WEBVTT

00:01.850 --> 00:04.020
Prof: So Adam Smith.

00:04.019 --> 00:07.549
And this is what I want to rush
quickly through.

00:07.550 --> 00:12.810
His life--we don't really know
all that much about his life,

00:12.812 --> 00:17.542
and it is not as colorful as
Jean Jacques Rousseau.

00:17.540 --> 00:20.140
And then his major
contributions:

00:20.138 --> 00:25.168
his theory of self-interest and
how self-interest is related to

00:25.174 --> 00:28.674
the common good,
his labor theory of value,

00:28.669 --> 00:32.659
his idea of distribution of
value between labor capital and

00:32.659 --> 00:35.519
rent,
and finally (what is the most

00:35.521 --> 00:39.541
often cited) with his theory of
the invisible hand.

00:39.540 --> 00:44.740
So here it is, Adam Smith.

00:44.740 --> 00:48.450
About his life,
he was born in 1723 in

00:48.449 --> 00:53.059
Scotland, Kirkcaldy,
just outside of Edinburgh,

00:53.062 --> 00:56.072
which is a beautiful city.

00:56.070 --> 00:58.980
If you did not visit it yet,
I recommend that you do.

00:58.980 --> 01:01.380
He entered the University of
Glasgow,

01:01.380 --> 01:05.520
and interestingly at that time,
in the mid-eighteenth century,

01:05.519 --> 01:10.049
for reasons which is beyond me,
next to Paris and in a way

01:10.045 --> 01:13.935
London,
Edinburgh was the center of the

01:13.944 --> 01:16.354
Scottish Enlightenment.

01:16.349 --> 01:23.279
Then he also went to Oxford,
in Balliol College,

01:23.280 --> 01:30.360
and in 1751 he was appointed at
the University of Glasgow as a--

01:30.360 --> 01:34.880
Glasgow I would not recommend
as a tourist destination,

01:34.879 --> 01:37.359
by the way
>

01:37.360 --> 01:42.850
--he became a professor of
logic, and then he became a

01:42.849 --> 01:47.819
professor of moral philosophy,
believe it or not.

01:47.822 --> 01:48.862
Right?

01:48.860 --> 01:52.820
The person who is known about
self-interest and the invisible

01:52.819 --> 01:56.719
hand, his major first job was
professor of moral philosophy,

01:56.715 --> 01:57.635
of ethics.

01:57.640 --> 02:00.440
And, in 1759,
he published a book,

02:00.441 --> 02:04.941
the book called The Theory
of Moral Sentiments,

02:04.941 --> 02:07.491
which is a book on ethics.

02:07.489 --> 02:13.219
Well we will see this is a big
issue, whether this book was

02:13.215 --> 02:17.505
written out of expediency;
he wrote it just because he

02:17.510 --> 02:20.800
wanted to justify that he's a
professor of moral philosophy

02:20.800 --> 02:24.600
and he didn't really believe in
it because he was an economist,

02:24.598 --> 02:29.108
a rational choice economist,
or was he really a moralist?

02:29.110 --> 02:34.690
That's one of the big questions
I think what scholars on Adam

02:34.687 --> 02:36.637
Smith are debating.

02:36.639 --> 02:39.729
He traveled in Europe,
and this may have been a

02:39.729 --> 02:41.609
turning point in his life.

02:41.610 --> 02:45.270
He meets Voltaire and Quesnay,
a major economist of his time,

02:45.268 --> 02:48.438
and other representatives of
French Enlightenment.

02:48.440 --> 02:53.900
And French Enlightenment may
have actually influenced him and

02:53.901 --> 02:59.001
pushed him, after the return of
Glasgow, to Kirkcaldy for

02:58.997 --> 03:01.497
awhile;
he went back and that's where

03:01.498 --> 03:04.808
he mainly wrote The Wealth of
Nations, and that's the most

03:04.808 --> 03:05.738
important book.

03:05.740 --> 03:11.980
But I think in order to
understand Adam Smith,

03:11.979 --> 03:15.369
we have to come to terms with
the apparent tension between

03:15.372 --> 03:18.592
The Theory of Moral
Sentiments and The Wealth

03:18.587 --> 03:19.717
of Nations.

03:19.720 --> 03:23.350
Is this the same author,
or these are two different

03:23.353 --> 03:24.083
authors?

03:24.080 --> 03:27.180
Is it the same theory,
or there are two different

03:27.182 --> 03:28.802
theories offered to us?

03:28.800 --> 03:31.130
And that's I think very
complicated.

03:31.129 --> 03:33.439
He passed away in 1790.

03:33.440 --> 03:36.460
Well I wanted to find you some
figures about--pictures about

03:36.456 --> 03:37.016
his life.

03:37.020 --> 03:41.790
The only thing what I could
find is a memorial on the site

03:41.785 --> 03:46.465
where the house stood in
Kirkcaldy, where he wrote The

03:46.466 --> 03:48.636
Wealth of Nations.

03:48.639 --> 03:51.509
So it's not only Yale
University which is turning

03:51.512 --> 03:54.592
buildings down;
even the British do turn all

03:54.592 --> 03:57.762
buildings down,
even if they should not have

03:57.763 --> 03:58.353
done so.

03:58.352 --> 03:59.092
Right?

03:59.090 --> 04:03.160
It would be so nice to visit
the house where The Wealth of

04:03.163 --> 04:04.933
Nations was written.

04:04.930 --> 04:09.420
But if you go to Kirkcaldy,
well you can visit that site

04:09.415 --> 04:11.125
and to have a look.

04:11.128 --> 04:14.878
Okay, so as I said,
Adam Smith seemed to have two

04:14.875 --> 04:15.495
faces.

04:15.500 --> 04:22.100
Regularly, normally today,
if you take economics classes,

04:22.100 --> 04:27.060
he is presented as the person
who is advocating the

04:27.062 --> 04:32.722
self-interested individual and a
committed theorist of the

04:32.721 --> 04:37.041
self-regulating markets,
of the invisible hand-- as

04:37.038 --> 04:40.878
little government as possible,
pursue just your self-interest,

04:40.875 --> 04:44.405
and your self-interest will
lead to the common good.

04:44.410 --> 04:48.270
So he is the sort of
inspiration for neoclassical

04:48.269 --> 04:52.689
economics and rational choice
theory, and methodological

04:52.692 --> 04:55.752
individualism,
to put it this way.

04:55.750 --> 04:59.510
But he has this book,
The Theory of Moral

04:59.511 --> 05:03.271
Sentiments,
in which he is writing about

05:03.273 --> 05:08.263
sympathy as an important
motivation for human action.

05:08.259 --> 05:12.759
And is this just a concession
to his job, or is there

05:12.757 --> 05:18.197
something deep in him which also
saw the need for a helping hand

05:18.204 --> 05:20.804
by the public authorities?

05:20.800 --> 05:25.610
That's the big puzzle we have
to struggle with.

05:25.610 --> 05:29.080
Well there are other people who
are more qualified to give you

05:29.084 --> 05:31.654
the most authentic
interpretation of Smith.

05:31.649 --> 05:34.499
I'll try to do my best. Okay?

05:34.500 --> 05:38.730
Well and indeed The Wealth
of Nations looks like about

05:38.730 --> 05:42.470
self-interested individuals and
the invisible hand.

05:42.470 --> 05:45.860
I will present you enough
citations that you see it.

05:45.860 --> 05:49.540
I will also show you why it is
possible.

05:49.540 --> 05:55.160
Some of Smith's interpreters
will suggest that this is the

05:55.158 --> 05:58.068
same Mill,
and in fact The Wealth of

05:58.065 --> 06:01.375
Nations is just an extension
of The Theory of Moral

06:01.375 --> 06:04.105
Sentiments,
rather than a contradiction to

06:04.112 --> 06:04.332
it.

06:04.329 --> 06:07.129
This is not the majority view.

06:07.134 --> 06:07.794
Right?

06:07.790 --> 06:11.590
Today, among economists in
particular, the majority view is

06:11.593 --> 06:15.593
that you should not really pay
much attention to The Theory

06:15.593 --> 06:17.433
of Moral Sentiments.

06:17.430 --> 06:22.840
The Wealth of Nations
gives you the real source

06:22.836 --> 06:26.806
and inspiration,
and this is what guides

06:26.814 --> 06:29.574
neoclassical economics.

06:29.569 --> 06:33.279
But you may find some
economists who disagree,

06:33.279 --> 06:38.809
and you will find a number of
political philosophers who will

06:38.812 --> 06:44.442
disagree and will say that this
is not the real Adam Smith who

06:44.437 --> 06:49.137
is presented to you by
neoclassical economists.

06:49.139 --> 06:52.589
And I don't want to take a
position in this.

06:52.589 --> 06:58.559
I'm not sufficiently a Smith
scholar to be able to do so.

06:58.560 --> 07:01.170
But I will present you the
argument both ways,

07:01.170 --> 07:04.420
and you can make up your mind
where you stand on this.

07:04.420 --> 07:07.820
So The Theory of Moral
Sentiments--just very

07:07.817 --> 07:09.377
briefly what this is.

07:09.379 --> 07:13.899
He does ask the central
question: How can we make moral

07:13.899 --> 07:14.819
judgment?

07:14.819 --> 07:20.419
How can we tell good from evil,
good for bad?

07:20.420 --> 07:24.660
Well it's a very important
issue and question.

07:24.660 --> 07:30.100
Many founding theorists of
modern social theory were

07:30.096 --> 07:32.226
dealing with this.

07:32.230 --> 07:36.200
The most important one,
we will talk about him at

07:36.199 --> 07:40.249
great--in fifteen minutes--is
Frederick Nietzsche,

07:40.252 --> 07:43.632
of course;
the genealogy of morals.

07:43.629 --> 07:48.929
This is the central question:
Where does our conception of

07:48.930 --> 07:51.350
good and evil come from?

07:51.350 --> 07:54.050
But Adam Smith already here
asked this question,

07:54.050 --> 07:55.950
and he said,
well "what's the

07:55.947 --> 07:57.037
solution?"

07:57.040 --> 08:01.370
That inside you there is an
inner person.

08:01.370 --> 08:03.400
You are two people.

08:03.399 --> 08:07.429
You act, and there is somebody
inside you who is watching you,

08:07.425 --> 08:11.185
and that inside you will tell
you, "You did something

08:11.189 --> 08:13.599
wrong;
that was not the right thing to

08:13.596 --> 08:14.156
do."

08:14.160 --> 08:19.950
And I think you should be able
to relate to this.

08:19.949 --> 08:21.649
I can.

08:21.649 --> 08:25.589
There is very often inner self,
in myself, which tells me that

08:25.593 --> 08:28.893
was a mistake I did,
that was a foolish thing I did,

08:28.889 --> 08:30.829
I should not have done so.

08:30.829 --> 08:39.749
I know people who have a very
small impartial internal

08:39.750 --> 08:41.770
spectator.

08:41.769 --> 08:46.539
I know people who have very
great difficulties telling ever

08:46.537 --> 08:48.507
that I made a mistake.

08:48.509 --> 08:52.459
There are some people who
always blame others if things go

08:52.464 --> 08:53.024
wrong.

08:53.019 --> 08:58.289
Well I think they have a moral
problem, I would say.

08:58.289 --> 08:59.899
So what about yourself?

08:59.899 --> 09:03.919
You may have a moral problem if
your inner self never tells you

09:03.924 --> 09:07.044
that you were wrong,
and you are always liking to

09:07.042 --> 09:09.512
blame others if things went
wrong.

09:09.509 --> 09:13.079
Then you have a problem,
an ethical problem;

09:13.080 --> 09:15.660
at least this is Adam Smith's
argument.

09:15.664 --> 09:16.214
Right?

09:16.210 --> 09:18.880
Simple and persuasive.

09:18.879 --> 09:24.779
Then he says--this is something
which is kind of inspired by

09:24.778 --> 09:27.978
Hobbes--we are led by passion.

09:27.980 --> 09:30.970
But now he is not emphasizing
fear.

09:30.970 --> 09:33.290
He said, "also by
sympathy."

09:33.288 --> 09:36.508
That's crucial,
and that's the crucial notion

09:36.505 --> 09:41.105
for those who emphasize that in
fact Adam Smith in The Wealth

09:41.111 --> 09:45.431
of Nations is the same Adam
Smith as in The Theory of

09:45.426 --> 09:47.396
Moral Sentiments.

09:47.399 --> 09:51.249
Because Adam Smith,
those who argue for one Adam

09:51.249 --> 09:54.279
Smith rather than two Adam
Smiths,

09:54.279 --> 09:59.189
say that he has a theory of
humans which is a sympathetic

09:59.192 --> 10:00.862
theory of humans.

10:00.860 --> 10:04.220
What drives us,
that we have sympathy for

10:04.220 --> 10:08.670
others, other people's
sympathies, that in interacting

10:08.672 --> 10:12.872
with others we are seeking other
people's sympathy.

10:12.870 --> 10:13.880
Right?

10:13.879 --> 10:16.699
We try to please people.

10:16.700 --> 10:19.510
We want to impress people.

10:19.509 --> 10:24.049
We want to have a reputation;
we want to have a good

10:24.053 --> 10:24.643
reputation.

10:24.639 --> 10:27.119
We want to act honorably.

10:27.120 --> 10:29.940
So we are seeking sympathy.

10:29.940 --> 10:33.890
We have a sympathy--we have an
understanding of other people's

10:33.885 --> 10:37.245
human conditions--but we are
also expecting others to

10:37.250 --> 10:39.000
understand us and value us.

10:38.998 --> 10:39.708
Right?

10:39.710 --> 10:44.000
And I think this is a very
important and intriguing idea,

10:44.000 --> 10:48.000
which I will show,
try to show you later on,

10:48.000 --> 10:51.920
may not be completely
inconsistent by the idea that

10:51.918 --> 10:55.918
seeking self-interest is leading
to the common good.

10:55.916 --> 10:56.696
Right?

10:56.700 --> 11:03.020
Because indeed,
if self-interest implies that I

11:03.020 --> 11:09.480
also want others to respect and
evaluate me,

11:09.480 --> 11:13.900
the self-interest also implies
that I want to do good to

11:13.897 --> 11:14.617
others.

11:14.620 --> 11:18.210
This is in your self-interest,
that you can say at the end of

11:18.214 --> 11:20.734
the day, "I am a good
person."

11:20.730 --> 11:25.130
Then, in fact,
pursuing these self-interests

11:25.125 --> 11:31.255
may not be all that different
from the common good because it

11:31.259 --> 11:33.099
is inside you.

11:33.100 --> 11:35.900
And this, I think,
is the way how he is being

11:35.903 --> 11:36.353
read.

11:36.350 --> 11:41.320
And he introduces the notion
for the first time of the

11:41.323 --> 11:47.523
concept invisible hand in The
Theory of Moral Sentiments.

11:47.519 --> 11:51.989
But here the invisible hand is
not what you are told Adam

11:51.988 --> 11:55.338
Smith's theory of the invisible
hand is.

11:55.340 --> 11:58.320
It's not the laissez-faire free
market.

11:58.320 --> 12:00.940
It's the hand of God. Right?

12:00.940 --> 12:06.640
God guides us to have a proper
balance between passion and

12:06.639 --> 12:12.539
sympathy, and that is somehow
God's will, what we follow.

12:12.538 --> 12:16.378
In fact, I will talk about this
later on.

12:16.379 --> 12:21.689
A big deal is made out of Adam
Smith's theory of the invisible

12:21.690 --> 12:22.300
hand.

12:22.298 --> 12:25.518
The term, the word,
invisible hand,

12:25.518 --> 12:29.488
the term, comes up three times
in his work.

12:29.493 --> 12:30.443
Right?

12:30.440 --> 12:35.600
And in each time he's using it
in a different meaning.

12:35.600 --> 12:40.220
The way how we understand
invisible hand comes from a

12:40.216 --> 12:42.786
section once,
in one sentence,

12:42.793 --> 12:45.993
in The Wealth of
Nations.

12:45.990 --> 12:51.620
And in fact it is specifically
about foreign trade and

12:51.616 --> 12:56.326
international trade,
not about the role of the

12:56.327 --> 13:01.137
government in domestic affairs,
but it's about free trade,

13:01.144 --> 13:02.974
free international trade.

13:02.970 --> 13:07.330
And this is the context in
which he's using the invisible

13:07.328 --> 13:11.848
hand, as it is being interpreted
mostly today by Adam Smith

13:11.845 --> 13:12.615
theorists.

13:12.623 --> 13:13.483
Right?

13:13.480 --> 13:15.180
So it's intriguing, isn't it?

13:15.178 --> 13:19.338
Watch yourself when you are
coining a term because a term

13:19.341 --> 13:23.951
occasionally can stick and then
it will be always attributed to

13:23.951 --> 13:27.271
you,
even if you use it once in your

13:27.273 --> 13:27.703
life.

13:27.700 --> 13:28.300
Okay?

13:28.298 --> 13:30.938
Well The Wealth of
Nations.

13:30.940 --> 13:34.110
Well these are kind of the
Table of Contents.

13:34.110 --> 13:38.310
He writes about the division of
labor and determination of

13:38.306 --> 13:40.806
prices, accumulation of capital.

13:40.808 --> 13:44.138
He writes about the evaluation
of societies:

13:44.138 --> 13:48.548
hunting, raising agriculture,
and commercial societies.

13:48.548 --> 13:52.828
He never used the term
capitalism;

13:52.830 --> 13:57.020
modern economy was commercial
industrial society for him.

13:57.019 --> 14:01.749
And then he offers a criticism
of mercantilism.

14:01.750 --> 14:04.900
That's where he offers an
argument for free international

14:04.900 --> 14:07.940
trade, and that's where he
introduces the notion of the

14:07.940 --> 14:09.010
invisible hand.

14:09.009 --> 14:13.569
And then something is on
taxation, what I will not talk

14:13.565 --> 14:14.235
about.

14:14.240 --> 14:16.820
So self-interest and the common
good;

14:16.820 --> 14:21.490
one of the big issues we have
to discuss when we are faced

14:21.494 --> 14:22.974
with Adam Smith.

14:22.970 --> 14:27.210
And the arguments are if you
are interacting with each other,

14:27.206 --> 14:29.036
do not expect benevolence.

14:29.043 --> 14:29.683
Right?

14:29.678 --> 14:33.818
Do not expect that somebody
else will be charitable to you.

14:33.820 --> 14:36.680
There is also saying if you are
seeking

14:36.678 --> 14:40.738
self-interest--specifically in
the citations I have;

14:40.740 --> 14:43.000
for instance,
choosing your employment.

14:43.000 --> 14:45.910
If you chose it rationally,
this will be in the common

14:45.913 --> 14:46.303
good.

14:46.298 --> 14:49.658
And I will try to explain why
you seeking self-interest in

14:49.655 --> 14:53.005
finding the job which is best
for you is also the best for

14:53.013 --> 14:53.723
society.

14:53.720 --> 14:57.140
And then he says,
well the individuals are the

14:57.143 --> 15:01.483
better judges of their own
interests than any statement or

15:01.480 --> 15:02.470
lawgiver.

15:02.470 --> 15:05.600
As little state as
possible--that's where it is

15:05.596 --> 15:09.266
coming from, and we will see how
he argues the case.

15:09.269 --> 15:11.759
So do not expect benevolence.

15:11.759 --> 15:18.879
Okay, this is a very frequently
cited sentence from Adam Smith.

15:18.879 --> 15:24.169
It's not in the text I assigned
for this course.

15:24.168 --> 15:27.848
Well, "It is not the
benevolence of the butcher,

15:27.850 --> 15:32.550
the brewer, or the baker that
we expect our dinner from,

15:32.548 --> 15:38.228
but the very self-interest of
the butcher."

15:38.230 --> 15:44.240
I go to the restaurant,
I do not expect the cook to

15:44.236 --> 15:51.566
prepare me a good meal because I
need a good meal and I expect

15:51.565 --> 15:53.965
the cook to like me.

15:53.967 --> 15:55.287
Right?

15:55.288 --> 16:00.438
I want him to cook a good meal
because then I will give a tip.

16:00.440 --> 16:04.790
It is in the self-interest of
the waiter to serve me well and

16:04.794 --> 16:06.324
serve me good food.

16:06.320 --> 16:10.580
Otherwise I will not go back
again and I will not give a tip.

16:10.580 --> 16:12.050
I will punish.

16:12.048 --> 16:16.808
It is appealing to the
self-interest of the person for

16:16.813 --> 16:21.313
whom I expect something,
and not is benevolence.

16:21.308 --> 16:27.708
Well he said well we address
ourselves not to the humanity of

16:27.707 --> 16:33.677
the people, not to their
self-love, but we want people to

16:33.679 --> 16:36.559
take advantage of this.

16:36.558 --> 16:39.518
This is an interesting issue,
by the way, even in everyday

16:39.515 --> 16:39.875
life.

16:39.879 --> 16:44.959
I'm sure in this room there are
people who think about this

16:44.962 --> 16:46.192
differently.

16:46.190 --> 16:49.940
Just to give you a very
personalized example.

16:49.940 --> 16:54.370
My wife occasionally tells me,
"This person is not a good

16:54.370 --> 16:58.660
friend of yours because this
person only calls you when that

16:58.658 --> 17:00.618
person needs you."

17:00.620 --> 17:03.400
And this does happen.

17:03.399 --> 17:07.739
And my answer always is--and I
think in this way,

17:07.740 --> 17:10.570
deep in my heart,
I'm a Smithian--"I don't

17:10.566 --> 17:13.496
want friends,
I don't want anybody,

17:13.497 --> 17:18.317
who do not see an advantage in
interacting with me.

17:18.318 --> 17:24.768
I want people who actually act
out of self-interest seeking my

17:24.772 --> 17:26.362
relationship.

17:26.358 --> 17:31.428
It will be a bad relationship
if my friends always think that

17:31.432 --> 17:35.412
it cost them to talk to me,
and they do not benefit from

17:35.414 --> 17:37.024
the relationship with me."

17:37.016 --> 17:37.426
Right?

17:37.430 --> 17:42.550
I don't want my children just
to act out of love and sort of

17:42.548 --> 17:45.238
be a pain in the neck for them.

17:45.239 --> 17:46.019
Right?

17:46.019 --> 17:51.329
I want my children to see that
having me as a father is

17:51.327 --> 17:53.487
beneficial for them.

17:53.490 --> 17:56.230
That's a good relationship.

17:56.230 --> 18:00.740
Good relationships are always
based on self-interest.

18:00.740 --> 18:06.100
You don't want to have a lover
who does not enjoy being your

18:06.102 --> 18:06.832
lover.

18:06.828 --> 18:14.278
Therefore you want people
acting out of self-interest.

18:14.278 --> 18:18.208
And I think that's what he's
getting at here.

18:18.210 --> 18:23.220
He said even the beggar--here
actually the citation says,

18:23.220 --> 18:26.740
"The beggars are the ones
who are dependent only upon

18:26.736 --> 18:27.966
benevolence."

18:27.970 --> 18:30.600
But then he qualifies it,
he says, "But even for the

18:30.599 --> 18:32.619
beggar it is not quite
true." Right?

18:32.618 --> 18:35.758
The beggar will make some
tricks in which,

18:35.759 --> 18:39.659
in fact, actually will appeal
to your self-interest,

18:39.663 --> 18:43.113
that you are a charitable
person or what.

18:43.109 --> 18:45.069
Now self-interest in employment.

18:45.068 --> 18:47.538
He said well it's a very good
example.

18:47.538 --> 18:50.118
He said when you are choosing
an occupation,

18:50.123 --> 18:53.193
of course you want to have a
big job, you want to be

18:53.188 --> 18:53.788
well-paid.

18:53.788 --> 18:54.448
Right?

18:54.450 --> 18:59.260
Those of you who are an
economics major,

18:59.259 --> 19:04.089
you may want to have some nice
job at some brokerage firm in

19:04.090 --> 19:07.850
Wall Street,
and with a Yale Bachelor's

19:07.851 --> 19:12.521
Degree you would like to earn
$100,000.00 a year.

19:12.522 --> 19:13.402
Right?

19:13.400 --> 19:16.940
But why would you earn
$100,000.00?

19:16.940 --> 19:21.860
Because the employer gets a lot
out of these skills what you get

19:21.857 --> 19:24.867
out of Yale,
and therefore it will be in the

19:24.872 --> 19:28.622
interest of the society that you
get the highest possible salary

19:28.615 --> 19:32.475
because you make the greatest
contribution to the common good;

19:32.480 --> 19:35.620
otherwise you would not be paid
that high.

19:35.623 --> 19:36.163
Okay?

19:36.160 --> 19:40.030
So therefore you will try to
find that occupation in which

19:40.025 --> 19:42.665
you get the highest possible
reward,

19:42.670 --> 19:46.110
but you will get only the
highest possible reward because

19:46.107 --> 19:48.807
you make the utmost contribution
you can,

19:48.808 --> 19:51.638
with your talent,
with your hard work,

19:51.640 --> 19:54.670
and with your skills,
to the common good.

19:54.670 --> 19:56.680
This is Adam Smith's argument.

19:56.680 --> 19:59.320
It's a persuasive argument
actually.

19:59.317 --> 19:59.917
Right?

19:59.920 --> 20:07.060
Well I can go on;
it's not all that important.

20:07.058 --> 20:09.368
Now this is very important too,
I find.

20:09.368 --> 20:12.428
"Individuals are the
better judge of their own

20:12.433 --> 20:15.073
interests than anybody
else." Right?

20:15.068 --> 20:19.778
And well this is I think again
extremely important,

20:19.778 --> 20:25.148
and I'm sure this classroom is
divided fifty/fifty percent

20:25.147 --> 20:26.837
along these views.

20:26.843 --> 20:27.883
Right?

20:27.880 --> 20:34.700
He said well the individuals in
the local situations are simply

20:34.700 --> 20:41.300
better judges to what is their
interest than any statement or

20:41.298 --> 20:42.288
lawgiver.

20:42.288 --> 20:43.498
Right?

20:43.500 --> 20:47.470
People should judge for
themselves what they want and it

20:47.472 --> 20:51.162
should not be a government which
imposes it on them.

20:51.156 --> 20:51.876
Right?

20:51.880 --> 20:54.890
This is a big debate right now,
for instance about the

20:54.887 --> 20:57.497
healthcare insurance,
the healthcare reform.

20:57.500 --> 21:00.390
Should we let it up to people
to decide whether they want to

21:00.387 --> 21:01.707
have an insurance or not?

21:01.710 --> 21:06.060
Should we expect people to be
individually responsible for

21:06.064 --> 21:09.354
themselves, to take charge of
their life?

21:09.348 --> 21:12.898
Or should it be the government,
or should it be a statesman,

21:12.904 --> 21:15.504
the lawgiver,
the Congress who takes care of

21:15.497 --> 21:16.157
people?

21:16.160 --> 21:20.910
And he clearly takes a position
no, I think people are the best

21:20.911 --> 21:22.981
judges of their feelings.

21:22.980 --> 21:26.280
Now the labor theory of value.

21:26.279 --> 21:28.739
And let me rush through of it.

21:28.740 --> 21:29.910
This is important.

21:29.910 --> 21:34.030
His point of departure comes
from John Locke,

21:34.028 --> 21:38.238
as we have seen,
and it is leading directly to

21:38.239 --> 21:39.549
Karl Marx.

21:39.548 --> 21:44.088
Karl Marx radicalizes his
position, but the point of

21:44.092 --> 21:47.122
departure is clearly Adam Smith.

21:47.118 --> 21:50.178
And the argument about the
labor theory of value:

21:50.176 --> 21:52.786
the labor is the measure of all
values.

21:52.788 --> 21:55.568
And then he said,
"The whole produce belongs

21:55.565 --> 21:56.775
to the labor."

21:56.779 --> 22:00.009
And so far Marx completely
agrees with him;

22:00.009 --> 22:03.319
and we will see when we will be
discussing Marx.

22:03.318 --> 22:07.348
But then he departs from it
because he asks the question,

22:07.353 --> 22:10.453
where does the profit and rent
come from?

22:10.450 --> 22:15.440
Marx asked this question as
well, and he says exploitation;

22:15.440 --> 22:18.800
those who earn profit exploit
the workers.

22:18.798 --> 22:21.598
But Adam Smith has a different
view.

22:21.598 --> 22:26.578
He says well those who will
lend capital and those who offer

22:26.580 --> 22:29.790
land also deserve part of the
value.

22:29.788 --> 22:33.688
Now let's see how this
contradiction can be resolved,

22:33.692 --> 22:35.872
how he's dealing with this.

22:35.868 --> 22:40.008
How can that all value is
created by labor and belongs to

22:40.009 --> 22:43.349
the laborer,
and nevertheless the capitalist

22:43.346 --> 22:47.656
pockets profit and the landowner
pockets rent for the land?

22:47.660 --> 22:54.960
Then here this is very much
John Locke: "The value of

22:54.963 --> 23:02.143
any commodity belongs to the
person who possesses it,

23:02.140 --> 23:11.480
and if it is not for use or
consumption but exchange,

23:11.480 --> 23:14.700
then the value of this
commodity is equal to the amount

23:14.702 --> 23:17.512
of labor which has to be put
into this."

23:17.509 --> 23:19.479
"Labor is therefore,"
he said,

23:19.480 --> 23:23.220
"the real measure of the
exchangeable value of all

23:23.220 --> 23:24.470
commodities."

23:24.465 --> 23:25.085
Right?

23:25.088 --> 23:28.728
Commodities can have a use
value, they can be very useful,

23:28.729 --> 23:32.559
and they can have very little
labor in it, like fresh air;

23:32.558 --> 23:38.348
though by now we know fresh air
needs quite a bit of labor too.

23:38.352 --> 23:39.102
Right?

23:39.098 --> 23:41.538
But the exchange,
how the exchange it,

23:41.544 --> 23:43.794
will be guided,
according to Smith,

23:43.790 --> 23:44.650
by labor.

23:44.650 --> 23:47.360
Few people accept today the
labor theory of value;

23:47.359 --> 23:49.499
Smith or Marx, no matter what.

23:49.500 --> 23:52.040
And it belongs to the whole
laborer.

23:52.038 --> 23:53.928
This is a very interesting
argument.

23:53.930 --> 23:57.720
He said--and this is again John
Locke--

23:57.720 --> 24:01.270
"The property of every man
is his own labor,

24:01.269 --> 24:05.969
and therefore every value is
created by this labor,

24:05.970 --> 24:12.070
and therefore it has to belong
to the person who owns the

24:12.074 --> 24:13.604
labor."

24:13.598 --> 24:14.938
"But."

24:14.940 --> 24:19.800
he said, "this is true for
societies before capital is

24:19.798 --> 24:24.658
being accumulated and before
land is privately owned."

24:24.657 --> 24:25.577
Right?

24:25.578 --> 24:29.228
So this is really an argument
for ancient societies,

24:29.231 --> 24:33.531
without capital accumulation
and without private ownership of

24:33.529 --> 24:34.459
the land.

24:34.460 --> 24:37.590
In these conditions,
if there is no capital

24:37.586 --> 24:40.636
accumulation and no private
ownership,

24:40.640 --> 24:44.160
land is commonly owned,
then the whole produced labor

24:44.164 --> 24:45.864
belongs to the laborer.

24:45.858 --> 24:49.598
This is where he,
Marx, will depart dramatically

24:49.597 --> 24:51.027
from Adam Smith.

24:51.029 --> 24:53.779
So where does the profit and
rent come?

24:53.779 --> 24:58.409
Well are capitalists simply
exploiting the workers?

24:58.410 --> 25:01.390
He said, "No,
there is a distribution of

25:01.390 --> 25:04.300
value between labor,
capital and rent."

25:04.301 --> 25:04.981
Right?

25:04.980 --> 25:12.430
And this is reasonable,
because the capitalist offers

25:12.432 --> 25:17.202
capital in order--
in fact, advances capital to

25:17.200 --> 25:19.710
the laborer,
takes risks with this

25:19.711 --> 25:23.711
advancement of the capital,
supervises the labor

25:23.710 --> 25:29.690
process--and therefore it should
claim some profit from capital;

25:29.690 --> 25:34.410
otherwise would be a fool not
to advance its capital.

25:34.410 --> 25:38.790
And the same goes for land
actually.

25:38.788 --> 25:43.118
Landowners also will have to
give the land a site in which

25:43.115 --> 25:47.515
production takes place,
and therefore they really

25:47.516 --> 25:52.366
should be able to collect some
rent on this land.

25:52.369 --> 25:55.719
Well finally the invisible hand.

25:55.720 --> 26:00.310
There are three conceptions of
this--I briefly pointed this

26:00.310 --> 26:04.190
out-- in The Theory of Moral
Sentiments.

26:04.190 --> 26:08.870
He said this is really God
which gives us a sense of

26:08.869 --> 26:13.459
sympathy and creates a balance
between passion,

26:13.460 --> 26:19.090
desires, and hunger for more,
and self-restraint to respect

26:19.085 --> 26:22.475
others and earn respect from
others.

26:22.480 --> 26:23.450
Right?

26:23.450 --> 26:26.210
And then, of course,
in The Wealth of

26:26.209 --> 26:30.099
Nations, this appears to be
the free marketplace.

26:30.098 --> 26:34.528
And then finally he had a
manuscript, History of

26:34.525 --> 26:38.415
Astronomy,
and he said the invisible hand

26:38.420 --> 26:43.490
is the hand of Jupiter;
the hand of Jupiter because

26:43.493 --> 26:48.083
people,
as long as they are ignorant,

26:48.075 --> 26:51.325
phenomena--
lightening for instance,

26:51.330 --> 26:54.710
what they don't--
cannot explain--attribute to

26:54.710 --> 26:56.190
the will of Jupiter.

26:56.194 --> 26:56.794
Right?

26:56.789 --> 26:59.739
Superstition;
the invisible hand is

26:59.737 --> 27:00.577
superstition.

27:00.584 --> 27:01.044
Okay?

27:01.038 --> 27:04.738
So what is fun,
that three instances where the

27:04.740 --> 27:08.030
notion of the invisible hand is
used,

27:08.028 --> 27:12.058
in each case a different
meaning, and in none of the

27:12.055 --> 27:16.945
cases exactly the same meaning
as we normally understand it.

27:16.950 --> 27:26.090
Okay, I think I'm now moving
over to John Stuart Mill,

27:26.089 --> 27:30.229
and to utilitarianism.

27:30.230 --> 27:43.880
And he's a wonderful man and
makes a lot

27:43.875 --> 27:58.565
of--<<technical
adjustment>>

27:58.568 --> 28:06.228
Okay, so this is all about
utilitarianism and liberty,

28:06.229 --> 28:14.899
and the long road from Jeremy
Bentham to John Stuart Mill.

28:14.900 --> 28:20.010
Utilitarianism is a
fundamentally important

28:20.007 --> 28:21.707
proposition.

28:21.710 --> 28:26.710
It informs modern economic
theory, and it informs political

28:26.713 --> 28:32.243
and social theories which are in
the kind of rational choice mode

28:32.236 --> 28:33.786
of theorizing.

28:33.788 --> 28:38.878
And the point of departure is
Bentham,

28:38.880 --> 28:42.650
who in many ways is the
Founding Father of

28:42.653 --> 28:46.643
utilitarianism,
though he never used the term,

28:46.642 --> 28:51.542
and he influenced the life of
John Stuart Mill in a major way.

28:51.538 --> 28:56.878
Mill's father was James Mill,
quite an intellectual.

28:56.880 --> 29:03.920
He wrote a big three volume
history of India and the British

29:03.923 --> 29:06.673
involvement in India.

29:06.670 --> 29:11.150
He met Bentham in 1808 and he
fell in love with the theory of

29:11.153 --> 29:14.443
utilitarianism,
and he asked him to supervise

29:14.441 --> 29:17.581
the education of his son--what
he did.

29:17.578 --> 29:22.498
And sort of poor John Stuart
Mill grew up under the influence

29:22.497 --> 29:26.757
of a very strong father and a
very strong teacher.

29:26.759 --> 29:31.869
And he invented the term,
John Stuart Mill,

29:31.868 --> 29:38.558
the term utilitarianism in
1822, at a very young age.

29:38.558 --> 29:42.598
Then he suffers a nervous
breakdown.

29:42.598 --> 29:45.658
When you see what
utilitarianism is,

29:45.656 --> 29:49.656
you will not wonder;
I mean, if you are really a

29:49.659 --> 29:53.429
strict utilitarian,
difficult to survive without a

29:53.432 --> 29:55.052
nervous breakdown.

29:55.048 --> 29:58.598
All right, so what is Bentham's
theory?

29:58.598 --> 30:04.288
He published a book,
The Principles of Morals and

30:04.286 --> 30:09.076
Legislation,
in 1789, and there are some

30:09.080 --> 30:13.430
very important claims in this
book.

30:13.430 --> 30:18.080
And at first instance they
sound very reasonable,

30:18.077 --> 30:22.047
but he may be pushing his luck
too far.

30:22.048 --> 30:25.958
He said, "Well we are
created to seek pleasure and to

30:25.959 --> 30:29.079
avoid pain,
and therefore if we can

30:29.076 --> 30:33.386
minimize the pain and maximize
the pleasure,

30:33.390 --> 30:36.150
that's when we achieve the
greatest happiness."

30:36.150 --> 30:39.140
That's what will be called
utility.

30:39.144 --> 30:39.854
Right?

30:39.848 --> 30:43.778
So action is right if it is
leading to happiness.

30:43.784 --> 30:44.444
Right?

30:44.440 --> 30:46.270
We all want to be happy.

30:46.269 --> 30:53.329
Okay, well and this can be
actually quantified.

30:53.328 --> 30:55.968
The action is right,
morally right,

30:55.970 --> 31:00.010
if the sum of pleasures minus
the sum of pains,

31:00.009 --> 31:04.579
multiplied by the number of
persons affected by action is

31:04.579 --> 31:05.319
positive.

31:05.315 --> 31:06.045
Right?

31:06.049 --> 31:09.059
Sounds reasonable, right?

31:09.058 --> 31:11.898
If more people are happy in
society than unhappy,

31:11.900 --> 31:14.210
then the society does as well
as it can.

31:14.208 --> 31:14.798
Right?

31:14.799 --> 31:17.949
That's really the argument.

31:17.950 --> 31:21.240
Well there are a couple of
citations.

31:21.240 --> 31:24.150
I don't want to dwell on this
too long.

31:24.150 --> 31:28.440
I will put it on the web;
and it's not in the text I

31:28.440 --> 31:30.210
require from you to read.

31:30.210 --> 31:33.150
So, he said,
"The two big masters are

31:33.146 --> 31:37.686
pain and pleasure";
somewhat a kind of similar

31:37.689 --> 31:39.749
argument to Hobbes.

31:39.750 --> 31:43.120
And he said,
"An action may be said to

31:43.115 --> 31:47.275
be conformable with the
principle of utility when the

31:47.284 --> 31:50.334
tendency is to augment
happiness,

31:50.328 --> 31:56.468
and that is greater than to
diminish it."

31:56.470 --> 31:57.970
And what is utility?

31:57.970 --> 32:03.460
"Utility is that principle
which approves or disapproves a

32:03.463 --> 32:09.053
reaction to augment or diminish
the happiness of the party whose

32:09.046 --> 32:11.696
interest is in question."

32:11.704 --> 32:12.684
Right?

32:12.680 --> 32:15.720
This is a notion of utility
which is not all that far away

32:15.715 --> 32:18.215
what economists are using,
even at this time.

32:18.220 --> 32:21.590
Then here comes something what
I think nobody would accept now,

32:21.588 --> 32:24.108
that's simply--he said,
"Well it's easy therefore

32:24.113 --> 32:25.163
to calculate it."

32:25.161 --> 32:25.591
Right?

32:25.588 --> 32:29.688
And I already pointed this out,
you just count the number of

32:29.690 --> 32:32.610
people who are happy and who
have pain,

32:32.608 --> 32:36.798
and count the number of people
who are happy with it and have

32:36.800 --> 32:38.980
pleasure,
and if more people have

32:38.981 --> 32:42.251
pleasure, the sum total of
pleasure exceeds the sum total

32:42.250 --> 32:44.800
of pains,
then you got the good society.

32:48.190 --> 32:52.600
Well John Stuart Mill--here he
is.

32:52.599 --> 32:57.199
He was born in London.

32:57.200 --> 33:00.370
He never attended school;
he was a lucky one.

33:00.368 --> 33:05.418
But not necessarily all that
lucky because his teacher was

33:05.423 --> 33:09.403
Bentham and John Mill,
who were tough people,

33:09.400 --> 33:13.800
and he had to start learning
Latin and Greek when he was

33:13.798 --> 33:15.318
three-years-old.

33:15.318 --> 33:21.928
Well if there are anybody who
is Asian-American in the room,

33:21.930 --> 33:26.190
Chinese, you may have to start
actually to learn how to read

33:26.190 --> 33:28.790
and write in Chinese pretty
early.

33:28.788 --> 33:33.258
But he did this with Latin and
Greek which to my mind is a big

33:33.257 --> 33:37.137
easier than to learn all the
characters in Chinese.

33:37.140 --> 33:39.620
Anyway, '22,
he established the Utilitarian

33:39.615 --> 33:42.735
Society and invents the term
utilitarianism.

33:42.740 --> 33:45.540
And then he suffers a nervous
breakdown;

33:45.538 --> 33:48.938
I mean, two domineering people
in his life.

33:48.940 --> 33:54.450
And then he also becomes very
sort of unhappy with the

33:54.445 --> 33:58.385
expediency emphasis on
utilitarianism--

33:58.394 --> 34:03.594
instrumentalism,
the coldness of the argument.

34:03.588 --> 34:09.268
He's actually becoming--becomes
interested in poetry.

34:09.268 --> 34:14.628
And then he meets Harriet
Taylor, a wonderful lady,

34:14.625 --> 34:19.225
and a friendship,
a very close friendship is

34:19.231 --> 34:20.411
formed.

34:20.409 --> 34:26.359
Harriet Taylor was a fantastic
intellectual,

34:26.360 --> 34:32.280
as far as we can judge;
one of the very first radical

34:32.275 --> 34:37.435
feminists, and had a probably
extraordinary impact on the work

34:37.442 --> 34:39.392
of John Stuart Mill.

34:39.389 --> 34:44.429
If he would have been a real
feminist, he probably should

34:44.434 --> 34:49.214
have put on his work Harriet
Taylor as a co-author;

34:49.210 --> 34:52.200
she probably co-authored this
work.

34:52.199 --> 34:56.359
I mean, she was married,
and this was an interesting

34:56.356 --> 34:58.716
triangle which did develop.

34:58.719 --> 35:02.949
I mean, in what way we don't
quite know, but they were

35:02.947 --> 35:05.817
traveling together,
the threefold;

35:05.820 --> 35:08.840
anyway, quite interesting.

35:08.840 --> 35:10.690
What can I say?

35:10.690 --> 35:15.680
Well '51, Mr. Taylor passes
away, and then John Stuart Mill

35:15.681 --> 35:19.041
immediately marries Harriet
Taylor.

35:19.039 --> 35:23.469
But unfortunately she has a
very short life and dies after a

35:23.472 --> 35:24.752
short marriage.

35:24.750 --> 35:29.190
So his undisturbed happiness,
to put it this way,

35:29.190 --> 35:34.370
did not last very long,
and he died in '73 in Avignon.

35:34.369 --> 35:37.589
Now about the work, briefly.

35:37.590 --> 35:41.320
We'll be talking about three
pieces of work On

35:41.322 --> 35:44.202
Liberty,
Utilitarianism.

35:44.199 --> 35:48.959
I will not talk about his role
as a member of parliament where

35:48.958 --> 35:54.108
actually he was one of the first
advocates for female suffrage,

35:54.110 --> 35:58.780
which did not fly at that time,
and he even lost re-election

35:58.784 --> 36:03.464
probably because he's advocating
voting rights for women.

36:03.460 --> 36:06.980
And then he wrote,
'69, Subjection of

36:06.976 --> 36:10.636
Women,
which in many ways is a

36:10.637 --> 36:14.787
feminist book,
quite a radical feminist

36:14.788 --> 36:20.328
book--a feminist book you can
rarely read from a man,

36:20.329 --> 36:24.419
and especially not in 1869.

36:24.420 --> 36:29.450
Okay, so what are his major
contributions?

36:29.449 --> 36:32.969
He redefines utilitarianism.

36:32.969 --> 36:33.849
Right?

36:33.849 --> 36:36.159
As I said, he found it too cold.

36:36.159 --> 36:39.949
He needed more sentiments.

36:39.949 --> 36:46.319
Poetry-- Harriet Taylor,
gave him a sense of the world

36:46.315 --> 36:50.155
which is richer in sentiments.

36:50.159 --> 36:55.649
So he says, well there is
higher happiness.

36:55.652 --> 36:56.702
Right?

36:56.699 --> 36:59.449
There is a lower level of
happiness and there is a higher

36:59.449 --> 37:00.479
level of happiness.

37:00.480 --> 37:05.970
To have a good steak,
well it is pleasurable.

37:05.969 --> 37:11.899
But to listen to the Ninth
Symphony of Beethoven,

37:11.898 --> 37:14.738
it's greater happiness.

37:14.737 --> 37:15.847
Right?

37:15.849 --> 37:19.939
It's a higher level of
happiness when you hear the

37:19.940 --> 37:23.530
concluding chorale of the Ninth
Symphony.

37:23.530 --> 37:26.430
You are through the roof of
pleasure;

37:26.429 --> 37:31.949
you have a higher level of
happiness than eating a nice

37:31.954 --> 37:33.084
rare steak.

37:33.079 --> 37:33.999
Right?

37:34.000 --> 37:36.390
That's a higher level of
happiness.

37:36.389 --> 37:41.349
And he said--and nobody argues
it more forcefully than him--

37:41.349 --> 37:45.289
"Individual liberty is the
ultimate value,

37:45.289 --> 37:48.829
and expediency"--and you
know what he means by

37:48.829 --> 37:53.219
expediency,
that you get there by using the

37:53.224 --> 37:57.844
least means and you maximize the
return--

37:57.840 --> 38:03.350
"expediency cannot justify
intervention against individual

38:03.347 --> 38:04.767
liberty."

38:04.769 --> 38:09.149
A very interesting issue;
a very accurate,

38:09.150 --> 38:11.340
a very up-to-date issue.

38:11.340 --> 38:20.750
Just think about 9/11;
this is exactly the problem of

38:20.753 --> 38:25.733
the 9/11--how much we can act
against individual liberty in

38:25.728 --> 38:29.788
the name of expediency;
how much we are willing to

38:29.789 --> 38:33.029
accept the limitations in
individual liberty?

38:33.030 --> 38:38.520
And well we will see,
he said, expediency is not to

38:38.518 --> 38:43.898
be ignored, but when the chips
come down, he said,

38:43.896 --> 38:47.076
it is individual liberty.

38:47.079 --> 38:48.979
He's a libertarian, right?

38:48.980 --> 38:53.460
He is for the sanctity of the
liberty of the individual,

38:53.460 --> 38:57.780
and he's the ultimate of
British individualism and the

38:57.780 --> 39:01.040
sacredness of British
individualism.

39:01.039 --> 39:04.859
And finally the third major
contribution.

39:04.860 --> 39:09.200
He said women's legal situation
resembles those of slaves;

39:09.199 --> 39:12.069
they are only worse off than
slaves are.

39:12.070 --> 39:16.940
And he argues that in a very
articulate way.

39:16.940 --> 39:19.930
And women should have equal
rights in jobs,

39:19.931 --> 39:22.141
in public life,
the same kind of

39:22.141 --> 39:26.561
education--total confrontation
with Jean Jacques Rousseau.

39:26.559 --> 39:31.639
But he believes that in
marriage they can create a

39:31.641 --> 39:34.651
friendship bond with males.

39:34.650 --> 39:38.360
Well Harriet Freedman did not
quite agree with this.

39:38.360 --> 39:42.510
Though she married twice,
she both times did it probably

39:42.512 --> 39:43.572
reluctantly.

39:43.570 --> 39:48.030
She did not believe in the
institution of the marriage,

39:48.032 --> 39:50.432
though she did marry twice.

39:50.429 --> 39:56.329
Okay, well let me see whether I
can still do this,

39:56.331 --> 40:03.801
his stuff on utilitarianism,
and leave the rest for Tuesday.

40:03.800 --> 40:06.480
I think I have some three more
minutes to go.

40:06.480 --> 40:11.350
The main themes in the work
Utilitarianism is the

40:11.351 --> 40:18.481
concept of higher happiness;
human beings have faculties for

40:18.478 --> 40:24.678
more elevated appetites than
animals have.

40:24.679 --> 40:27.739
Then he talks about justice and
legality.

40:27.739 --> 40:31.969
It's a very complex issue,
but where he thinks that the

40:31.969 --> 40:35.809
law is a more restrictive notion
than justice,

40:35.809 --> 40:38.919
and he stands for the idea of
justice,

40:38.920 --> 40:46.700
and shows some contradiction
between law and justice as such.

40:46.699 --> 40:50.609
And then he talks about justice
and expediency--why justice

40:50.610 --> 40:53.510
cannot be simply explained by
expediency.

40:53.510 --> 40:58.620
Well again something which
speaks very much to the issues

40:58.619 --> 41:00.809
which are on our mind.

41:00.809 --> 41:07.869
Does expediency makes it just
that you torture an Al-Qaeda or

41:07.871 --> 41:11.301
a prisoner,
or a suspected Al-Qaeda

41:11.302 --> 41:16.422
prisoner, to get information out
because this way you save lives?

41:16.420 --> 41:19.510
Some people will say,
"Yes, this makes it

41:19.507 --> 41:20.397
just."

41:20.400 --> 41:23.080
Others will say, "No,
it is unjust,

41:23.081 --> 41:26.851
and therefore expediency--
you should not use expediency

41:26.851 --> 41:30.871
that you get better information
out from torture."

41:30.869 --> 41:36.829
Well I think I'll probably
leave it here and then we'll

41:36.831 --> 41:39.261
continue it Tuesday.

41:39.260 --> 41:43.560
And I hope it got you up in
speed--

41:43.559 --> 41:48.269
utilitarianism and John Stuart
Mill,

41:48.268 --> 41:52.908
and Adam Smith,
and you see how actually John

41:52.911 --> 41:58.711
Stuart Mill and utilitarianism
radicalizes one stream of

41:58.711 --> 42:04.721
thought which is in Adam Smith,
but Adam Smith is not quite

42:04.719 --> 42:07.749
ready to go as far as Bentham
went,

42:07.750 --> 42:12.910
and even not as far as John
Stuart Mill went.

42:12.909 --> 42:14.529
Okay.

42:14.530 --> 42:20.000