Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfIreland
well, it depends. saying a business man selfishly pursues only his own self-interest would normally be a negative statement. however, in the context of adam smith it can be argued that it is a positive statement because of the whole invisible hand thing, so by being bad business men are doing good by being a small wheel of the system and advancing the markets and mankind.
it all depends if you buy this logic
|
The bolded part caught my attention.
As a human being it's impossible to not care about yourself and your own self-interests. Even if you're a full-time charity worker that donates 90% of his paycheck and live in a box in order to do so and even if you spend every hour you're not sleeping or at work in handout food at soup kitchens and rescuing cats from trees, deep down you're doing it for yourself. No sane and rational person is selfless.
Therefore, if I believe that being selfish is bad, and that only a selfless man is good(an impossible thing for a sane and rational person), I'm condemning myself to forever hating humanity and in turn, my own life. If I define self-interest as evil, and find that even mother theresa and ghandi worked towards their own self-interests, where could good possibly come from in the world?!?!?!?!?
So, disregarding my earlier post(it was a joke), I suggest that the OP really intrigue his professor by arguing that selfishness isn't evil, and claim that the entire book portrays businessmen in a positive light, which is in line with what KoI is saying. I wouldn't say that good in business only comes out as a by-product of businessmen acting evil, however.
question regarding Wealth of Nations by Adams Smith
