Podcasts about moral sentiments

What do you think of when you hear the word "virtuous"? And, what does it mean to be virtuous? Can virtue exist in a business?  Our guests today are Ethan Slaughter and Debbie Philpott, who are my co-authors of our new book called: Virtuous Business: A Model Approach. In this episode, we talk about the idea of virtuousness as a leader and within an organization. TODAY'S WIN-WIN:Virtuous leaders set the tone for ethical excellence.LINKS FROM THE EPISODE:Schedule your free franchise consultation with Big Sky Franchise Team: https://bigskyfranchiseteam.com/. Get the FREE reflective questions download: https://virtuousbusinessbook.com/Purchase a copy of our NEW book: CLICK HERE.Connect with our guests on social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ethan-slaughter-a8aa10ab/https://www.linkedin.com/in/debbie-philpott-ed-d-cpa-cma-sphr-shrm-scp-cgw-76811721/ABOUT OUR GUEST:Ethan Slaughter is a finance professional with extensive experience in financial strategy, business ethics, and leadership. He has served in key executive roles, including COO and CFO, where he has helped businesses optimize financial performance and drive cultural transformation. As an educator, Dr. Slaughter teaches virtuous leadership, business ethics, and corporate financial planning and analysis at Indiana Wesleyan University. His ongoing research explores the integration of Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments into contemporary virtuous leadership, with a focus on applying these principles to executive education and ethical decision-making in business. Debbie Philpott is an adjunct professor, dissertation committee member, doctoral research chair, higher education curriculum writer, freelance editor and writer, and consultant. She teaches business courses and the crafts of research, writing, and getting published. Her interests include scholar-practitioner research, writing, stewardship and sustainable living, spirituality, and practical theology. She and her husband enjoy discovering their coastal community on Florida's Gulf Coast. Debbie's philosophy encompasses the ongoing search for a more authentic representation of life experiences—as they are lived, and as they could be. This episode is powered by Big Sky Franchise Team. Big Sky Franchise Team is consistently recognized as one of the best franchise consulting firms in the world, helping entrepreneurs franchise their businesses through a proven 3-Step franchise process rooted in ethical principles, hands-on guidance, and customized deliverables.  If you are ready to talk about franchising your business you can schedule your free, no-obligation, franchise consultation online at: https://bigskyfranchiseteam.com/. The information provided in this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered financial, legal, or professional advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any business decisions. The views and opinions expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the host, Big Sky Franchise Team, or our affiliates. Additionally, this podcast may feature sponsors or advertisers, but any mention of products or services does not constitute an endorsement. Please do your own research before making any purchasing or business decisions.

The Moral Foundations of the American Revolution. Guest: David C. Rose. David C. Rose explains that the American Revolution was driven by men who considered themselves "independents" rather than rebels. Drawing on Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, he argues that humans crave approval and follow cultural norms. Over time, these norms shifted toward "moral don'ts" or guardrails, fostering a freethinking mindset. 151876

SCHEDULE THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 6-18-26.1922Colombia's Presidential Election and Abel de la Espriella. Guest: Mary Anastasia O'Grady. Mary Anastasia O'Grady discusses the upcoming Colombian election and frontrunner Abel de la Espriella. As a lawyer with multiple passports, de la Espriella positions himself as a disruptor similar to Donald Trump or Javier Milei. He advocates for building mega-prisons to confront gangs and reviving the hydrocarbon industry. 1Poverty and Economic Stagnation in Developing Nations. Guest: Veronique de Rugy. Veronique de Rugy examines why countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo remain in extreme poverty. She identifies institutional failures, such as a lack of property rights and predatory governments, as the primary causes of stagnation. Growth, she argues, is the only sufficient element to lift people out of poverty. 2Advancements in Small Satellite Propulsion. Guests: Paulo Lozano and Amelia "Mia" Bruno. Paulo Lozano and Mia Bruno introduce electro-spray thrusters utilizing green ionic liquid monopropellant for small satellites. This technology allows a single tank to fuel both efficient electric and high-thrust chemical maneuvers. Unlike toxic hydrazine, this fuel is safe and allows satellites greater mobility for Earth observation. 3Future Missions for Miniaturized Space Technology. Guests: Paulo Lozano and Amelia "Mia" Bruno. With an unlimited budget, Paulo Lozano envisions a fleet of autonomous small satellites exploring near-Earth asteroids for scientific value. Mia Bruno aims to use improved propulsion to reach the moons of Jupiter and Saturn much faster than current missions allow. They also discuss performing complex orbital plane changes using chemical maneuvers. 4The Normalization of Crisis in Bolivia. Guest: Professor Evan Ellis. Professor Evan Ellis reports on the 49-day blockade in Bolivia that is strangling the economy under President Rodrigo Paz. Driven by Evo Morales and indigenous groups, the protests have caused significant GDP shrinkage and business closures. Despite being resource-rich, the country faces a fiscal crisis as natural gas reserves dwindle. 5Security Challenges in Colombia and Political Transitions in Peru. Guest: Professor Evan Ellis. Evan Ellis discusses the ELN's influence in Colombia, noting that armed group activity has doubled since the 2016 peace agreement. He suggests that restoring security and government presence is vital for the middle class. In Peru, Keiko Fujimori holds a thin lead in a contested election supported by the diaspora. 6The Criminal Landscape in Venezuela and Regional Politics. Guest: Professor Evan Ellis. Ellis details the rise and fall of the Tren de Aragua gang, which originated in Venezuelan prisons and spread across the Americas. A recent drone strike suggests potential cooperation between the U.S. and the Venezuelan regime to normalize the mining sector. Meanwhile, Brazil's Lula da Silva faces increasing regional isolation. 7Bukele's Security Transformation of El Salvador. Guest: Professor Evan Ellis. Professor Evan Ellis describes how President Nayib Bukele has dramatically improved security in El Salvador by imprisoning over 90,000 suspected gang members. This "Singapore-like" approach has revitalized commerce and public administration despite concerns over democratic erosion. The capital, San Salvador, now features new construction and increased safety. 8Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Roots of Transcendentalism. Guest: Bruce Nichols. Bruce Nichols discusses Ralph Waldo Emerson's return to Concord, Massachusetts, where he transitioned from a Unitarian minister to a public intellectual. Emerson became a "loadstone" for radicals like Henry David Thoreau, who initially improved his family's pencil business before focusing on nature and philosophy. Emerson's dissent sparked a broader intellectual movement. 9Amos Bronson Alcott and the Transcendentalist Identity. Guest: Bruce Nichols. Bruce Nichols introduces Amos Bronson Alcott, a self-educated thinker who revolutionized education through conversational, Socratic methods. Though his schools often failed financially, Alcott was supported by Emerson and became a key figure in the Transcendentalist movement. Transcendentalism emphasized finding higher spiritual truths or the "oversoul" within the universe. 10Nathaniel Hawthorne and the Literary Circle of Concord. Guest: Bruce Nichols. Bruce Nichols explores Nathaniel Hawthorne's move to Concord and his complex relationship with Transcendentalists like Emerson. Unlike the optimistic Emerson, Hawthorne's fiction focused on human tragedy and the presence of evil. He struggled financially, often competing with popular "scribbling women" for book sales while publishing short stories to make ends meet. 11The Extraordinary Life and Tragic Death of Margaret Fuller. Guest: Bruce Nichols. Bruce Nichols chronicles the life of Margaret Fuller, a pioneering feminist and journalist who served as the first female war correspondent. Fuller's intellectual prowess "wowed" Emerson, though her life ended tragically in a shipwreck off Fire Island. Some scholars believe Hawthorne modeled his character Hester Prynne after her. 12Japan's Energy Crisis and Economic Resilience. Guest: Lance Gatling. Lance Gatling discusses how the Strait of Hormuz crisis has driven Japanese crude oil import prices to record highs. To maintain stability, the government has tapped strategic reserves and subsidized fuel prices while increasing imports from the U.S. Despite the weak yen, Japanese exporters are booming, and the stock market has reached all-time highs. 13Japan's Future in Energy and Artificial Intelligence. Guest: Lance Gatling. Japan is working toward a goal of 40–50% renewable energy and 20% nuclear power by the mid-2030s. Lance Gatling notes that Japan remains a critical link in the semiconductor chain essential for the global AI boom. While circumspect about AI's authority, Japanese companies dominate the hardware manufacturing processes necessary for semiconductor production. 14The Moral Foundations of the American Revolution. Guest: David C. Rose. David C. Rose explains that the American Revolution was driven by men who considered themselves "independents" rather than rebels. Drawing on Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, he argues that humans crave approval and follow cultural norms. Over time, these norms shifted toward "moral don'ts" or guardrails, fostering a freethinking mindset. 15Guardrails and the Psychology of Independence. Guest: David C. Rose. David Rose argues that the Revolution occurred because the British King violated the "guardrails" of his own power, losing the respect of his subjects. While tax issues were prominent in Boston, a more generalized feeling of disenfranchisement fueled the movement. The Founders ultimately chose independence when the reciprocity of decency and legitimacy failed. 16

Last Resort Network proudly presents its very own book club! Zach, Ben and Micah in three parts will work through Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", a notable work that creates many of his moral arguments for his most famous work "The Wealth of Nations". The crew dig through Smith's thoughts on sympathy and seek to understand the foundational worldview that guides Smith's arguments. Join us for the final part!Instagram-@TheMovieVaultPodEmail us- themovievaultpod@gmail.comYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@lastresortnetworkThis episode is brought to you by Point A Insurance (formerly Hedman Anglin Agency). Contact them at 614-486-7300 for your home and auto insurance needs. If you do contact them, make sure to tell them that Ben and Zach sent you! Visit their website for more information at www.PointAInsurance.com

Last Resort Network proudly presents its very own book club! Zach, Ben and Micah in three parts will work through Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", a notable work that creates many of his moral arguments for his most famous work "The Wealth of Nations". The crew dig through Smith's thoughts on sympathy and seek to understand the foundational worldview that guides Smith's arguments. Join us for part 2!Instagram-@TheMovieVaultPodEmail us- themovievaultpod@gmail.comYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@lastresortnetworkThis episode is brought to you by Point A Insurance (formerly Hedman Anglin Agency). Contact them at 614-486-7300 for your home and auto insurance needs. If you do contact them, make sure to tell them that Ben and Zach sent you! Visit their website for more information at www.PointAInsurance.com

Economists and politicians have turned him into a mascot for free-market ideology. Some on the left say the right has badly misread him. In this updated replay of a 2022 episode, we hold a very Smithy tug of war.   SOURCES: Eamonn Butler, co-founder and director of the Adam Smith Institute. Glory Liu, a political scientist and Adam Smith scholar at Georgetown University. Mariana Mazzucato, professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London. Dennis Rasmussen, a professor of political science at Syracuse University. Russ Roberts, president of Shalem College in in Jerusalem; host of the EconTalk podcast; and author. Craig Smith, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in the Scottish Enlightenment at the University of Glasgow.   RESOURCES: Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher Became an Icon of American Capitalism, by Gloria Liu (2022). "Henry and Adam: A Deep and Special Friendship," by Benny Higgins (Adam Smith Panmure House Perspective, 2020). "Rescuing Adam Smith From Myth and Misrepresentation," (The Economist, 2018). The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought, by Dennis C. Rasmussen (2017). How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life: An Unexpected Guide to Human Nature and Happiness, by Russ Roberts (2014). "British Privatization — Taking Capitalism to the People," by John Moore (Harvard Business Review, 1992). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (1990). The Essential Adam Smith, edited by Robert L. Heilbroner (1986). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776). The Theory of Moral Sentiments, by Adam Smith (1759).   EXTRAS: "In Search of the Real Adam Smith," series by Freakonomics Radio (2022). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

In one of our most popular episodes, Dan Sullivan and Steve Krein reveal why every entrepreneur has something to offer clients, but most attempt to make convincing arguments rather than compelling offers. They explain the differences between the two approaches, how to reframe everything as a compelling offer, and why this step is critical to sell your solutions. Show Notes:A lot of the turmoil that entrepreneurs go through makes up the length of time before they can get to a sale.Entrepreneurs trying to make a sale have been trained by their industry to argue against the way things are done and argue against competitors.The school system teaches students that the more convincing you are with your arguments, the further up you're going to go in the academic world.A compelling offer is when your client has been exploring something, they don't have a solution, and you come in with something that exactly matches their thinking.An investment is a bet that something is going to be better than what's out there.When making a compelling offer, you don't talk about what your competitors are doing, but about the difficulty the client is facing in getting something they really want.Innovations have value if the customer says so.The vast majority of entrepreneurs are creative without having any appreciation of what they've created. Resources:The Profitability PackagerThe Impact Filter®Who Do You Want To Be A Hero To? by Dan SullivanUnique Ability®The Wealth of Nations by Adam SmithThe Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  Is greed good — or does it need limits? This episode explores the balance between ambition and restraint through Gordon Gekko and the moral philosophy of Adam Smith. From The Wealth of Nations to The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Chris examines how ethics, temperance, and free markets — not unchecked greed or government favoritism — drive lasting prosperity.

Adam Smith is often invoked as the intellectual godfather of modern capitalism — but he was also a moral philosopher. Judo Bank founder and former CEO Joseph Healy joins Gene Tunny to argue that Australia's market economy has drifted from Smith's vision. From weak competition and high household debt to corporate scandals and lobbying influence, this episode explores whether capitalism has been “hijacked by capitalists” — and why complacency may be Australia's greatest economic risk.Gene would love to hear your thoughts on this episode. You can email him via contact@economicsexplored.com. About this episode's guest: Joseph HealyJoseph Healy is an experienced Australian banking executive and the author of What Would Adam Smith Make of Modern Australia? He has had a long career in financial services in Australia and internationally, including as a co-founder and former CEO of Judo Bank, a specialist SME bank. Joseph has a longstanding interest in Adam Smith's work as both an economist and moral philosopher. In his book, he draws on The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments to assess the state of modern Australian capitalism — examining competition, corporate governance, banking, regulation, education, and the relationship between economic performance and societal wellbeing.What You'll LearnWhy Adam Smith must be read as both an economist and a moral philosopher.How shareholder value thinking reshaped corporate incentives from the 1980s onward.Why weak competition in banking, airlines, retail, and energy may be generating economic rents in Australia.How the shift of bank lending toward housing may have created systemic risk and underinvestment in SMEs in Australia.Why Joseph gives Australia a C+ overall — and why that grade could deteriorate.Timestamps02:25 – Why Joseph wrote to The EconomistThe 250th anniversary of The Wealth of Nations and reclaiming Smith's legacy.09:18 – Why Moral Sentiments still matters“Loved and lovely” — Smith's moral framework explained.16:30 – The legal test vs the moral test“It's not ‘Will we get caught?' — it's ‘Is this the right thing to do?'”18:29 – Shareholder value and the erosion of restraintHow incentives shifted corporate behaviour from the 1980s onward.27:39 – Banking concentration and the shift to mortgagesBig Four dominance and declining SME lending.31:05 – Systemic risk and household leverageIs Australia too exposed to housing debt?36:10 – Lobbying and barriers to competitionWhy reform is politically difficult.40:45 – Five areas of reformGovernment size, competition, tax reform, governance, trade unions & education.48:34 – The Qantas exampleLobbying, protection, and consumer impact.51:39 – What would Adam Smith make of Australia?The “report card”: A for trade, D for competition, C+ overall.55:11 – Reclaiming capitalism“Capture it back again so it's working for everybody.”Links relevant to the conversationJoseph's book, What Would Adam Smith Make of Modern Australia?https://majorstreet.com.au/products/what-would-adam-smith-make-of-modern-australia-br-i-small-by-joseph-healy-i-smallLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED 

Last Resort Network proudly presents its very own book club! Zach, Ben and Micah in three parts will work through Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", a notable work that creates many of his moral arguments for his most famous work "The Wealth of Nations". The crew dig through Smith's thoughts on sympathy and seek to understand the foundational worldview that guides Smith's arguments. Don't miss out on this unique show!Instagram-@TheMovieVaultPodEmail us- themovievaultpod@gmail.comYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@lastresortnetworkThis episode is brought to you by Point A Insurance (formerly Hedman Anglin Agency). Contact them at 614-486-7300 for your home and auto insurance needs. If you do contact them, make sure to tell them that Ben and Zach sent you! Visit their website for more information at www.PointAInsurance.com

In this episode, we take on Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Although he is now more well known as an economist because of his later book The Wealth of Nations, Smith shows himself to be a philosopher in his own right in Moral Sentiments. Smith, contrary to popular characterizations, wanted to show that our conduct is not solely motivated by egoism or selfishness, but that we are also motivated by the fortunes of others. For Smith it is only through sympathy that society can achieve stability and harmony. What follows is a comprehensive examination of how we develop virtue, expound rules for justice, and cultivate emotional maturity through our sympathy for others. This episode is all of you who feel society has become more emotionally dysfunctional, lost its sense of shame, and want to understand why it is so frustrating when our so-called ‘friends' refuse to hate what we hate. Join the pod as we learn about propriety and justice!leftofphilosophy.comReferences:Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, intro Amartya Sen (New York: Penguin, 2009).Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

In episode 233 Peter shares an economics and futures journey with Vinny Tafuro including from Adam Smith to Kate Raworth and from the Theory of Moral Sentiments to Design Economics. Vinny is a founder of the Institute for Economic Evolution and is a pioneering advocate for the twenty-first-century economy that is disrupting society's rigid institutions and beliefs.

Could Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith make sense of the economic world that exists today? In this episode of Merryn Talks Money, Merryn Somerset Webb speaks with Alec Cutler, portfolio manager of the Orbis Global Balanced and Cautious funds, Tom Slater, manager of Scottish Mortgage and Bloomberg senior reporter John Stepek about how portions of Smith’s bestsellers The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations relate to today’s issues in global trade, technology, renewable energy and investment strategies. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't help but call Glenn "Dean Hubbard" since I met him as a student at Columbia Business School. That was 2005, making him one of the guests I've known the longest.I invited him to the podcast after seeing a talk he gave on the 300th birthday of Adam Smith. My recent learning more about Smith and other Enlightenment thinkers led me to find relevance between their thinking about how to live together without hurting each other and how we handle polluting and depleting today. I knew Glenn studied Smith for longer and in more depth than I have so I invited him to share about Smith.We started with his background, having worked with the White House. He then shared about Smith, in particular not seeing just his economics in Wealth of Nations, also his philosophy in Theory of Moral Sentiments.I shared some of the views I've been developing, though not comprehensively. He responded, politely and informatively, considering my inexperience expressing my ideas. He pushed back and educated.I couldn't help also sharing how much I'd learned at business school that was relevant to sustainability and I found little elsewhere, especially the social and emotional skills of leadership. I couldn't help building up my alma mater and the value of leadership in the task of changing culture.Glenn's home page at Columbia Business School Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a text(N.B.:  This episode is cross-posted at our partner site, Adam Smith Works. There are lots of resources and background material there, if you want to delve deeper)The Scottish Enlightenment emerged as a remarkable intellectual movement that shaped modern economics, philosophy, and social science, with Adam Smith at its center developing a dual theory of human nature through his two masterworks.• Scottish Presbyterian education fostered literacy and critical inquiry despite doctrinal rigidity• The 1707 Act of Union created unique conditions where Scots pursued intellectual achievement rather than political power• Scottish universities thrived through student-funded education while Oxford professors "gave up even the pretense of teaching"• Thinkers like David Hume, Francis Hutchison, and Thomas Reid established key intellectual foundations• Smith's concept of sympathy involves synchronizing sentiments with others, not just feeling pity• Justice protects "person, property and promise" as the foundation of social order• Beneficence is "the ornament" of society while justice is essential to its existence• Smith was strongly anti-slavery, describing enslaved Africans as "nations of heroes" superior to their captors• The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations form a unified system, not contradictory works• Commercial society requires both moral foundations and economic understanding to function properlyFor the complete series on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and additional resources, you can also visit Liberty Fund's Adam Smith Works website.If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

"...Two different roads are presented to us, equally leading to the attainment of this so much desired object; the one, by the study of wisdom and the practice of virtue; the other, by the acquisition of wealth and greatness..."This week, I'm reflecting on a quote by Adam Smith from The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published in 1759.Reflection question:As we show generosity to wealthier donors, are we also cultivating a character of humble modesty and equitable justice?Reflection on quote:Last week, we talked about generous love to various categories of people: those poor, those wealthy, and those peers. As we show generosity to our donors, we can fall into a trap. While we are no longer concerned with ordering society by class distinctions, Smith challenges us to take the path of humble modesty and equitable justice as we fashion our behaviors towards our donors.    This work has entered the public domain.What do you think? Send me a text. To explore fundraising coaching deeper and to schedule an exploratory session, visit ServingNonprofits.com.Music credit: Woeisuhmebop

Todd Rose, co-founder and CEO of Populace and author of books including "Collective Illusions" and "The End of Average," joins the show to discuss the science behind collective illusions and their impact on society. We explore why so many Americans self-silence, the dangers of conformity, and how one person can spark change. Todd and I are simpatico on… pretty much everything! So this was a fun one. I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did. For the full transcript, episode takeaways, and bucketloads of other goodies designed to make you go, “Hmm, that's interesting!,” check out our Substack. Important Links: Website Twitter Collective Illusions The End of Average Show Notes: Are We Living in the Truman Show? The Danger of Self-Silencing How to Know What People REALLY Think Why We Are Suckers For Groupthink Social Media: Why Bots Are Everywhere Why Persuasion is the Wrong Strategy for Fighting Collective Illusions There is More Social Trust in America Than You Think How We Can Fight Collective Illusions The Human Need to Be Understood Steelmanning & the Popperian Solution The Role of Fiction The Dawn of a New Era? Todd as World Emperor Books Mentioned: Collective Illusions; by Todd Rose The End of Average; by Todd Rose The Power of the Powerless (essay); by Václav Havel Troubled; by Rob Henderson The Idea Factory; by Jon Gertner Theory of Moral Sentiments; by Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations; by Adam Smith White Mirror; by Tinkered Thinking The Guns of August; by Barbara Tuchman

Welcome to this episode of the podcast. Today, we're discussing the work of Sophie de Grouchy, an 18th and early 19th century philosopher whose contributions to moral and political thought have often been overlooked. Best known for her translation of Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Grouchy didn't just translate—she developed her own ideas on sympathy, ethics, and politics in Letters on Sympathy. Our guest, Getty Lustila, explores Grouchy's place in the sentimentalist tradition, her engagement with questions of morality and human nature, and why her work matters for understanding the history of ethics. We discuss how she builds on and departs from Smith's ideas, the role of sympathy in shaping moral and political life, and the broader intellectual context in which she was writing.

Matt speaks with Bart Wilson about what economists often overlook in their analysis—specifically, the role of morality, human cooperation, and language in shaping economic behaviour. Wilson argues that mainstream economics tends to focus too much on scarcity and efficiency while neglecting the deeper social and moral foundations that make trade and prosperity possible. Drawing on his book Meaningful Economics: Making the Science of Prosperity More Human, he explores how concepts like property, reciprocity, and justice emerge from human relationships rather than being imposed from the top down.  References: Meaningful Economics: Making the Science of Prosperity More Human by Bart Wilson https://global.oup.com/academic/product/meaningful-economics-9780197758151?cc=us&lang=en&  The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith https://a.co/d/j0nL0mY  The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith https://a.co/d/iKwedtg  Knowledge and Decisions by Thomas Sowell https://a.co/d/cRgCwe4  The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance by Russell Roberts https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0262681358  Frankenstein by Mary Shelley https://a.co/d/a7vAUsi  Thanks to our patrons, including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support the podcast, visit our Patreon page.   

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." (from The Theory of Moral Sentiments)Adam Smith considered his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his most important work. Indeed, the tome was a wild success upon its publication, selling out immediately. It has not lost popularity since. In this legendary work, Smith discusses the nature of morality, and the motives behind and origins of these "sentiments." Originally published in 1759, this work provides the philosophical underpinnings for his later works, as well as elucidating the psychological and moral foundations of the workings of a complex society. Smith parses many important concepts in this book, with the central questions perhaps being: Where do our moral principles come from? Are they divine and inborn, reflection of man-made laws, or rational, based on their usefulness to society? Smith's answers to these questions and more, and his explanation of how such sentiments, however derived, influence society's self-coordination, have interested lay and scholar alike for hundreds of years. note: This is the First edition, the 6th edition was revised and extra material added.This is a collaborative reading.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Alex speaks with Neera Badhwar about her forthcoming paper, “There are Divinities in Liberal Market Societies Too,” exploring how liberal societies enable prosperity, intellectual virtue, and moral growth. Neera discusses key concepts like happiness and flourishing, critiques thinkers like Gerry Cohen, and reflects on the role of free markets and limited government in fostering human well-being. References "There are Divinities in Liberal Market Societies Too" by Neera Badhwar (forthcoming in Social Philosophy and Policy, 2025) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith https://www.amazon.ca/Theory-Moral-Sentiments-Adam-Smith/dp/0865970122 "If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?" by Gerry Cohen https://a.co/d/6NyLaC2 "The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money" by Bryan Caplan https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Against-Education-System-Money/dp/0691174652 World Values Survey https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ World Happiness Report https://worldhappiness.report/ Human Progress Newsletter https://humanprogress.org/ Thanks to our patrons, including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support the podcast, visit https://patreon.com/curioustask.

Hello Interactors,As the year ends, I reflect on 2024's top five essays and a shared theme emerges: the systems that define our lives. These systems intertwine nature and nurture, machines and morality, and markets and minds.From evolution's harmony to the moral balance of economic power, the co-opting of language to the divides between prosperity and precarity, our journey has revealed deep connections between people, place, and power.Let's rewind and reweave these connections into a broader narrative that sets us on our way to another trip around the sun.NATURE, NURTURE, AND NODAL NETWORKSIn “DEVO, Darwin, and the Evo-Devo Dance,” we explored how evolution reflects the eternal interplay between biology and environment, progress and adaptation. The evolution of synthesizers — as my daughter's playful experiments with sound reminded me — offers a metaphor for humanity's relationship with technology.This relationship echoes the broader theme of systems and evolution. Iterative changes and interactions between tools and users offer the potential to create new possibilities. As noted in the essay,"DEVO's fusion of human and machine echoes these evolutionary dynamics, where both biological and technological systems evolve through reconfiguration and integration, creating emergent complexity that Darwin could not have imagined."Just as synthesizers blend natural sound waves with human creativity, humanity's interaction with technology evolves in cycles of adaptation and transformation, shaping both the tools we use and the societies we build. We shape our tools, and they shape us in return.The blend of nature's design and our technological imprint creates an ecosystem of mutual influence, much like the Evo-Devo theories of biology, where small tweaks in developmental genes lead to dramatic evolutionary outcomes.This interplay of creation and transformation mirrors the cycles of human progress. Just as Hox genes orchestrate body plans, societal changes—spurred by technology or ideology—reshape our collective body. Whether it's the mechanistic choreography of DEVO's performances or the emergence of Evo-Devo in biology, the boundaries between human and machine blur.Are we programming nature, or is nature programming us? Perhaps the answer lies not in drawing distinctions but in understanding common patterns. These questions highlight the complexities of how we, and other organisms and systems, grow, adapt, and evolve in a world increasingly interwoven with introduced technology.From the mechanized rhythms of industrialization to the organic flow of natural systems, human -- and nonhuman -- there exists a tension and balance between stability and change. The teleonomic goal-directed behavior of living systems together with society's driving pulse of technology has fused into an unrecognizable but somehow familiar new existence. Even as we invent tools to navigate this existence, we become part of the systems we create—both shapers and shaped.The orchestration of evolution — like the many-layered songs of a many-player band — shows a world of many, connected, but not always planned.MARKETS, MACHINES, AND MORALITYThe Industrial Revolution brought unparalleled progress but also profound moral dilemmas. In “Markets, Machines, and Morality,” we reflected on Adam Smith's dual identity as both an economist and a moral philosopher. For Smith, markets were not just mechanisms of exchange but reflections of human nature. His “Theory of Moral Sentiments” reminds us that sympathy, justice, and prudence are vital governors of economic power — like James Watt's centrifugal governor, which balanced the speed of steam engines.But history shows us that unchecked systems, whether economic or mechanical, often prioritize efficiency over empathy. From Bentham's utilitarian calculus to the exploitative practices of modern capitalism, we've seen how the quest for profit can erode the moral underpinnings of society. Today's tech-driven economies, much like the Industrial Age's steam engines, require careful regulation to prevent runaway consequences. Smith's ideals of community benevolence and fair markets resonate more than ever.The unchecked growth of industrial power also highlights the tensions between human ingenuity and ethical responsibility. The centrifugal governor's simple elegance stands as a metaphor for our need to impose limits on excess, whether in economic policies, technological innovation, or social systems. Without these balancing mechanisms, we risk spiraling into inequity, instability, and dehumanization — a lesson as relevant today as it was in Smith's time.Moreover, the moral fabric underpinning economic actions — sympathy, justice, prudence — often fades in the shadow of profit-driven systems. Yet, these values remain the quiet governors ensuring that society's engines run not just efficiently but equitably.Smith's vision was never limited to wealth accumulation; it was about creating a society where individual pursuits align with collective well-being. Unlike today's economic practices, which often prioritize short-term profit over long-term societal health, Smith emphasized the importance of moral virtues such as sympathy and justice in guiding market dynamics.His insights are less about the "invisible hand" and more reminders to steer not only by the metrics of progress but also by the compass of morality. Like a finely tuned machine, morality should govern the obscene, in a more steady and fair routine.LANGUAGE, LANDSCAPE, AND LOSSLanguage has the power to shape identities and wield influence. These were the themes in “Woke and Wealth” and “Molding Minds Through the Markets of Material Worlds.” Words like “woke” and “decolonize”—once rooted in justice—have been distorted, co-opted by power to serve as tools of division. Similarly, capitalism's framing of “Homo Economicus”—the rational, self-interested individual—has reshaped not just our identities but the very landscapes we inhabit.These constructed identities reflect the power dynamics embedded in economic and geographic systems. The urban centers that thrive on globalized knowledge economies are mirrored by rural regions left to grapple with stagnation and decline, as explored in “Main Street to Metropolis.” As noted in that essay,“Rural areas have become Republican strongholds, drawn to promises of reversing globalization, reshaping economic policies, and making their communities great again.”These places — shaped by policies, demographics, and technology — become symbols of our collective divisions. Yet even amidst these fractures, alternative identities emerge. “Homo Ecologicus,” focused on environmental stewardship, and “Homo Absurdum,” embracing creativity and imagination, remind us of humanity's potential for resilience, community, and connection.The co-opting of language — turning tools of empowerment into instruments of division — illustrates the ongoing struggle for control over cultural and political narratives. When words like “woke” are weaponized, the original call for awareness and justice is lost in a haze of ideological conflict.Meanwhile, the landscapes shaped by economic systems mirror these distortions, transforming places of shared community into arenas of exclusion and competition. Consider, for example, the gentrification of urban neighborhoods. Once vibrant hubs of diverse community life, these areas often transform into exclusive enclaves where rising costs push out long-time residents, replacing shared culture with economic segregation.Yet, within these landscapes of loss lies the potential for renewal. Rural areas, often overshadowed by urban centers, remain spaces where alternative identities thrive. These identities, rooted in stewardship, creativity, and resilience, offer glimpses of a world where humanity's diversity can flourish.The challenge lies in amplifying these voices, reclaiming the power of language, and reshaping the spaces we inhabit to reflect our shared values. Language shapes, landscapes mold — our shifting sense of self is an ancient story retold.CLOSING THE LOOPLooking back at these essays, a recurring theme emerges: the interplay of systems that define our lives is not a one-way street. Nature and nurture, markets and morality, language and identity are all intertwined, multi- referencial, and dynamic webs with mirroring interdependencies. Progress is not linear; it's a cycle of creation, transformation, and sometimes regression where changes to one aspect ripple through the entire system.This echoes the recurring themes explored earlier — from the evolving interplay between nature and technology to the moral balance necessary in markets and machines. Together, these cycles reveal how change, though uneven, can guide us toward resilience and renewal when approached with awareness and intention. Herein lies hope. We all possess the potential, and these systems the possibility, to recalibrate the systems we control to balance human progress with equity, efficiency with empathy, and innovation with ethics.These systems remind us that resilience lies in adaptability. Fire, when controlled, can foster growth and create fertile soil. Uncontrolled fire destroys. Water can unite by sustaining life, connect ecosystems, and enable communication and trade through rivers and oceans. But it can also erode, rot, create barriers, or flood habitats and communities.As we humans innovate and advance, we can pause to reflect on the systems we create. We can ensure they serve not just the few but the many. Like water and fire, the narratives we construct, whether through language, policy, or technology, have the power to unite or divide.Our collective task is to craft stories that inspire connection and foster growth built on shared values. As we step into a new year, what questions should we ask about the systems we create? How can we ensure they unite rather than divide? What would it take to build systems rooted in equity, empathy, and sustainability? Perhaps, most importantly, how do these systems reflect who we are—and who we aspire to be? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

With an illustrious career spanning roles as Governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney has long been an advocate for sustainability, particularly in addressing climate risks.In this episode, Mark talks about the politicisation of ESG, the investment opportunities in decarbonisation, and why transitioning from “brown to olive” and eventually to “green” can unlock immense value, both for the planet and portfolios.Useful Links:Book: Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam SmithMark's Book: Values: An Economist's Guide to Everything That MattersRead the EIA's roadmap for the Global Energy Sector hereClick here for the episode web page. This episode is also available on YouTube.For more insights straight to your inbox subscribe to the Future in Sight newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram This podcast is brought to you by Re:Co, a tech-powered advisory company helping private market investors pursue sustainability objectives and value creation in tandem. Produced by Chris AttawayArtwork by Harriet RichardsonMusic by Cody Martin

Matt speaks with Brian Albrecht about how policymakers can think more like economists by emphasizing the role of prices, trade-offs, and unintended consequences in shaping effective policies. Brian and Matt discuss tax policies, antitrust laws, and some very silly tariffs to illustrate the importance of applying economic reasoning to address societal challenges while minimizing inefficiencies. References Brian Albrecht's Substack, Economic Forces Link: https://substack.com/@briancalbrecht  "Rebellion, Rascals, and Revenue: Tax Follies and Wisdom Through the Ages" by Michael Keen and Joel Slemrod Link: https://a.co/d/94DlEoq  "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Theory-Moral-Sentiments-Adam-Smith/dp/0143105922 "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Guide/dp/0465060730  "Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself" by Robert H. Bork Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Antitrust-Paradox-Policy-Consumer-Welfare/dp/0029044561  

Alex speaks with Nimish Adhia about the practice of tipping, exploring its cultural and economic implications, as well as its persistence despite widespread criticism from various stakeholders. Adhia discusses the historical origins of tipping, its impact on workers and customers, and coordination problems that prevent its abolition, referencing his own case study on the topic. References "How can U.S. restaurants break free from tipping? : finding a pay structure that works" by Nimish Adhia Link: https://search.library.yale.edu/new_arrivals/17396768  "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Theory-Moral-Sentiments-Adam-Smith/dp/0143105922 "Coordination Problems and Economic Behavior" by Thomas Schelling Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Strategy-Conflict-Thomas-C-Schelling/dp/0674840313 "The Economics of Social Norms" by Elinor Ostrom Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/1107569788 "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" by Malcolm Gladwell Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624 "The Coordination Problem in Policy Reforms" by Mancur Olson Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigidities/dp/0300030797 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

Send us a textAdam Smith was a man who read the Stoics. He liked them, too, talking them up in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, particularly in the section on grief. Then he lost two of his closest relations (old timey, right?), David Hume and his mother. These world-shaking events caused him to reevaluate what he said about grief in TMS and change our interpretation of his commentary on grief.So what did he say about grief before, and how did the actual experience of grief change his mind? How does grief work, and how do we get through hard times? How do art and philosophy play different roles in the human experience?Today, I'm excited to welcome Liberty Fund's Sarah Skwire back to the podcast. She is a Senior Program Officer there, and a resident scholar on people-who-thought-things-and-wrote-things. I truly enjoyed this conversation and I hope you do too! Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Hello Interactors,We often think of the economy as a fixed, objective force, separate from who we are. But what if it actually shapes our identities? Like a DJ mixing a set, economics amplifies certain behaviors and silences others. I saw this firsthand last summer when Calvin Harris performed live in Scotland, dynamically controlling thousands of people with a turn of a dial or push of a button…on tracks he'd already mixed in the studio!Brett Scott, in his recent Substack Remastering Capitalism, uses this music mixing metaphor to show how human nature is molded — elevated or suppressed — by economic systems. His insights remind me of social constructionism, which reveals that what we see as “natural” is often constructed by institutions, including the economy. Our many identities aren't just reacting to the system — they are being shaped by it.But what if Homo Economicus, the rational, self-interested individual, isn't who we truly or solely are? What if these systems are muting our most moral and communal parts? With my last three posts on economics in mind, let's explore how economics and geography construct — and limit — who we become.MARKETS MOLDING MINDSAt the heart of social constructionism is the idea that reality isn't something we passively experience — it's something actively constructed through our social interactions, power dynamics, and the institutions that shape our lives. One of the most powerful institutions in modern society is the economy, which shapes not just markets but the very way we see ourselves and our place in the world. And, as with all social constructs, it is influenced by those who hold power.In Econ 101, we're introduced to Homo Economicus, the rational, self-interested individual who makes perfectly reasoned decisions geared toward maximizing utility without emotional interference. Think Spock from Star Trek. This figure is more than a character or abstract concept; it reflects the values that the market rewards and those in power promote. In environments dominated by capitalist systems — corporate boardrooms, stock exchanges, financial districts — the behavior of Homo Economicus is not just encouraged, it's essential for success. These spaces reinforce particular versions of selves, constructed by the systems that surround them.Critical geographer David Harvey emphasizes how geography and power intersect, asking us to“Imagine, for example, the absolute space of an affluent gated community on the New Jersey shore. Some of the inhabitants move in relative space on a daily basis into and out of the financial district of Manhattan where they set in motion movements of credit and investment moneys that affect social life across the globe...”These elites embody Homo Economicus and reinforce the power dynamics of capitalism, constructing an economic landscape where rational self-interest reigns supreme.But Homo Economicus is not an innate human identity. Like the concept of the “divinely appointed king” in medieval Europe, it is constructed by the economic and social systems around us. Modern capitalism creates and rewards this notion of the self. But this doesn't mean we're trapped in this role — other tracks of human nature are waiting to be heard. The question is, can we turn up the volume on those other selves?MAPPING MONEY'S MIGHTThe dominance of Homo Economicus is not just theoretical — it plays out in real, physical spaces. Economic geography shows us how capitalism manifests in cities, financial hubs, and industrial centers, creating environments that reward certain behaviors while suppressing others. As Doreen Massey, a feminist geographer, notes, social relations are constructed across all spatial scales — from global finance to local communities — and these spaces, in turn, construct us. She writes,“'The spatial' then…can be seen as constructed out of the multiplicity of social relations across all spatial scales, from the global reach of finance and telecommunications, through the geography of the tentacles of national political power, to the social relations within the town, the settlement, the household and the workplace.”Having recently returned from New York and London last summer, I was surrounded by buildings and infrastructure designed to facilitate rapid decision-making and profit maximization. These financial districts are the birthplace of Homo Economicus, where competition, efficiency, and rationality are not only celebrated but engrained in the fabric of the city. But these aren't just neutral places where economic transactions happen — they were actively shaped by human identities to shape other human identities, constructing versions of selves.Yet, capitalism's steady beat doesn't stop at the thumping urban centers. It ripples outward, reshaping rural areas, natural landscapes, and global trade routes. In these spaces, a different identity might have flourished. For example, where I grew up in Iowa, rural areas are shaped by industrial agriculture where economic pressures push farmers to adopt monoculture practices, prioritizing profit over sustainability.My father worked for farm equipment maker, Massey Ferguson in the 1970s and 80s where the company had to respond to John Deere's introduction of industrial-sized articulated tractors sold to increasingly dominant large-scale farmers. Here, the track of Homo Ecologicus — the part of us that values balance and environmental stewardship — was quieted. Meanwhile, the relentless beat of industrial capitalism continues to drown it out.However, these tracks aren't erased. In more peripheral spaces — rural farms, local markets, and environmental movements — Homo Ecologicus still survives, embodying a different approach to the world, one that capitalism often suppresses.A 2023 study showed that if 25% of institutional buyers sourced fresh food from local farms, it could generate an $800 million impact on Iowa's economy, supporting over 4,200 mid-sized farms and creating numerous agricultural jobs. In 2024 alone, Organic Valley, a cooperative that supports organic farmers, brought 40 new family farms in just the first four months of the year and was expected to add 70 more by year-end.The geography of capitalism constructs these different forms of capitalism and the human identities behind them. Where we live and work reminds us that we are shaped by the spaces we occupy. Our identities are far from static — they are deeply influenced by the economic forces, choices, and physical landscapes we inhabit and navigate — the Interplace, if you will, the interaction of people and place.INDUSTRY INFLUENCED IDENTITIESAlthough capitalism has amplified Homo Economicus in both urban and rural spaces, other aspects of human nature persist. Social constructionism teaches us that while dominant systems shape our identities, they can also be resisted. And in moments of rebellion or creativity, tracks like Homo Ecologicus and Homo Absurdum emerge, reminding us of the full spectrum of the human experience.Homo Ecologicus embodies our connection to nature and the desire for harmony with the environment. In communities focused on re-greening — whether through small urban efforts, rural sustainability, or the traditional ecological practices of the Coast Salish, which I've explored previously — these identities resurface. The Coast Salish, like many Indigenous cultures, emphasize balance and stewardship, a mindset echoed in the research of architect and sustainable urbanist, Steffen Lehmann. For example, Lehmann highlights ‘nature-based solutions', as defined by the EU, are “‘inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience (…) and bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions'.” Both Lehmann's findings and the Coast Salish practices show that environmental stewardship and economic growth can coexist, challenging the dominance of Homo Economicus.Homo Absurdum, the playful and imaginative side of human nature, similarly pushes back against the rigid logic of capitalism. My recent piece featuring DEVO, for example, showed how embraced absurdity, irony, and satire could form a critique of conformity and dehumanization wrought by modern capitalist society. DEVO's music wasn't just about self-expression — it was an act of resistance. They reminded us that creativity and play are as fundamental to human nature as rationality and profit-seeking. Homo Absurdum thrives in moments of rebellion, where we reject the idea that our worth is tied solely to economic productivity.Even Adam Smith, the so-called father of modern economics, understood that human identity was more complex than the rational self-interest of Homo Economicus. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith emphasized empathy and care, reminding us that“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him.”Smith was also a product of his time, and his economic theories were socially constructed, shaped by the social and political environment of 18th-century Scotland, including the strong influence of Protestant religious values, which emphasized moral responsibility, hard work, and empathy toward others.This brings us to an important realization: Homo Economicus is not the inevitable endpoint of human identity. It's one track, amplified by the systems that hold power today. The human playlist is far more diverse, with room for care, play, connection, and environmental stewardship if we create the conditions to let these tracks play.Economics is more than just markets and numbers — it's a powerful force that shapes who we are. Through the lens of social constructionism, we see how economic systems construct certain identities, amplifying some parts of ourselves while suppressing others. In a world dominated by capitalism, Homo Economicus reigns supreme, but this doesn't mean other tracks of human nature — like Homo Ecologicus, Homo Absurdum, or Homo Communis — are lost. These tracks are still present, waiting to be heard and made part of our collective human experience.Immanuel Wallerstein, in his World-Systems Analysis, reminds us that historical moments like the French Revolution disrupted the structures that had previously determined the dominant identities of the time, legitimizing power in the hands of the people instead of monarchs or legislators.He writes,“The French Revolution propagated two quite revolutionary ideas. One was that political change was not exceptional or bizarre but normal and thus constant. The second was that ‘sovereignty' — the right of the state to make autonomous decisions within its realm — did not reside in (belong to) either a monarch or a legislature but in the ‘people' who, alone, could legitimate a regime.”In the same way, we too can challenge the dominant economic structures of today by reshaping the various ‘selves' that make ‘ourselves.'I agree with Brett Scott when he challenges us to remaster our economic tracks based on these potentialities. To bring forward the voices of care, creativity, and environmental consciousness, and let them play a stronger part of the mix. Homo Economicus may be the dominant track for now, but we have the power to remaster the mix. Let's strive for all the tracks of the human experience to play their part in creating a new, shared, and well-balanced harmony. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Alex speaks with Elias Khalil about the influential ideas of Ibn Khaldun, delving into Khaldun's theories on the rise and fall of civilizations, the nature of political communities, and the importance of solidarity (Asabiyya). Khalil connects these insights to classical liberal thought and the works of Adam Smith, emphasizing Khaldun's impact on understanding political order as a product of social dynamics rather than divine intervention. References 1. "The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History" by Ibn Khaldun, translated by Franz Rosenthal Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Muqaddimah-Introduction-History-Ibn-Khaldun/dp/0691166285 2. “Ibn Khaldoun and Adam Smith—Two Heroes of the Modern Age.” https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/ibnkhaldoun-and-adam-smith (Liberty Fund), 11 November 2020; 3. “Ibn Khaldûn on Property Rights, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History.” Journal of Institutional Economics, August 2007, 3:2, pp. 227-238. (It includes a long excerpt (pp. 233-238) from Ibn Khaldûn's The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History.) http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1744137407000677 4. "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith Link: https://a.co/d/j7XuEp4 5. "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128   

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Beth Blum, Associate Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Beth Blum, Assistant Professor of English at Harvard, is the author of The Self-Help Compulsion (Columbia University Press 2019). In 2020, she spoke with John about how self-help went from its Victorian roots (worship greatness!) to the ingratiating unctuous style prescribed by the other-directed Dale Carnegie (everyone loves the sound of their own name) before arriving at the “neo-stoical” self-help gurus of today, who preach male and female versions of “stop apologizing!” You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll either help yourself or learn how to stop caring. Mentioned Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) Rachel Hollis, Girl, Stop Apologizing (2019) Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k (2016) Richard Carlson, Don't Sweat the Small Stuff…. (1997) Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (2012) New Thought (philosophy? religious movement?) Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859) Orison Swett Marden, How to Succeed (1896) David Riesman et al. The Lonely Crowd (1950) Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1945) Helen Gurley Brown, Having It All (1982) Micki McGee, Self-Help Inc. (2007; concept of”self-belabourment”) Tiffany Dufu, Drop the Ball: Achieving More by Doing Less Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing (2019) Sarah Knight, The Life-Changing Magic Art of Not Giving a Fuck (2015) Recallable books Epictetus, Handbook (125 C.E.) Sheil Heti, How Should a Person Be (2012) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Joseph Conrad Nostromo (1904) Read Here: 38 Beth Blum on Self-Help from Carnegie to Today

Hello Interactors,We've entered fall here in the northern hemisphere, and you know what that means — pumpkin spice everything, cozy sweaters, and … economics! That's right, as the leaves change color (at least for those above 40°N latitude), it's the perfect time to explore how the changing seasons mirror shifts in human interaction, from the flow of resources to the balance of power and progress. This week, it's time to cozy up with Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and James Watt —three names you probably didn't expect to find together, but trust me, they make quite the trio. So grab your favorite fall beverage and join me on a journey through the Industrial Revolution, steam engines, and the forgotten role of moral feedback loops in economics. Let's find out why balancing wealth and well-being is harder than finding a public restroom in an old university. PURGING THE URGE FOR SYMPATHYI needed to pee. More specifically, the stretch receptors in the walls of my bladder, which monitor the volume of urine inside, became activated. That sent sensory signals to the spinal cord and brain through my pelvic nerves. The pons in the brainstem (which includes a dedicated urination control center) processed this information in coordination with my prefrontal cortex, which allowed for conscious control over my decision to urinate.It was a Sunday, and the campus was dead. Lucky for me a door was open, so I ducked in and began my search for a potty. The hallway was musty and narrow. The walls were old, but not as old as the 250-year-old structure surrounding it. There was no immediately visible sign for a restroom, but there were numerous potential doors and directions for me to attempt. As I approached one of them, the industrial grade door magically opened before I could even touch it. I cautiously inched forward half wondering if it would lock behind me.Now inside another chamber further in the interior, I was met with another set of mysterious doors. I stepped inside another narrower hallway that twisted suddenly to a sign above another door that read WC. Whatever Potter-esque ghosts had guided me here clearly had sympathy. And so did my parasympathetic nervous system. It simultaneously signaled the detrusor muscle of my bladder wall to contract and my urethral sphincter to relax. I stood there in relief wondering if I could find my way out.I was visiting the University of Glasgow, hoping to learn more about its famous figures, especially Adam Smith, whom I see as an important moral philosopher rather than just the “father of economics.” A few days later in Edinburgh, I tortured my family by leading them on a search for his gravestone. I was pleased to find it acknowledged his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where sympathy balances self-interest, as well as his more popular The Wealth of Nations. Unsurprisingly, the nearby tourist plaque focused only on Wealth of Nations, reflecting the emphasis on economics over his broader moral philosophy.Adam Smith's moral philosophy was central to his life's work, with The Theory of Moral Sentiments being his enduring focus, while The Wealth of Nations but a brief but significant interlude. For Smith, economics was not just about market mechanics, but deeply intertwined with human nature, ethics, and the broader pursuit of communal well-being. He was more concerned with the motivations behind human actions than with the technical details of market forces, which came to dominate modern economics. Smith believed that the drive for self-betterment was not solely about personal wealth but was intrinsically linked to the well-being of communities, where self-interest was balanced by sympathy for others.In Smith's view, economic actions should be guided by moral virtues, such as prudence and justice, ensuring that individual efforts to improve one's own life would ultimately contribute to the greater good of society. His exploration of economics was always part of a larger moral framework, where community engagement and ethical behavior were essential for both individual and societal progress. Today, this broader moral context is often overlooked, but for Smith, economics was inseparable from philosophical inquiry into human behavior. He emphasized how the improvement of human life goes far beyond just the accumulation of material wealth.MORALS MEET MARKET MANIPULATIONMany conservatives today may brush this interpretation as being too ‘woke'. Well, some eventually did back then too. As the British economy was expanding in Smith's later years, he spoke in favor of capping interest rates with usury law. Usury is defined as the practice of making unethical or immoral loans that unfairly enrich the lender, often involving excessive or abusive interest rates. He believed exorbitant rates could lead to preying on the disadvantaged during a time of need resulting in growing disadvantages to the larger community.Historically, many societies including ancient Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist communities considered charging interest of any kind as wrong or illegal. Smith was rooted in elements of Christian morals, but critics claimed he was being hypocritical. They pointed to examples in his publications, often out of context, of where he suggested government can't know better than individuals about their own risks, costs, and benefits and thus should not meddle.But even in The Wealth of Nations Smith was clear about three conditions necessary for an effective economy and with each he paired moral values also found in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:* State-Justice: Smith argued, “Commerce and manufacturers…can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice,” emphasizing the need for laws that ensure security and regulate excessive accumulation of wealth.* Market-Liberty: He valued the “liberty of trade…notwithstanding some restraints,” while warning that monopolies “hurt…the general interest of the country.”* Community-Benevolence: Rooted in moral sentiments, Smith believed in a shared commitment to community, where “many reputable rules…must have been laid down and approved of by common consent.”Smith's main usury critic was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, known for developing the philosophy of utilitarianism. A letter written to Smith in 1787 stated:“Should it be my fortune to gain any advantage over you, it must be with weapons which you have taught me to wield, and with which you yourself have furnished me…I can see scarce any other way of convicting you of any error or oversight, than by judging you out of your own mouth.”Bentham is most famous for the idea of “maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number” which helped promote legal reforms and social progress including welfare, equal rights for women, the separation of church and state, and the decriminalization of homosexual acts. But his ultimate focus of utilitarianism was on the practical outcomes of policies going so far as to develop mathematical formulas, called felicific calculus, to determine how much pleasure or pain must be inflicted in society to achieve the most happiness for the greatest number.He was also a staunch economic expansionist, believing, as verified in his calculus, that it would expand good for most. It would be his student, John Stuart Mill, who expanded on but also critiqued Bentham's utilitarianism later in the mid 1800s.“I conceive Mr. Bentham's writings to have done and to be doing very serious evil. It is by such things that the more enthusiastic and generous minds are prejudiced against all his other speculations, and against the very attempt to make ethics and politics a subject of precise and philosophical thinking.”Mill too was an expansionist, but acknowledged utilitarian reasoning could be used to defend exploitive and immoral colonial practices, including slavery. Mill believed slavery "effectually brutifies the intellect" of both slave and the enslaver and condemned the notion that certain races were inherently inferior and required subjugation.Nevertheless, early colonizers and imperialists, as well as modern day neo-liberals weaponized elements of utilitarianism much like they did with The Wealth of Nations. They used (and continue to use) select elements to justify laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and the exploitation of labor, often prioritizing economic efficiency over moral considerations such as fairness and social equity.For example, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan both used utilitarian logic believing their policies would maximize overall economic growth and prosperity, benefiting society as a whole, even at the expense of rising inequality and social welfare. Their consequentialist approach justified market-driven reforms for a perceived greater good. Given today's historic wealth imbalances, the result of that calculus is less than convincing.Bentham also failed to convince Smith in that fateful letter, but to many it marked a notable shift in economic thinking and philosophy. Smith passed away three years after his exchange with Bentham and theoretical mathematical utilitarianism became the ultimate measure of right and wrong in governance and ethics in the UK and the US. Smith's morality, which emphasized moral virtues guiding economic actions, lost out to consequentialisms focus solely on outcomes, often justifying exploitation and suffering if it maximized societal gain and economic expansion for the expansionists — despite John Stuart Mill's, and countless others, objections.ECONOMIC ENGINES IN MORAL MACHINESDuring Adam Smith's lifetime, the Industrial Age rapidly emerged, transforming economies and wealth structures. Technological advancements, like the steam engine, fueled industrial capitalism, driving unprecedented economic growth and wealth accumulation. This focus on efficiency relied on maximizing productivity, whether through steam-powered machines, the exploitation of enslaved people, the working poor, or the displacement of Indigenous populations, prioritizing economic gain over human well-being.In 1783, while Smith and Bentham were debating economic philosophy, James Watt was at the University of Glasgow, focused on regulating unchecked power —specifically the excessive speed of steam engines which he helped to invent. To prevent mechanical failures from fluctuating steam pressure, Watt invented the centrifugal governor. This device used weighted iron balls that spun outward with centrifugal force as the engine's speed increased, raising a spindle that adjusted a valve to control steam flow. By automatically reducing steam when the engine ran too fast and increasing it when it slowed, the governor ensured safe and efficient operation. Watt's invention, introduced in 1788, was in full production by 1790, paving the way for innovations like the first steam locomotive in 1804.Watt's governor symbolized the need to impose limits on unchecked mechanical power, ensuring the engine operated within safe and efficient parameters. This technological innovation mirrored a broader theme of the Industrial Revolution — the balance between harnessing new, powerful technologies for economic growth while recognizing the risks of unregulated force, whether in machines or the rapid, unrestrained accumulation of wealth and resources in society. Watt's governor was an early acknowledgment that unchecked power, whether mechanical or economic, could lead to instability and disaster."I am never content until I have constructed a mechanical model of the subject I am studying. If I succeed in making one, I understand. Otherwise, I do not." – Lord KelvinOur brains also act as a kind of governor on the unchecked power of our kidneys, just as moral feedback loops serve as a governor on unchecked economic ambition. Like the stretch receptors in our bladder sensing when fluid volume builds, moral reasoning, as Smith envisioned, detects the social and ethical consequences of unfettered economic expansion. These signals, akin to the centrifugal force moving the governor's spindle, prompt individuals and society to regulate their actions, guiding decisions based not only on self-interest but on moral duty.In contrast, Bentham's utilitarian calculus, much like a theoretical mathematical model divorced from natural systems, ignores these ethical feedback loops. By relying solely on abstract calculations of happiness and efficiency, Bentham's approach, like a machine operating without awareness of its environment, risks distorting human and social behaviors. Where Smith's model calls for moral constraints on economic behavior, much like the body's signals to prevent overstretching, Bentham's framework lacks the necessary human safeguards, leading to potential exploitation and imbalance in pursuit of theoretical utility maximization.I do wonder what our economic systems would look like if, like our bodies, they were designed to self-regulate, ensuring that the pursuit of wealth doesn't come at the expense of human well-being? Just as our bodily functions rely on natural feedback loops to maintain equilibrium, why have we allowed our economies to run unchecked, often leading to exploitation and inequality? Adam Smith believed in moral constraints on ambition, yet today, much of our economic thinking prioritizes growth without those safeguards.As walked off campus that day, I reflected on Watt's governor regulating the steam engine and the moral feedback loops Smith envisioned. I wondered if Smith and Watt made the metaphoric connection in their encounters with one another, maybe even on their way to relieve themselves in the very building in which I found myself. Perhaps they each happened on this connection in their own thought experiments, which makes me wonder why more don't today? Surely there's a morally sound way to balance personal gain with the greater good — a bit like public restrooms. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Matt speaks with Jeffrey Miron about the justice and effectiveness of "sin taxes," evaluating whether taxes on goods like alcohol, tobacco, and sugary drinks achieve their intended public health goals or whether they unfairly restrict individual choice. The conversation explores the ethical implications of using taxation as a tool for social engineering and questions the actual impact these policies have on behavior. References "Should Governments Try to Reduce Sin?" by Jeffrey Miron Link: https://scholar.harvard.edu/miron/publications/should-governments-try-reduce-sin "The Time Travelling Dietitian" (YouTube Video) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X "The Ethics of Taxation" by Jane G. Gravelle Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Ethics-Taxation-Jane-Gravelle/dp/XXXXX "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Theory-Moral-Sentiments-Adam-Smith/dp/XXXXX "For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health" by Jacob Sullum Link: https://www.amazon.ca/For-Your-Own-Good-Public/dp/0684849520 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

Much of the field of economics derives its theories from a subset of Adam Smith's philosophy found in the Wealth of Nations. But are economists overlooking other parts of Adam Smith's teachings that could explain more about human behavior and economics?  Nobel-prize winning economist Vernon L. Smith is an emeritus professor of economics and law at Chapman University. His books like Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms and Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century explore how human behavior shapes economics.Vernon and Greg discuss the role Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments plays in understanding behavioral economics, Vernon's early supply and demand experiments, and how his work shaped the field of experimental economics. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Show Links:Recommended Resources:Adam Smith StoicismAlfred MarshallEdward ChamberlinMilton FriedmanKevin A McCabeCharles HoltBetsy HoffmanGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Chapman UniversityNobel Prize Winner BioHis Work:Economics of Markets: Neoclassical Theory, Experiments, and Theory of Classical Price DiscoveryRationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological FormsHumanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century A Life of Experimental Economics, Volume I: Forty Years of DiscoveryA Life of Experimental Economics, Volume II: The Next Fifty YearsEpisode Quotes:Do humans learn economics through experience, not theory?39:09: People don't get the economics right by thinking about it. They get it right by actually participating in markets and getting a feel for what's going on. And I argue that humans are very good, once they do that. Sure, they can be fooled. And they do a lot of crazy things in a new market before they've acquired experience, but they adapt very well. And so, that equilibrium concepts are relevant. But the behavior is very much experience-oriented. And so, they get there through experiential learning. You see more than just abstract analysis and thinking about it.Perspective is at the foundation of the theorem of moral sentiments12:29: [The relationship] Perspective is at the foundation of the Theory of Moral Sentiments. That's what he's [Adam Smith] talking about—sentiments. An important part of it is fellow feeling.Gratitude influences sacrifice and motivates cooperation48:16: Gratitude creates indebtedness. And so people may have self-interested motivations, but they also have this motivation to get along with others. And so this proposition predicts, in the trust game, that people are sacrificing; they're taking less reward in order to do what they believe is right, to treat this person.Why is Vernon championing Adam Smith's principles in the modern way of thinking about economics?56:45: So that's why I'm a champion of trying to get that pattern of thinking and Adam Smith's principles into the modern way of thinking in economics. Economics and psychology, and in economics, because the Theorem of Sentiments was a contribution to social psychology that just never took hold. It was another hundred years, you see, before psychology started to do anything. And it was the beginning of the 20th century before psychology became very prominent. And then it was individual psychology, not social psychology. I think Adam Smith would find that strange.

In a money-hungry world that's focused on profits, ethical impact investing seeks to re-introduce compassion and benevolence to our system of buying, selling and money-making.Sam Richards is the Managing Director of Brightlight, an investment firm that seeks to do more than simply make money. Brightlight - along with a growing number of family offices and individual investors - seeks to use financial markets to improve social and environmental outcomes for real people in real communities. In this interview with Life & Faith, Sam offers us a glimpse into the world of ethical investing - its motivations, its challenges, its inner workings and its growing impact.---Explore: Brightlight website CPX Podcast Episode: The Ethics of What We Eat Adam Smith's ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments'

Sean Illing talks with Glory Liu, the author of Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher became an Icon of American Capitalism. Smith is most well-known for being the “father of capitalism,” but as Liu points out in her book, his legacy has been misappropriated — especially in America. They discuss his original intentions and what we can take away from his work today. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Glory Liu (@miss_glory), author; lecturer, Harvard University References: Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher became an Icon of American Capitalism by Glory Liu (Princeton; 2022) Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life by Nicholas Phillipson (Yale; 2012) Free to Choose: A Personal Statement by Milton & Rose Friedman (Harcourt; 1980) “Adam Smith's ‘History of Astronomy' and view of science” by Kwangsu Kim (Cambridge Journal of Economics v. 36; 2012) Works by Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations (1776) Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Lectures on Jurisprudence (1763) Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Be the first to hear new episodes of The Gray Area by following us in your favorite podcast app. Links here: https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The digital realm is rife with invisible threats, and this episode doesn't shy away from the gritty realities of ransomware and the burgeoning industry of cyber insurance. We tackle the conundrum: How do these defensive expenditures impact our economy when they don't actually produce anything tangible? From the early days of cyber insurance to the ongoing battle against hackers, learn how organizations across the board—from the halls of government to the frontlines of business—are fortifying their defenses against a barrage of cyber threats, each with their own unique strategies and vulnerabilities.Wrapping up with a human touch, our conversation turns to the pivotal role individuals play in the security of networks and the negotiation tactics employed once defenses have been breached. And because all work and no play makes for a dull podcast, we round off the session with a sprinkling of economic humor, answering listener queries with a blend of wit and wisdom. Don't forget, for those hungry for more knowledge, I've got some book recommendations to deepen your understanding of the legendary thinker Adam Smith. Links:Anja Shortland Website:  https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/anja-shortland-1Duke CHOPE Hayek Lecture with Dr. Shortland:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czs2EYDo2sIBooks:Arthur Herman: How the Scots Invented the Modern World https://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997James Otteson: Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Smiths-Marketplace-James-Otteson/dp/0521016568/ref=monarch_sidesheetAdam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments  https://www.libertyfund.org/books/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments/EconTalk Book Club (six episodes):  https://www.econtalk.org/klein-on-the-theory-of-moral-sentiments-episode-1-an-overview/If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Most governments around the world – whether democracies or autocracies – face at least some pressure to respond to citizen concerns on some social problems. But the issues that capture public attention — the ones on which states have incentives to be responsive – aren't always the issues on which bureaucracies, agents of the state, have the ability to solve problems. What do these public agencies do when citizens' demands don't line up with either the supply of state capacity or the incentives of the central state?Our guest, Dr. Iza Ding, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, examines one way in which bureaucrats try to square this circle. In her recent book The Performative State: Public Scrutiny and Environmental Governance in China, Iza argues that state actors who need to respond but lack substantive capacity can instead choose to perform governance for public audiences. Iza explores the puzzling case of China's Environmental Protection Bureau or the EPB, a bureaucratic agency set up to regulate polluting companies. This issue of polluted air became a national crisis during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics when athletes were struggling to breathe let alone compete. Since then, Chinese citizens have been directing their pollution-related complaints to the EPB, which Iza found, has been given little power by the state to impose fines or shut down polluting factories. But that doesn't mean the civil servants working in this agency do nothing. Instead, Iza documents how and why they routinely deploy symbols, language, and theatrical gestures of good governance to give the appearance of dynamic action – all while leaving many environmental problems utterly unaddressed. We talk with Iza about how she uncovered these performative dynamics through months of ethnographic research in which she was embedded within a Chinese environmental protection agency. She also tells us about how she tested her claims using original media and public opinion data. Finally, we talk about how her findings about performative governance in the environmental space translates to China's COVID-19 response.Works cited in this episode:Beraja, Martin, et al. "AI-Tocracy." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 138, No. 3, 2023, pp. 1349-1402.Dimitrov, Martin K. Dictatorship and Information: Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China. Oxford University Press, 2023.Fukuyama, Francis. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. London: Profile Books, 2017.Goffman, Erving. “On Face-Work.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behav­ior, edited by Erving Goffman, pp. 5–45. Chicago: Aldine Transaction, 1967.Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Edited by Jeffrey C. Isaac. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations [Book IV-V]. New York: Penguin Books, 2000.Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. New York: Penguin 2010.Walder, Andrew G. Communist Neo-Traditionalism: Work and Authority in Chinese Industry.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.Weber, Max. “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings, edited by Peter Baehr and Gordon C. Wells. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 77–128. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

Chapter 1 Interpret what the Literary work The Theory Of Moral Sentiments is about"The Theory of Moral Sentiments" is a book written by Adam Smith, first published in 1759. It is considered one of the foundational texts in the field of moral philosophy. In this work, Smith explores the nature of morality and the mechanisms behind human ethical behavior. Smith argues that moral sentiments, such as sympathy and empathy, are inherent to human nature and shape our moral judgments. He emphasizes the importance of social interactions and the role of fellow-feeling in developing a moral sense. Smith's ideas on morality laid the groundwork for his later work on economics and his influential book "The Wealth of Nations."Chapter 2 Is the Literary work The Theory Of Moral Sentiments A Good BookMany scholars and readers consider Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" to be a significant and influential work in the field of moral philosophy. It explores the role of moral sentiments and emotions in human behavior, emphasizing the importance of sympathy, justice, and virtue. The book delves into various topics such as moral judgments, the role of conscience, and the influence of social institutions on moral behavior.Whether it is a good book or not depends on your personal interests and preferences. If you are interested in moral philosophy, ethics, and the exploration of human nature, you will likely find it insightful and thought-provoking. However, if you are not particularly interested in these topics or prefer a different writing style, you may not enjoy it as much.Ultimately, the book's reputation and contributions to moral philosophy make it a worthwhile read for those interested in understanding how moral sentiments shape human behavior and society.Chapter 3 Key Features of the Literary work The Theory Of Moral Sentiments"The Theory of Moral Sentiments" is a philosophical and psychological work written by Adam Smith, best known for his pioneering work in economics and capitalism. Published in 1759, it explores human nature, ethics, and the concept of moral sentiments.Smith argues that moral judgments are not solely based on reason or self-interest but are deeply rooted in human emotions and empathy. He proposes that humans have an innate desire for approval and sympathy from others, which leads them to consider the perspectives and well-being of others when making moral decisions.According to Smith, moral values and virtues are shaped by the sympathy we feel towards others. He suggests that sympathy is a natural human instinct that allows individuals to understand and share the sentiments and emotions of others. Smith argues that this empathy and ability to put oneself in others' shoes are the basis for moral judgment and social cohesion.Smith further explores the role of self-interest and the relationship between individual and societal interests. He argues that while self-interest is a powerful motivator, individuals also recognize the importance of acting in accordance with moral principles to gain social approval and maintain harmonious relationships within society.The book also delves into the concept of justice and how it relates to empathy and sympathy. Smith suggests that justice is based on the moral sentiments of fairness and impartiality. He posits that individuals have a natural sense of justice that allows them to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation and establish social order.Overall, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" presents a moral theory grounded in human emotions and empathy. Smith challenges the prevailing theories of his time,...

Sean Illing talks with Glory Liu, the author of Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher became an Icon of American Capitalism. Smith is most well-known for being the “father of capitalism,” but as Liu points out in her book, his legacy has been misappropriated — especially in America. They discuss his original intentions and what we can take away from his work today. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Glory Liu (@miss_glory), author; lecturer, Harvard University References:  Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher became an Icon of American Capitalism by Glory Liu (Princeton; 2022) Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life by Nicholas Phillipson (Yale; 2012) Free to Choose: A Personal Statement by Milton & Rose Friedman (Harcourt; 1980) “Adam Smith's ‘History of Astronomy' and view of science” by Kwangsu Kim (Cambridge Journal of Economics v. 36; 2012) Works by Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations (1776) Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) Lectures on Jurisprudence (1763)   Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area. Subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices