|
|
| Name | Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Argument |
| Author(s) | John Douglas Bishop |
| Editor | |
| Year | 1995 |
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Web Location | http://www.springerlink.com/content/r74u5668571h4082/ |
| Keywords | CONFLICT of interests, MERCHANTS, PSYCHOLOGY, COMMERCE, FREE enterprise, PUBLIC interest, SELF-interest -- Moral & ethical aspects, ETHICS, ECONOMIC man, MORAL & ethical aspects, SMITH, Adam, WEALTH of Nations, THEORY of Moral Sentiments |
| Areas of Interest | Economic; SRI/Responsible Investment; Theory |
| Citation | Bishop, John D. 1995. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Argument. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (3):165-180. |
| Summary | Adam Smith is usually thought to argue that the result of everyone pursuing their own interests will be the maximization of the interests of society. The invisible hand of the free market will transfo |
| Abstract / Description | Adam Smith is usually thought to argue that the result of everyone pursuing their own interests will be the maximization of the interests of society. The invisible hand of the free market will transform the individual's pursuit of gain into the general utility of society. This is the invisible hand argument. Many people, although Smith did not, draw a moral corollary from this argument, and use it to defend the moral acceptability of pursuing one's own self-interest. Smith does use the invisible hand argument; however, a close reading of the Wealth of Nations reveals that Smith thought the interests of merchants and manufacturers were fundamentally opposed to those of society in general, and that they had an inherent tendency to deceive and oppress society while pursuing their own interests. How can these two views of what results when merchants and manufactures pursue their self-interest be made compatible? It is argued that the invisible hand argument when applied to merchants and manufacturers, (its application to labour and landlords is only mentioned briefly), is extremely restrictive, and that similar restrictions must apply to the moral corollary. In particular, the invisible hand argument applies only to investing capital in one's own country for maximum profit.
[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts) |
| Publisher/Organization | Journal of Business Ethics |
| Cluster Library | Socially Responsible Investment |
|
|