Adam Smith’s Theory of Prudence Updated with Neuroscientific and Behavioral Evidence
Other-perspective taking (OPT), distancing, time discounting as well as risk and loss aversion highly affect decision-making. Even though they influence each other, so far these cognitive processes have been unrelated or only partly related to each other in neuroscience. This article proposes a philosophical interpretation of these cognitive processes that is elaborated in the updated theory of Adam Smith’s prudence (UTSP). The UTSP is inspired by Smith’s account of prudence and is in line with the neuroscientific and behavioral studies on OPT, distancing, time discounting as well as risk and loss aversion. The UTSP represents a framework aiming to interpret and connect these cognitive processes and providing a consistent and empirically sound account of a “Smithianly” prudent style of decision-making. The two pillars of the UTSP are the shift of perspective in space and time (from the individual to others and from the present self to the future self) and loss aversion. On the basis of this theory, a normative updated theory of Smithian prudence is outlined (NUTSP). The latter is useful for moral philosophy for two reasons: firstly, according to preliminary evidence, it is effective in guiding the agent in decisional contexts in which her well-being is at stake and she can affect other people with her actions. Secondly, since the NUTSP is based on neuroscientific findings on decision-making, it has a sound empirical basis that prevents a source of alienation for the agent.
KeywordsPrudence Other-perspective taking Distancing Loss aversion Time discounting Self-projection Simulation Episodic future thinking Risk aversion
I would like to thank Nicola Canessa, Roberto Mordacci, and Philippe Tobler for their helpful comments on the earlier draft of this manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
- 9.O’Connell, Garret, Anastasia Christakou, and Bhismadev Chakrabarti. 2015. The role of simulation in intertemporal choices. Frontiers in Neuroscience 9 (94): 1–10.Google Scholar
- 14.Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2013. Time varying risk aversion. NBER Working Paper No. 19284: 1–52.Google Scholar
- 15.Phillipson, Nicholas. 2010. Adam Smith: an enlightened life. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
- 17.Cremaschi, Sergio. 1984. Il sistema della ricchezza. Economia politica e problema del metodo in Adam Smith. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
- 19.Smith, Adam. 1976a [1759–1790]. The theory of moral sentiments. In The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith, eds. David D. Raphael and Alec L. Macfie, vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Smith, Adam. 1976b [1776–1789]. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. In The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith, eds. Roy H. Campbell and Andrew S. Skinner, vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- 23.Kant, Immanuel. 2006 . Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 26.Singer, Tania, and Anita Tusche. 2014. Understanding others: brain mechanisms of theory of mind and empathy. In Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain, eds. Paul W. Glimcher and Ernst Fehr, Second ed. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Batson, C. Daniel. 2009. Two forms of perspective taking: Imagining how another feels and imagining how you would feel. In Handbook of imagination and mental simulation, eds. Keith D. Markman, William M.P. Klein, and Julie A. Suhr. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- 36.Griswold, Charles L. Jr. 2006. Imagination: morals, science, and arts. In The Cambridge companion to Adam Smith, ed. Knud Haakonssen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 42.Eisenberg, Nancy, Cynthia L. Smith, and Tracy L. Spinrad. 2011. Effortful control: relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In Handbook of self-regulation, eds. Kathleen D. Vohs and Roy F. Baumeister. New York, London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 45.Koenigsberg, Harold W., Jin Fan, Kevin N. Ochsner, Xun Liu, Kevin Guise, Scott Pizzarello, Christine Dorantes, Lucia Tecuta, Stephanie Guerreri, Marianne Goodman, Antonia New, Janine Flory, and Larry J. Siever. 2010. Neural correlates of using distancing to regulate emotional responses to social situations. Neuropsychologia 48 (6): 1813–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Ainslie, George, and Varda Haendel. 1983. The motives of the will. In Etiology aspects of alcohol and drug abuse, ed. Edward Gottheil, Keith Druley, Thomas E. Skoloda, and Howard M. Waxman. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
- 50.Soman, Dilip, George Ainslie, Shane Frederick, Xiuping Li, John Lynch, Page Moreau, Andrew Mitchell, Daniel Read, Alan Sawyer, Yaacov Trope, Klaus Wertenbroch, and Gal Zauberman. 2005. The psychology of intertemporal discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones? Marketing Letters 16 (3–4): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Kable, Joseph W. 2014. Valuation, intertemporal choice, and self-control. In Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain, eds. Paul W. Glimcher and Ernst Fehr, Second ed. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 63.Tobler, Philippe N., and Elke U. Weber. 2014. Valuation for risky and uncertain choices. In Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain, eds. Paul W. Glimcher and Ernst Fehr, Second ed. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 64.Von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 69.Canessa, Nicola, Chiara Crespi, Matteo Motterlini, Gabriel Baud-Bovy, Gabriele Chierchia, Giuseppe Pantaleo, Marco Tettamanti, and Stefano F. Cappa. 2013. The functional and structural neural basis of individual differences in loss aversion. Journal of Neuroscience 33 (36): 14307–14317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Sokol-Hessner, Peter, Ming Hsu, Nina G. Curley, Mauricio R. Delgado, Colin F. Camerer, and Elizabeth A. Phelpsa. 2009. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (13): 5035–5040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 77.Leake, David B. 1999. Case-based reasoning. In A companion to cognitive science, eds. William Bechtel and George Graham. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 78.Churchland, Patricia S. 2009. Inference to the best decision. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience, ed. John Bickle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 81.Crisp, Roger. 2016. Well-being. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/well-being/. Accessed 1 May 2017.
- 82.Hume, David. 1928 [1738-1740]. A treatise of human nature, ed. Lewis A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- 83.Moore, George E. 1971 . Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 89.Moffitt, Terrie E., Louise Arseneault, Daniel Belsky, Nigel Dickson, Robert J. Hancox, HonaLee Harrington, Renate Houts, Richie Poulton, Brent W. Roberts, Stephen Ross, Malcolm R. Sears, W. Murray Thomson, and Avshalom Caspi. 2011. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (7): 2693–2698.Google Scholar
- 90.Romal, Jane B., and Barbara J. Kaplan. 1995. Difference in self-control among spenders and savers. Psychology 32 (2): 8–17.Google Scholar
- 92.Batson, C. Daniel, Shannon Early, and Giovanni Salvarani. 1997. Perspective taking: imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (7): 751–758.Google Scholar
- 94.Pantaleo, Giuseppe, and Nicola Canessa. 2011. “Prospettive multiple”, comportamento prosociale e altruismo: oltre la civiltà dell’empatia. In Altruismo e comportamento prosociale. Temi e prospettive a confronto, eds. Stefano Boca and Costanza Scaffidi Abbate. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
- 100.Jollimore, Troy. 2017. Impartiality. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/impartiality/. Accessed 1 May 2017.
- 103.Mordacci, Roberto. 2015. Alla ricerca delle morali perdute: l’etica nell’era delle neuroscienze. In La tecnica e il senso. Oltre l’uomo, ed. Pierangelo Sequeri. Milan: Glossa.Google Scholar
- 105.Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The view from nowhere. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 106.Bennett, Max R., and Peter M.S. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 111.Ciaramelli, Elisa, Francesco Bernardi, and Morris Moscovitch. 2013. Individualized theory of mind (iToM): When memory modulates empathy. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (4): 1–18.Google Scholar