Observations on The “Vanity of the Philosopher”

I Introduction SANDRA PEART AND DAVID LEVY'S The "Vanity of the Philosopher" is a book long overdue. It is telling that the story presented will be considered by some to be controversial, and will even be challenged as revisionist or as a piece of propaganda. Such is the nature of the climate within which this debate is to unfold. For too long the Left (of both the academic and coffeehouse varieties) have condemned the market economy and the economists whom they view as its unholy defenders as complicit in an evil endeavor that has as its goal the subjugation of what they contend are the lower classes and the lesser races. Yet when one dares point out the actual details of the development of classical economic thought, as formulated from the late 18th to the mid-19th century, a story that is completely at odds with the accepted fable, accusations are leveled of lack of scholarship, ignorance of the material and the period, inattention to standard references, political bias, cultural insensitivity, and so on. One even hears such absurdities as the following: While the literary types who poisoned the debate with racial epithets as they sought to maintain the status quo of inequality and separateness may have advanced hierarchical views, they actually in the end opposed slavery and so their outbursts may be forgiven. The authors aim at a more accurate portrayal of events, one not infected with the ideological biases evident in much that passes for scholarship on this topic. The result is a bold, take-no-prisoners defense of the market order and its principal philosophers, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Both argued for equality and human homogeneity as preconditions of a market-oriented social structure, confronting directly the prevailing attitudes of some of the leading intellectuals of the period, and in so doing changing the nature of the political and social debates. (1) The contrast with the later, postclassical economists is indeed striking, and has been distressingly little acknowledged. In fact, one can delve into the literature on such luminaries of political economy as William Stanley Jevons and Francis Ysidro Edgeworth and be hard-pressed to discover any reference to their racial politics. Yet here one is led to see that political and social views are often intertwined with philosophical stances that themselves undergird economic method. The purpose of this brief paper is not to restate the arguments presented in this compelling tale, as the evidence accumulated is quite impressive, but rather to expand upon specific areas in which the coverage seems somewhat superficial and to identify points at which the presentation appears incomplete or (dare I say) in error. That such comments are brief is a testament to the scholarship of the authors and the thoroughness of their effort. II Hume, Sympathy, and Race THE MAIN ARGUMENT of Vanity begins with a consideration of the social philosophy of Adam Smith, briefly contrasted (too briefly, actually) with the views of David Hume. Perhaps this is as it should be, as Smith presents a far more cogent analysis of sympathy, a central theme of the book, than does Hume. In addition, as a representative of the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume presents a particularly distressing example of the influences that may have impacted Smith's philosophical outlook. Fortunately, for the purposes of the present work, his services are useful as a foil of sorts to Smith's own more fully developed position. (2) The contrast is indeed striking. We are told that "Hume's sympathetic principle moves from equality in fact to sympathy" (Peart and Levy 2005: 131, emphasis in original). The principle may do so, but does Hume actually himself believe in equality? Peart and Levy correctly point out that Hume's sympathy "is an empathy we feel for those like us," and so Hume is able to ignore those of obvious inferior status or natural ability. …