The Moral Heart: Exploring The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Before Adam Smith ever wrote about markets, he wrote about something much closer to home: our hearts.
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Smith tackled the biggest question of all:
What holds human society together?
It’s not wealth.
It’s not laws.
It’s not power.
It’s something far more delicate — and far more powerful.
Our capacity to care about each other.
Sympathy: The Foundation of Society
Smith believed that human beings are naturally equipped with sympathy — what we today might call empathy. We have the ability to imagine what others feel, to share in their joys and sorrows, to see the world through their eyes.
This sympathy, Smith argued, is not perfect.
We don’t feel it equally toward everyone.
It’s stronger for those close to us, weaker for distant strangers.
But it’s there, always — a vital thread connecting us to one another.
Without it, there could be no trust, no cooperation, no society at all.
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others.”
— The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I.i.1
In Smith’s view, morality doesn’t come from rigid external rules. It springs up organically from our sympathy, our desire to be loved, and our wish to deserve that love.
The Impartial Spectator: Our Inner Moral Compass
Smith introduced a brilliant idea:
Inside each of us, there lives an imagined figure — the impartial spectator.
When we make decisions, when we reflect on our actions, we imagine how a fair and reasonable observer would judge us. Not how our friends or enemies might flatter or condemn us, but how a truly unbiased, moral being would see us.
The impartial spectator helps us check our passions.
It encourages us to act justly even when it’s inconvenient.
It helps us strive to be the kind of person we would respect.
Without this inner voice, Smith believed, we would be lost in selfishness and chaos.
“Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely.”
— The Theory of Moral Sentiments, III.ii.1
We don’t just want admiration.
We want to deserve admiration.
That’s the real anchor of human morality.
Justice: The Bedrock of Civilization
Smith made a crucial distinction:
Love and generosity are beautiful.
But society does not depend on everyone being saints.
At minimum, society requires justice — a shared agreement not to harm one another.
Justice, for Smith, was the first and most essential virtue of a stable society. Without it, no economy, no government, no community could survive.
Governments, in Smith’s view, existed first and foremost to protect justice: to prevent violence, fraud, and oppression.
Freedom and prosperity could only flourish on the solid ground of justice.
The Temptation of Wealth and Status
Smith also warned of a powerful and dangerous human tendency:
Our admiration for the rich and powerful, even when they are undeserving.
We are drawn to success.
We are dazzled by wealth.
And in that dazzlement, we sometimes confuse material fortune with moral worth.
Smith worried that this confusion could rot societies from within — Elevating the undeserving while neglecting the truly virtuous.
Sound familiar?
“The great mob of mankind are the admirers and worshippers, and, what may seem more extraordinary, most frequently the disinterested admirers and worshippers of wealth and greatness.”
— The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I.iii.3
A Moral Vision for Humanity
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith painted a vision of humanity as naturally social, emotional, and moral.
Yes, we act in our own self-interest.
But we also crave connection, fairness, and self-respect.
For Smith, morality was not a fragile add-on to human life. It was the foundation.
Without sympathy, without conscience, without justice, there could be no trust.
Without trust, there could be no society.
And without society, there could be no markets — no wealth, no freedom, no future.
Setting the Stage
When Smith turned his attention to economics later in The Wealth of Nations, he built on this moral foundation.
He wasn’t advocating selfishness without limits.
He was proposing a system where free individuals, guided by internal moral compasses and protected by laws of justice, could create prosperity together.
He believed freedom and morality needed to walk hand in hand.
In the next post, we’ll explore the ideas in The Wealth of Nations — and see how Smith’s vision for economic life flowed naturally from his understanding of human morality.
Tomorrow
The Wealth of Nations: Freedom, Competition, and Prosperity