In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith explains that we want to establish a “mutual sympathy of emotions.” We want people to agree with us and we want to agree with theirs. Smith first expanded on this idea that we are always looking for ways to cooperate with one another in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and then developed a broader theory of commercial society in Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The impact was amazing. A complex division of labor and knowledge, and the kind of prosperity we see today.
All bids and demands in the marketplace require cooperation through mutual empathy with others. Every opportunity to interact is a sacred opportunity to cooperate with someone for mutual benefit, although it may be explicitly rejected by those who do not share similar feelings.
Of course, not everyone has to agree, and many may disagree. The advantage of commercial society is that it doesn’t really matter. The only people who really need to agree are the trading partners. While it is clear that there are exceptions to violence and fraud, it is clear that mutually agreed upon and voluntarily negotiated exchanges are an effort to establish mutual empathy and a common vision for a better world.
Bloggers and economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok titled their blog “Marginal Revolution” with the tagline “Small steps towards a better world.” And that is exactly the essence of all exchanges. It is a small step towards a better world that is valued by the people who participate in the exchange. Mary trades apples to Bart for oranges because they share a vision of a better world, one in which Mary has more oranges and fewer apples and Bart has more apples and fewer oranges. A small step, but a step nonetheless. In a world of 8.5 billion people, that means taking billions of small steps toward a better world through mutual empathy, emotion, and a shared vision.
Raymond Tallis described our evolving world as the product of “trillions of cognitive handshakes.” Each handshake only happens because two people share a vision of a better world. Each agreement is a bet on a better future and a move to a position where we can make better bets for a better world.
Not every cognitive handshake means people are improving themselves, thriving, and living well. But we must also take the chaff from the wheat. We have to accept both the good and the bad. Importantly, disrupting these cognitive connections between individuals poses significant risks. The ability to realize a shared vision of a better world can be hindered.
This doesn’t mean government is the answer. All political agreements reflect shared feelings about what behavior should be imposed on others. It lacks dignity and fails to respect the freedom and dignity of people who have made choices that we may not approve of. But agreements are often pursued in the name of addressing issues that we don’t fully understand. As economists, instead of dismissing people’s actions as “well, that’s stupid,” we should ask, “What problem does this solve? What goal does this achieve?” Even if we disagree with their idea of a better world, they should question our tendency to intervene. Consider this perspective the next time you go to the grocery store. Every product on our shelves represents mutual empathy and a commitment to fostering a shared vision of a better world. It may not match your vision, but it’s important to someone and it matters.
