What is the importance of ‘nature’ for Smith’s arguments in “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “Wealth of Nations”?

In both his works “The Wealth of Nations” and “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith develops his theory of the economy and mankind’s self-love from human nature. Drawing on the metaphor that nature is the prevailing current of all changes in society, Smith believes that as it is natural for individuals to promote their self-interest, so, too will society naturally evolve according to these principles. Smith’s encompassing theory of the society, as a whole, is idealistic and simple, for it means that nature should be allowed to run its course. In addition, this theory implies accepting the fact that such a society produces the best possible outcome, more so than one that is consciously aimed at with a particular emphasis on morals. While nature is the founding principle of Smith’s theory about the workings of society, its importance implies that seemingly immoral problems associated with nature are also “natural”.

In the “Wealth of Nations”, Smith philosophizes on the most important aspect of the economy from the nature of individual choices. Individual choices are made on the presumption of benefiting ourselves, and so the collective result of these individual choices should lead to a natural increase in the wealth of society. According to Smith, it is natural that individuals seek the means to provide for their basic necessities, and beyond that, other forms of affluence. It is natural that their be some variation in terms of skills and dexterity among the general populace. As a result there will be exchanges, for one has something that the other does not necessarily have. This interaction between two individuals is the basis of trade and economic activity within a nation. Moreover, aside from this seemingly obvious dialogue, the individual “ will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour” , for Smith concedes that not only is this natural but also inevitable: “in a civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes” . Therefore, we are still more motivated to socialize with others if their interests align with ours. In addition, from this exchange, these individuals reason that it is their best interest (Smith uses the term ‘disposed’) to differentiate and distinguish themselves from one another. This natural response leads to the diversification of labour, and specialization, even though one could also assume that it is natural that society is not composed of identical individuals, but rather, that individualism is a natural feature of society. Why is this so? Individualism is the origin of all social interactions. Without individualism there would be no concepts of disputes, nor cooperation.

In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith uses the same principle on human nature to develop his theory that sympathy leads to one’s understanding of morals. Sympathy is the critical sentiment that allows individuals to be moved by the actions of others. When we see someone unfairly treated, we sympathize with the victim (and not the perpetrator). Along the same vein, morals cannot exist without sympathy, for otherwise we would only perceive someone else’s happiness and misfortunes with an objective and detached view. A society without morals cannot be a civilized society. Furthermore, morals exist not for the sake of the individual but for the sake of society, so as to maintain law and order. It follows that justice is necessary for society to function. Similarly, sympathy does not exist simply because it is ‘good’, but because it is the core sentiment which springs from self-interest. Self-interest, stripped of any connotations with ‘selfishness’, can be regarded as a sensible decision, since no one else will voluntarily promote your own personal interests.

Perhaps the fact that there is a place in society for all types of individuals is Smith’s largest claim that inequality is natural. This does not necessarily mean for Smith to be hypocritical, for something that occurs naturally is justified to be a natural cause itself. Inequality motivates individuals to better themselves in society. The different ranks necessitates that labour be used to determine the value of wealth, and since wealth is relative, it is further perpetuated and created based on the apparent necessity to increase wealth. It is the poor who see in the rich all those happiness, which they hope to render for themselves, because they aspire to attain a similar degree of bliss. Smith claims that this is the best and most appropriate sentiment, which, combined with other virtues, is “superior to pain, to poverty, to danger, and to death” . Sympathy transcends all other petty forms of sentiments in terms of virtues. Prudence and virtues go very well together, as it is the best combination of qualities. Smith clearly establishes the fact, “as prudence combined with other virtues, constitutes the noblest; so imprudence combined with other vices, constitutes the vilest of all characters” , that this is the path to obtain respect and admiration from our peers. Without inequality, there would be no need to stir envy and aspiration. Without sympathy one cannot establish a love of virtue, and an abhorrence of vice and justice. Nature is thus responsible for dictating good behavior: “she bestows upon every virtue, and upon every vice, that precise reward or punishment which is best fitted to encourage the one, or to restrain the other”.

Through a cross-examination of the principle of relative wealth and social esteem, Smith proposes that man’s inability to subsist entirely for himself makes him suited to society. Different ranks and education render some people better off, at the expense of others. However, it is also amongst the rich who decide how resources and wealth should be employed, and thus maintain productivity even amongst the lower class. It is the rich who inadvertently promote public interest insofar as their interests are served. The disparity between the rich and the poor also underpins a comparison of human behavior. Interestingly though, it is through selfishness (human nature) that public interest is promoted: “they are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life [without knowing it]” . The prudent man, though no more admirable than the wicked or the most virtuous, can still find a role in society, because nature has created a role for him. Smith has observed that even though he is sincere but acts cautiously, and makes friends according to their “sober esteem of modesty, discretion, and good conduct” , he provides the best example for all others whose sympathy allows them to make responsible choices and practice good conduct. Thus, not only is sympathy a way of maintaining peace amongst individuals, but also an important mechanism which allows them to admire the “steadiness of industry and frugality” of the prudent man, and thus act wisely and judiciously.

Nature is, despite all its imperfections, the critical force behind the various subtleties and discrepancies of society. For example, on a commentary on the frivolous king, whose extravagance exceeds the humble existence of the average citizen, Smith observes that these figures are necessary to some degree for the purpose of providing an impractical example of an idle yet well-fed and well-clothed person. They demonstrate how misuse of resources could easily lead to declining wealth, so one should not follow their example or aspire to become like them. Yet at the same time, nature corrects this imbalance owing to the majority of society who are prudent: “the profusion or imprudence of some, being always more than compensated by the frugality and good conduct of others.” Once again, Smith extinguishes the seemingly gaping flaws of his theory by implicitly saying that nature can also right itself. As a result of ‘the invisible hand’ responsible for appropriating wealth amongst the people, (Smith’s metaphor for the mechanism of Nature to establish a working and functioning society), it has also created a proportionately larger group of prudent men who obey the law, are wise with their money, and inadvertently keep the few extravagant characters from completely impoverishing the nation. These characters not only serve as a function of society but necessary to influence the conducts of others. In another example, Smith goes so far as to say that the soldier, who is idle in times of peace (but necessary for society and thus maintained by it), is also of some use to society, partly due to a hope to esteem himself that “he even looks forward with satisfaction to the prospect of foreign war, or civil dissension […] in which he may draw upon himself the attention and admiration of mankind” . Such individuals are also the product of nature, and it is by nature that these individuals are given the role of balancing the extreme conducts of others.
In “The Wealth of Nations” and “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” Smith highlights an important relationship between frugality and prudence. Those who are frugal and prudent, according to Smith, are of great importance to society as they maintain order and avoid corruption. While their characteristics constitute no more than the timid and wise man who shies away from risks and acts within the bounds of law, they are necessary to sustain the society and to instill some recognition of merit in the justice system. The prudent man acts accordingly: “he is always sincere, and feels horror at the very thought of exposing himself to the disgrace which attends upon the detection of falsehood” . On the other hand, frugality is admired because it acts for the good of the whole more successively than other ways of spending: “public frugality is more favourable than private frugality as it maintains productive hands, and conduces more than the other to the growth of public opulence” . Among ordinary citizens, the frugal man helps the nation avoid becoming impoverished. Among statesman prudence is required because “it is the best head joined to the best heart”.

While self-interest from the individual’s point of view rarely includes being concerned for the welfare of others (unless it affects their own), one can extrapolate on this claim through a thought process concerning the evolution of society. Smith does not question in both his works the rhetoric that nature is good. However, his remarkable extrapolation highlights that the motives and deliberations of individuals are far better than that of the statesman who tries to include everyone’s self-interest and does a poor job trying to make the best decision. Rational human beings, left to their own device, will make sound judgments. Self-love leads to the economy and sympathy leads to an understanding of morals. It is natural and pertinent that there be inequality in society, for this is the sole cause of the aspirations and motivations of each individual to improve their economic and social standing. The importance of nature in Smith’s work highlights his main perception and scientific methodology of understanding society. While Smith does not question whether nature is moral, he indirectly and positively shows that nature is fair yet imperfect.