Earticle

‘애덤스미스문제’(Das Adam Smith Problem)는 19세기 중후반 독일의 역사학파에서 촉발되어 영국으로 이어졌던 『국부론』과 『도덕감정론』 간의 비일관성 여부의 문제이다. 근대정치경제 학을 태동시키며 경제학을 위시하여 현대 사회과학 전반에 큰 영향을 미쳐온 『국부론』과 애덤 스미스 자신이 말년까지 개정을 통해 학문적 애착을 보였던 『도덕감정론』 간에 인간본성과 도덕적 행위에 관한 명백한 철학적 관점의 변화가 있었는지에 대한 논쟁의 역사는 150년 이상 지속되고 있다. 이는 선행연구자들의 치밀한 해석과 이론적 비교분석에도 불구하고 『국부론』에 단 1회 비유적인 표현으로 부정관사와 함께 등장하는 ‘보이지 않는 손’(an invisible hand)의 다양한 해석 예처럼 아직 다양한 관점의 해석이 상존하고 있기 때문이다. 본 연구는 『국부론』과 『도덕감 정론』을 포함하여 애덤 스미스의 주요 저작들의 전자문서를 전수 검색하여 선행연구에서 주목되어 온 핵심개념들의 추출 빈도와 문맥 상 위치를 실증적으로 검토하고, 이를 기초로 개념들의 중요성과 원작자가 의도한 관계를 보다 객관적으로 해석하여 이론적 결론을 도출해 보고자 하였다.

This article addresses the ‘Adam Smith Problem’ as the consistency of ‘self-love’ and ‘invisible hand’ throughout The Wealth of Nations (1776) and The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Utilizing both the electronic textual analysis of Adam Smith’s books and concept-by-concept interpretation of the comparative sentences and contexts, it examines whether the logics and definitions of philosophical concepts or principles in Adam Smith’s scientific explanations had been changed between these influential books in light of his other writings. Analysis results imply that Adam Smith both conceptualized and theorized the Aristotelian and Newtonian self-love with the principle of sympathy based on the sense of propriety favoring such virtues as prudence, benevolence, self-command, and justice. The impartial spectator, whose moral capability helps him or her sympathize with the little grief (as much as great grief) and the great joy (as much as little joy), selfishness and selfish passions should be guided toward the principle of sympathy, which inter-subjectively constitutes the moral system with the sympathetic passions from ‘self-love’ among myself, yourself (themselves), and (eventually) ourselves. Further, Adam Smith theorized the ‘love of virtue’ as the most desirable self-love and the ‘love of true glory’ as the worldly self-love that could also enhance the moral system of exchange in both markets (as emphasized in The Wealth of Nations) and social psychology (as expounded in The Theory of Moral Sentiments).

This paper reconsiders the “Adam Smith Problem,” one of the key topics in Adam Smith scholarship concerning the relationship between his two major works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. This problem examines the apparent contradiction between Smith’s emphasis on sympathy and benevolence in The Theory of Moral Sentiments as parts of human nature and his acknowledgment of the positive social effects of selfinterest and egoism in The Wealth of Nations. Initially raised in mid- 19th century Germany, discussions surrounding this problem have primarily focused on the logical consistency between the two texts. This paper, however, takes a more historical perspective, examining Smith’s original intention in composing both works as integral parts of his system of moral philosophy. In other words, it reframes the “Adam Smith Problem” into an inquiry about what the “Adam Smith’s Problem” was, arguing that Smith’s ultimate goal was to propose an alternative to the moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, which he deemed “so odious.” This papar contends that one of the main purpose of Smith’s theory of individual-social relationship elaborated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments was to rebut Hobbes’s social contract theory, and his endorsement of commercial society in The Wealth of Nations, based on his own preceding moral framework, was to present a more practical and realistic social theory than Hobbes’s. In this regards, Smith’s two works can be understood as different parts of the cohesive social theory.

칸트나 퇴계 같은 인문주의자들은 인간에게 매우 숭고한 본성이 있다고 보았다. 그럼에도 불구하고 일상적 인간의 감정은 악에 흐르기 쉬운 것으로 판단했다. 그래서 그들은 높은 이념의 실현을 위해 고도의 자기수양을 요구했다. 그것은 인간의 내면에서 물욕을 없앰으로써, 일상생활에서 벌어지는 물질을 둘러싼 폭력의 악순환을 끊으려는 숭고한 시도이다. 세상에서 벌어지는 힘의 싸움의 뿌리가 되는 인간의 이기심을 제거하려고 한 것이다. 다른 말로 하면 내면의 평화를 통해 세상의 평화를 도모하려는 것이다. 그러나, 아담 스미스의 자본주의 철학은 물욕이나 이기심을 악으로 생각하지 않았다. 높고 숭고한 도덕에 초점을 맞추지 않고, 일상에서 인간이 살아가고 있는 현실을 바탕으로 도덕규범을 찾았다. 인문주의자들이 중요하게 생각한 공공선을 개인의 희생이나 고도의 자기 수양에서 찾지 않고, 이기심의 적절한 조절을 통해 찾으려고 했다. 그것은 인간이 가장 잘 할 수 있는 자기 사랑에 바탕을 둔 것이기 때문에, 너무 어렵지 않게 현실화될 수 있는 도덕성이라고 보았다. 이렇게 해서 자본주의 사회에서 인간의 욕망은 정당화되고, 다만 타자와의 공존의 가능성이라는 조건을 만족시키면 되게 되었다.

Typical humanists like Kant and Toegye viewed sublime nature in human beings. Everyday human feeling is believed to tend to fall in evil, though. This is why people are required to cultivate their original nature hard way. That is effort to get out of circulation of evil spread in human life surrounding selfish demands for material things. In other words, it is to establish the peace of the world through the peace of mind. On the contrary, Adam Smith did not thought the selfishness or self-love as evil. His capitalistic moral is not focused on the high standard of human mind but he sought morality based on human daily reality. The common good, which is underlying theme of the humanists' argument, is not something to be found in individual sacrifice of desire or high self-cultivation but in the proper control of selfishness. Smith's ethics is based on natural self-love of human being and was believed to be practiced without difficulty. This way, human desire is basically justified in the capitalistic anthropology, even though conditioned by minium requirement of peaceful coexistence with others.