Smith said something to the nature of ‘individuals acting within their own self-interests, without meaning to, promote the interests of society’. Yet, this would imply that acts of selflessness exist (in fact smith spoke down to socalled altruists acts) .
I can’t think of a selfless act, can you? Therefore, could we reword Smiths’ idiom as ‘individuals act, and, without meaning to, promote the interests of society’?
The individual acts for what he believes at the moment will cause him satisfaction. Your rephrasing doesn’t work because one can consciously work for the betterment of society depending upon what your definition of society is.
I think that what Adam Smith is partially incorrect; quoting from what I said here:
An individual could very well be working toward what he considers utilitarian ends, and thus the benefits he earns from his endeavors revolve around the satisfaction of his need to fulfill “the greater good.” Those “utilitarian” objectives are in fact selfish in nature, as the satisfaction he is really fulfilling is his own.
How does this make Adam Smith incorrect?
I read too much into the provided quote:
…individuals acting within their own self-interests, without meaning to, promote the interests of society
I originally interpreted that as him saying that individuals never mean to promote the interests of society as a whole, as opposed to him simply not addressing that concern.
Ok! [:)]
Not always. Action does not necessarily lead to beneficial results. But his key insight (first expressed in Theory of Moral Sentiments) is that the economic system of competition turns selfish men, who care little about others or the general welfare, into productive and socially necessary members of society (as long as government privilege and monopoly does not distort this process). Smith is merely explaining the inner-workings of the market mechanism.