The fact of that matter is that we know this premise to be false. That knowledge is indeed irrelevant if you conceive of the profit-maximizing principle as being entirely rooted in an "every man is an island" hyper-libertarian conceptualization, but that is a relatively modern phenomenon and a wholly inaccurate description of the underpinnings of modern American ethics.
As a practical matter, only a few crazies actually believe that people have no social obligations. A large majority have some social conscience, but because they fully buy in to Smith's normative principle, they believe that their business decisions need not be guided by considerations other than profit. To the extent that this principle is invalid, their behavior is inconsistent with fostering desirable outcomes.
It depends. I live in a former Communist country in Eastern Europe, and you'd be surprised of how effective +50 years of communist rule were at destroying any "social feelings" whatsoever.
Of course you could say it's a bad thing, but on the other hand the fact that you've lived your entire life with the credo "rely only on yourself and yourself only and trust no-one" is really good in times of crisis like the ones we're going through right now.
I disagree. If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them. "Social interest" is merely a euphamism for State interests. Killing the Jews in gas chambers was a social interest. Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State.
As a practical matter, only a few crazies actually believe that people have no social obligations.
But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation. Obligation to a small group's whim instead of obligation to your own actions, interests, and responsiblities.
If you read the text surrounding the quoted language, it uses "own interest" in a narrow sense, not encompassing altruism. If you subscribe to the notion that there is a dichotomy between "own interest" (encompassing altruism) and "the state's interest" then yes your claim is logically valid, but also besides the point. The ethic underlying modern American business ethics conceives that profit maximization maximizes overall social welfare (i.e. it uses the narrower definition of "own interest" that Smith uses, not your broader definition).
> Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State.
Guess what? We live in a state. And we live in a state where most people believe in welfare maximization: the greatest good for the greatest number. And many of those people, in the business context, believe that profit maximization leads to welfare maximization. To the extent that this assumption is incorrect, their behavior is inconsistent with their desired outcomes.
> But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation.
You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. You obligate yourself by exchanging, for the protections of civilized society, the duties of living in a civilized society. You try to separate "the State" from "the people" but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. "We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us.
That obligation doesn't necessarily have to involve coercion. To the extent that you don't consider how your business decisions impact society at large, it might simply make you a "bad person." The problem is that we have an ethical system that relieves you of the duty to make that consideration. You can ruthlessly try to maximize shareholder value and still be a "good person." That ethic is predicated on the idea that profit maximization ultimately serves to maximize social welfare. What I'm arguing is that this assumption has been empirically invalidated (or at least drastically limited) and as such we should move towards an ethic that labels people who are socially inconsiderate as "bad people."
No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State.
> We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us.
We the people? I did not consent to the constitution. Just like I can't bind you to contracts that you didn't consent to, I am not part of "we the people" because I never consented to be represented. Funny that it's called a "social contract" when it doesn't conform to contract law!
> You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society.
If that's the case, why can't I levy taxes and impose rules on people without their consent, simply because I sold something to them?
> If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them.
You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. This isn't the case; see you've been Ayn-Randed to the bones, for instance. That makes you believe mad things that work against your own interest in the long term. See?
> But what does social obligation mean?
You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?
No, I never implied that I was free from the forceful influence of the State. Social obligation in the context of the post I was responding to is (I thought) referring to regulation and taxes, the social contract.
> You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?
I'm not pretending that I don't need anybody else. I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent.
Private roads aren't allowed to exist, I pay for my own shelter presumably built by people who were already paid to build it, I pay for my power by the company that provides it, and language I acquired by picking it up from others at who provided it freely.
Please drop the snark.
Smith's math was - for every dollar in profit "p" you make, you create "x" dollars of consumer surplus, and "x" is always much more than "p" ( because people simply would not bother. The "unconscious" nature of consumer surplus, and the clear historical disasters wrought by large efforts based on intentions show clearly that we need discipline in our evaluation of what we do that does good. One was of doing that is price and profit.
There are the Adam Curtis films, in which he tries to use neocon logic to critique liberalism without being the sort of neocon one can spit on, but his films are problemsome. He at least asks the right questions, which are hard questions, and you can't blame him for being responsible enough to provide at least one answer.
Profit is little more than a "qsort callback" related to priority. it is a tool for the always difficult question of "what shall we do now?" There are certainly forms of gain which entail rent-seeking or despoilment which are called profit ( but are not, really - there are either economic rents or involve the creation of negative externalities ) but beyond that, Smith's read really is that of a moral philosopher first, and I've yet to see a really good counter to it that does not involve something akin to universe-building.
