Hume's Abstract of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments

Beyond sympathy: Smith’s rejection of Hume’s moral theory

“…It is still Hume, and not Smith, who takes precedent on undergraduate reading lists in ethics and the history of moral philosophy, and who is treated by many contemporary scholars as the greatest historical exponent of sentimentalist ethics, serving as the primary inspiration for more recent attempts to 14 In particular I have left aside the question of whether Hume was right that although Smith's revised conception of sympathy was the 'hinge' of his system, it was nonetheless a false account -the implication perhaps being that Smith's entire system failed in turn (e.g. Raynor 1984). As it happens, I agree with Fleischacker (2012, 300-3) that Smith has the resources to answer Hume (whose criticisms are misplaced), and that the younger Scot has the better of things with regards the plausibility of his theory of sympathy.…”

“…Certainly, the relationship between Smith and Hume on this score has attracted scholarly attention. But with regards to the foundations of morals, this has so far focused upon Smith and Hume's rival accounts of 'sympathy' (Raynor 1984;Darwall 1998, 264-70;1999, 141-5;Otteson 2002, 30-9;Broadie 2006;Fleischacker 2012;Sayre-McCord 2013; for a holistic overview, Hanley 2016). Yet as I will show, disagreement over sympathy is only the starting point of Smith's engagement with Hume's account of the foundations of morals.…”

David Hume in Chicago: A Twentieth-Century Hoax

“…In those cases, the allegation of authorship has often turned on Hume's style, 26 suggestive passages in his correspondence, 27 or the controvertible recollection of a memoirist. 28 In the most difficult instance, the attribution to Hume of a pamphlet on the Scottish militia, Sister Peg (1761), scholars have had to contend against Hume's apparent confession that he authored the work himself, in spite of the mass of evidence that has pointed, insistently, to Adam Ferguson (1723-1816). 29 In principle, the attribution of letters and manuscripts should depend on the use of similar canons of evidence-the style and provenance of the item or any corroborative reference to the item in ancillary documentation-alongside the supposedly decisive congruence of the item's handwriting with "incontestable" specimens of Hume's autograph.…”

Sympathy for Whom? Smith's Reply to Hume

“…The fact that Smith's account of sympathy is centered on a mediating role of the imagination that is absent from Hume's account gives us reason to think this first objection is less powerful than some scholars have taken it to be, and that it can be refuted effectively. (For examples of the opposing view that Hume's objection has no effective response, see Raynor [1984: 56–61]; Blackburn [1998: 202–204]; and Broadie [2006: 172–74]. )…”