Not Exactly Rocket Science, is it?

David Burchall writes in the Australian (“the heart of the nation”)

“Tis the season for reciprocity” HERE

“Adam Smith's remarks about benevolence and self-interest are routinely quoted and just as often misconstrued. Smith observes that benevolence is an expression of true friendship and yet our whole lives are "scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons". Hence, unless we want to beg for what we need like a dog, we are compelled to find some basis of reciprocity on which to conduct life's transactions.
Further, when we choose to address ourselves to another's self-love rather than their humanity, this does not demean us as a human being. Rather, we are saying to them that we wish to deal with them in a relationship of parity, as someone who has something to give as well as something we wish to be given.

So far from giving and exchanging, benevolence and reciprocity, being opposites or alternatives, often work best in harness. Yet this simple, even elementary fact - so well known to everybody who has progressed out of moral infancy - seems to elude all our grandest political reckonings.”

Comment
What a clear understanding of Adam Smith of the famous passage on the “Butcher, the brewer, and the baker" is shown here by David Burchall.

‘Tis a pity that some economists quote the same passage and draw quite different (and wrong) conclusions from it, let alone the scores of theological commentators who use the passage to show how selfish-centred it makes its author, Adam Smith!

“But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.” (WN I.ii.2: 26-27)

Smith describes eloquently the way we all acquire the “good offices” - those things which we stand in need of - as human beings. Mainly by bargaining; by exchanging things we have for things we want.

And neither is this a zero sum game, because people value things differently. In free (in the sense of voluntary) bargaining in the presence of competition (not monopoly), people exchange things they value less for things they value more, that is, a non-zero sum game, with both parties gaining more than they give up.

David Burchall understands these basic relationships; why can’teverybody – it’s not exactly rocket science.

Self-Interest is Not Selfishness

In a post I made on 10 November (see below), Greg Baldwin posted a comment. I would normally just reply to the comment. However, I consider the exchange of wider interest and importance, and to avert it being missed by those who do not search for the rare comments Lost Legacy receives, I post the exchange of comments for wider readership:

“Greg Baldwin said...

Thanks for the comment. Secretly I want to believe that self interest and selfishness can be neatly distinguished, but I'll confess quotes like this from our friend Mr. Smith have not helped me to find the clear distinction:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

`Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations’

I'm not sure I fully understand everything Smith is trying to say here, but self-love + self interest do seem to be at least the basic ingredients for selfishness...no?

What am I missing?"

To which I replied:

Hi Greg

Thanks for your comment.

Many people quote the “Butcher, Brewer, Baker” example from Smith’s Wealth Of Nations (WN I.ii.2: 26-27) without appreciating exactly what he was saying. He advanced the same example in the 1762-3 lectures (23 March, 176: vi.46: 348) that he gave in Glasgow University (Smith, Lectures On Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press/Liberty Fund: 1978), hence it was an early part of his oeuvre long before he wrote Wealth Of Nations.

‘Self-interest’ and ‘self-love’ in 18th-century discourse did not mean selfishness and were clearly distinguished.

Bernard Mandeville (1724) celebrated selfishness as a virtue (as did Ayn Rand in the 20th century). Smith regarded Mandeville’s teachings as “licentious” (Moral Sentiments, 1759: TMS VII.ii.4: 306-14)).

Examine the quote: we expect our dinner “from their regard to their own self interest”. But there are two people in each transaction: the hungry would-be diner and the shopkeeper potentially supplying the meat, beer, or bread.

Smith excluded the virtuous motive of their “benevolence” as too weak to rely upon regularly (as common sense suggests it would be, except at the margin). So how is the transaction to be conducted?

“We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

We don’t talk of our necessities in the transaction but address “their self-love” - they are self-interested too! They have gone to the trouble of securing supplies of “meat, beer, and bread” and offering them for sale to potential customers.

The earlier transactions of the “butchers, brewers, and bakers” to secure their supplies (from farmers and those along the supply chain) involved multiple transactions on the same basis. All suppliers need access to freely bargained exchanges to supply their families with their needs from others.

In the sentences immediately preceding the ones you quote, Smith wrote:

“But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.”
(WN I.ii.2:26)

This is a clear description of the bargaining processes by which we obtain “those good offices which we stand in need of”.

Each party is self-interested in the outcome, but (and it is an important ‘but’) neither can obtain what they want without addressing what the other wants in voluntary exchange transactions. Two utterly selfish egoists would seldom, if ever, come to a voluntary agreement – neither would give up anything in place of demanding their price “or else”.

As Smith put it, in social converation we “persuade” to get what we want. Highlighting why something (what we offer to give) is good for someone is often a good place to start when seeking what we want to get.

That is the meaning of the paragraph from which you take the well-known quotation (in the process of which you elide from the 18th-century meaning of self-interest and self-love to a later meaning).

To read this as Smith advocating selfishness is quite different from the intended and explicit meaning of Smith's moral philosophy, as expressed in that paragraph.

And that Greg is the answer to you question: “What am I missing?”