other Scots have an argument to reject John Brown’s claim in his Estimate that a society based on self-interest lacks cohesion? And can they do so without accepting Hobbes’ argument that the necessary cohesion can only be provided by the threat of coercion from a sovereign? THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: Problem: The eighteenth century debate on the nature of commercial society. Method: Analysis of key texts in the debate as it occurred in Scotland. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The Scots argue that a society where everyman lives by exchanging, operating on the assumption of selfinterest, is a more peaceable, more equitable and thus more cohesive than that envisioned by Brown. When reinforced by the rule of law, self-interested behaviour supports mutually supportive behaviour. Ultimately this embodies a constant and universal principle of human nature. Human behaviour is not random or chaotic and a commercial society not only exemplifies that fact but also sustains a form of societal life superior to any that has one before. RESEARCH RESULTS: Nostalgia for an earlier time is mis-placed. For all its vehemence Brown’s critique is mis-directed and thus unjustified. CONCLUSION, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This selection of the Scots should be widened to investigate whether Ferguson, Kames, Wallace among others have the same resources as Hume and Smith to rebut Brown.  

Keywords

EN

self-interest; Commerce; Justice; Smith; Hume

• Publisher: Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
• Journal: Horyzonty Polityki
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 25
• Pages: 29-41

Dates

published

2018-01-31

Contributors

author

Christopher J Berry

References

• Berry, C. (1987). Need and Egoism in Marx’s Early Writings. History of Political Thought, 8, 461‑473.
• Berry, C. (2013). Idea of Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment (1767). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Ferguson, A. (1967). An Essay on the History of Civil Society, ed. D. Forbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature (1739/40), ed. L. Selby-Bigge & P. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Hume, D. (1987a). Of First Principles of Government (1741). In: E. Miller (ed.), Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Hume, D. (1987b). Of Refinement of Arts. In: E. Miller (ed.), Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Hume, D. (1998). An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), ed. T. Beauchamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hutcheson, F. (1994). Philosophical Writings, ed. R. Downie. London: Dent.
• Mandeville, B. (1988). Fable of the Bees (1732), ed. F. Kaye. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Millar, J. (2006). Historical View (1797/1803), ed. M. Salber Phillips. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Ostrom, E. (1998), A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice of Collective Action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1‑22.
• Shaftesbury, Lord. (1900). Characteristics, ed. J. Robertson. London: Grant Richards.
• Smith, A. (1981). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), eds. R. Campbell & A. Skinner. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Smith, A. (1982a). The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759/1790), ed. D. Raphael & A. MacFie. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Smith, A. (1982b). Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. Meek et al. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Smith, A. (1983). Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. J. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Steuart, J. (1966). An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767), ed. A. Skinner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wallace, R. (1768). Characteristics of the Present Political State of Great Britain. London.