The Enlightenment period was a time in European history full of major philosophical ideas from a large array of some of the most well known philosophers in history. Many of these philosophers had similar ideas, and some were even friends. Two particular philosophers that represent this period exceptionally well are Adam Smith and David Hume. While Smith and Hume didn’t always explore similar philosophical concepts, they did each share some common fundamental beliefs like many of the other Enlightenment philosophers. Although unlike many other philosophers, Hume and Smith were very good friends throughout their lives, despite Hume being 12 years older and their close relationship is evident in Smith’s works.
Perhaps the most prominent similarity between the two philosophers is their foundational beliefs in politics and economics. Like many Enlightenment philosophers, they both believed very strongly in personal freedoms and spoke out against oppressive governments. Hume was sympathetic towards democracy and spoke out against religious intolerance, despite being a skeptic. This highlights another similarity between Smith and Humes, both did not write or speak out strongly for or against particularly religious beliefs and rather just supported the freedom of each individual to choose. Smith and Humes both believed in a limited government as well and held the belief that it was the government’s job to protect the rights of the people, rather than to provide them. They both supported the rights of life and liberty, although unlike fellow philosopher John Locke, they both did not speak out in support of property being a natural right. Instead, Hume described it as an evil necessity and Smith simply stated that societies that protect property are in a better political position.
Another similarity between Smith and Hume can be seen in their writings on morality, specifically moral sentimentalism. Many philosophers believe that morality can be based on reason, suggesting that there are simply right and wrong actions and that we use logic to tell them apart, although Smith and Hume do not agree with this suggestion. They believe that instead morality is based on feelings gathered from experience. In support of this, Hume wrote “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason” (Hume 1739). On this same topic, Smith writes in agreement and uses the term “sympathy” to describe how human morality is defined. Smith claims that through experience we can learn how it would feel to be in other people’s situations and therefore gain an emotional understanding of how they feel and that this feeling we get is what determines if our actions are immoral or moral. Much of Smith’s first major work The Theory of Moral Sentiments is based off this concept and it acts as a clear point of agreement between these two philosophers.
While they both supported a limited government, they each had their own specific ideas about government that they focused on most strongly. Smith focused heavily on the economic duty of the government, while Hume focused much more of his writing on the physical structure and placement of power in a governmental body. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote of how he supported minimal government involvement in trade, as well as minimal taxation. He claimed that this Laissez- Faire approach would lead to good industry, as well as productive trade for a nation. While Smith focused most of his work in this area of how governments should act in order to create a successful economy, Hume focused much of his time philosophizing how to create a political structure that won’t lead to tyranny. In Hume’s essay titled “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth”, he provides a blueprint for this ideal government. This blueprint included strong support for a separation of powers, as well as a more decentralized government. In fact, it is believed that the founding fathers of the United States’ were heavily influenced by this essay which is evident by the similarities seen in the United States Constitution.
A major difference between these two philosophers is what they are most well known for, despite some similar works in economics and politics, Hume is perhaps best known for his theory of reason and Smith for this concept of the invisible hand. More specifically, Hume is well known for speaking out against inductive reasoning leading to any sort of certainty. Hume does not believe that past experiences can guarantee the same result in the future and feels that this argument is circular in nature. This claim sparks quite a bit of backlash since experience is how we learn facts to be true, although according to Hume, fact cannot be drawn from past evidence. Smith’s infamous idea of the “invisible hand” is a topic Hume never wrote about and is still used today is economics. This theory states that as each individual in society works towards their own self interest, an “invisible hand” moves society as whole in a more beneficial direction. This was used as evidence in support for a free market system in much of Smith’s writings.
Overall, what related Adam Smith and David Hume the most was the time in which they lived. They were both clearly influenced by the state of revolution taking place all over the world and this helped shape their views on freedom which would come to be known as classical liberalism. They both wrote of ideas based on works from famous philosophers before them such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson. Despite these overlapping backgrounds, Smith and Hume each came up with their own unique ideas about the world around them and have contributed to modern day society as much as almost any other philosophers from the Enlightenment period.
Bibliography
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 1739.
home
biography
philosophical explanation
comparison
closing arguments
bibliography