Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:03:09.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-deceit and self-serving bias: Adam Smith on ‘General Rules’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

ELIAS L. KHALIL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adam Smith (1982) undertook a momentous project in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS): He wanted to debunk the Cartesian dichotomy between the emotions (body) and rationality (mind). The debunking of the body/mind dichotomy is a major aim of many modern neuroscientists and neuroeconomists (e.g., Damasio, 1994; Glimcher, 2004; Rustichini, 2005). Smith also wanted to demonstrate that morality is grounded on the emotions – as the title of his book indicates. So for Smith, the twin pillars of what thinkers consider to be distinguishably human, namely, rationality and morality, are actually rooted in the emotions (body). More specifically, while rationality and morality are based on the emotions, Smith showed that the emotions are rather refined and sophisticated sentiments adopted by agents in light of how they judge the actions of others and, in turn, how they should judge their own actions. Such judgments are nothing but the determination of what is the rational (optimal) solution. So, sentiments are not hurdles in the pathway of rational decisions. They are rather the building blocks of such decisions.

Type
Fragment
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 251 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babcock, Linda and Loewenstein, George (1977), ‘Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11 (1): 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R. (1994), Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
Glimcher, Paul W. (2004), Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain: The Science of Neuroeconomics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hogarth, Robin M. (1987), Judgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision, 2nd edition, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Khalil, Elias L. (1990), ‘Beyond Self-Interest and Altruism: A Reconstruction of Adam Smith's Theory of Human Conduct’, Economics and Philosophy, 6 (2): 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, Elias L. (2000), ‘Making Sense of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: Beyond Pareto Optimality and Unintended Consequences’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (1): 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, Elias L. (2009), ‘How Adam Smith's Concept of Self-Command Suggests a Solution to Dynamic Inconsistency and the Commitment Problem’, Economic Inquiry, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Dale T. and Ross, Michael (1975), ‘Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction?’, Psychological Bulletin, 82: 213–225.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam (1982), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L., vol. I of The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982. (Reprinted from the Oxford University Press edition, 1976).Google Scholar
Rapoport, Amnon, Budescu, D. V., Suleiman, Ramzi, and Weg, E. (1992), ‘Social Dilemmas with Uniformly Distributed Resources’, in Liebrand, Wim B. G., Messick, David M., and Wilke, Henk A. M. (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings, Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Rustichini, Aldo (2005), ‘Neuroeconomics: Present and future’, Games and Economic Behavior, 52 (2): 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenhan, D. L. and Messick, S. (1966), ‘Affect and Expectation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed