The Social Philosophy of Adam Smith

آدام اسمیت یکی از مهم‌ترین فیلسوفان اجتماعی دوران مدرن بود. اگرچه شاهکار بزرگ او - ثروت در ملل - اغلب با حوزه اقتصاد مرتبط است، اما نه تنها در آن، بلکه در همه زمینه‌های نظریه و عمل اجتماعی نیز تأثیری عمیق و پایدار داشته است. با توجه به این موضوع، کمی گیج کننده نیست که پس از گذشت نزدیک به دو قرن، یک گزارش قابل اعتماد از طیف کامل فلسفه اجتماعی او وجود نداشته باشد. "شرایطی که به این خلأ در ادبیات کمک کرده است به راحتی قابل شناسایی است. همه کسانی که اصلاً با زندگی و نوشته های اسمیت آشنا هستند، می دانند که او یک فیلسوف حرفه ای بود و تمام نوشته هایش به عنوان آثاری فلسفی تصور و اجرا شدند." در زمان حیاتش به آثارش از این منظر نگریسته شد، اما تقریباً در زمان مرگش در سال 1790، آثار اسمیت در زمینه فلسفه توسط هیوم و رید در بریتانیای کبیر و کانت در قاره تحت الشعاع قرار گرفت. کسانی که عمیقاً فقط به یک جنبه از کار او علاقه مند بودند، یعنی اقتصاد سیاسی او، نوشته های او را مورد توجه قرار دادند. بود اما یک برنامه ابتدا نادیده گرفته شد و سپس به عنوان نسبتاً ساده نشان داده شد.

Adam Smith was one of the most important seminal social philosophers of modern times. Although his great masterpiece - the Wealth at Nations - is most frequently associated with the field of economics, it has exer­ cised a profound and abiding influence not only in that but in all areas of social theory and practice as well. In view of this it is not a little puzzling that after nearly two centuries there does not exist a single reliable account of the full range of his social philosophy. The "circumstances which have contributed to this void in the literature are easily identified. All who are at all familiar with Smith's life and writings recognize that he was a philosopher by profession and that all his writings were conceived and executed as works of philosophy. During his lifetime his work was viewed iIi that perspective. At about the time of his death in 1790, however, Smith's work was eclipsed in the field of philosophy by Hume and Reid in Great Britain and Kant on the conti­ nent. Thereafter the interpretation of his writings was taken up by those who were profoundly interested in only one aspect of his work, viz. , his political economy. In the process of explicating that feature of his thought the social philosophy upon which his political economy was based and of which it was but one application was at first ignored and then represented as rather simplistic.