This account of the mutual affection and reciprocal influence between the great 18th Century Scottish philosophers David Hume and his junior by twelve years, Adam Smith, also serves as a good introduction to the theories of each of them. Their ideas, as a review of this book in the UK’s Prospect Magazine notes, formed the central intellectual engine of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Each man was controversial at the time, although Smith was less so, probably because, as Rasmussen suggests, he was more cautious in expressing his religious skepticism. Both were concerned with the same issues however, even though Hume is primarily known today for his theories of epistemology (i.e., what factors shape our understanding of the world), and his calling into question a number of religious beliefs. Smith, the author of “The Wealth of Nations,” is considered to be “the poster child of capitalism.” At first glance, they might seem to be quite different, but in fact that is far from the case.

Rasmussen delves into some of their ideas in depth, such as on the origins of morality. Both denied true morality came from any religious imperative. Hume was willing to threaten his standing in society by getting more specific, insisting that the “moral” behaviors advocated by religion were often contrary to human nature. Religion's prohibitions and admonitions promoted useless forms of self-denial, sacrifice, and intolerance. Their injunctions, he averred, which can offer “the strongest violence to [a person’s] natural inclinations” are complied with not out of reason [because in fact they are antithetical to reason] but out of fear of divine retribution. Rather than making people better human beings, such constraints or commands that go against nature promote misery, fraud, cruelty, and a great deal of hypocrisy. As Hume wrote in “The Natural History of Religion” (Section XIV):

“. . . if he fast a day, or give himself a sound whipping, this has a direct reference, in his opinion, to the service of God. No other motive could engage him to such austerities. By these distinguished marks of devotion he has now acquired the divine favor; and may expect, in recompense, protection and safety in this world and eternal happiness in the next."

But because of the unnaturalness of religious precepts about behavior and the tendency of human beings to "be human" anyway, "it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any certain inference in favor of a man’s morals from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere.”

Hume’s negative views of religion, needless to say, did not make him popular among theists, nor for that matter, did his monumental History of England, which managed to offend political parties on both sides of the aisle. As he commented when he was dying, in his mordantly amusing style about the irony of his life:

“Here am I, who have written on all sorts of subjects calculated to excite hostility, moral, political, and religious, and yet I have no enemies; except, indeed, all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians.”

Rather than religion as the source of morality, they both considered the trait of sympathy - “a central feature of human nature,” as Hume wrote - to be its main determinant; it is the commonality of human feeling and what we think just or unjust with respect to our own lives that gives us ideas about what is right and wrong for people generally. Moreover, in a utilitarian sense, moral behavior simply makes our lives go better. That is, we don’t get arrested; people regard us favorably (which gives us pleasure) and do things for us; and the common good is advanced for the betterment of all. Religion, they both suggested, mainly serves as an enforcement mechanism for religiously-approved behaviors.

Both men posited that the same impulse lay behind both science and religion - i.e., the desire to explain the world and allay anxiety over the inexplicable, bestowing order on the natural world.

The two differed on several points, such as whether or not work per se constituted happiness. While they lauded the positive effects of capitalism and the progress it promoted, Smith was more critical of the downsides (ironically, since he was considered to be “the poster boy” of capitalism). He thought people were apt to work themselves to death for luxury items (encouraged by the incentive structure of the capitalist system) that would not necessarily make them happier; they always thought they needed more. Smith pointed to the shame that came with poverty or not having as much as others (insofar as capitalism defines success in terms of the accumulation of wealth). Material goods under capitalism, he observed, act as a signal conferring deference and approval. Thus, the rich, Smith noted, get far more attention and respect than the poor, whether deservedly so or not (and more often, they don’t deserve it, he added). [As Tevye the Milkman sang in the musical "Fiddler on the Roof," if he were a rich man, villagers would ask him to decide important questions, "And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong. When you're rich, they think you really know!"]

They also did not agree on whether there ought to be a state-sponsored religion - Hume said yes, and Smith said no, although their reasons were identical: each wanted to minimize the deleterious effects of religious fanaticism.

Nevertheless, the two men were generally in concert with one another, and at all times, benefitted from their close friendship. While not all of their correspondence has been located (there are just 56 extant letters between them — almost three-quarters of them by Hume), the letters that have been found suggest they met with each other often, helped and supported one another, and felt warmly toward one another. Hume in particular was constantly imploring Smith to come see him and stay with him.

Hume died on August 25, 1776 from abdominal cancer. (Smith outlived him by 14 years.) Hume wanted Smith to arrange for the posthumous publication of his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Smith, who had always been so careful to protect his own reputation, worried that the controversy over Hume’s irreligious ideas in the manuscript would ruin him by association. Hume was disappointed, but agreed instead to entrust his nephew with the project. And in fact, Smith was correct about its reception. James Boswell, for example, was offended by even the publishing of Hume’s “posthumous poison.” And when Smith, in writing, praised the skeptic Hume as a "virtuous man" after his death, Smith incurred much of the wrath he sought to avoid. (How can an apostate be "virtuous," Hume's detractors fumed.)

As Hume was dying, the public was intensely focused on him, with crowds actually assembled outside his house: would he continue with his skepticism or try at the last minute to gain access to the Kingdom of Heaven and an afterlife? Would he be fearful, depraved, or remorseful? Hume was none of those things, and retained his skepticism and good spirits until the end. He tried to show through his example that this life was enough, and that it no more bothered him that he would not exist after his death than it bothered him that he did not exist before his life.

Discussion: I hate to admit (even to myself) that I have never read Smith’s seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, so I was gratified to learn of the book’s main concepts through this story. I was also surprised at how many of his precepts and observations about capitalist societies remain not only relevant but right on point.

The author spent a bit less time on Hume’s theories than on the public reaction to them, which in itself was interesting and noteworthy.

The author also included observations about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Genevan philosopher who had a large influence on American Founding Fathers, because of his interactions with Hume. I did not know about Rousseau’s bouts with psychosis, and felt sad that he lacked access to modern medications, which could have helped his productivity and quality of life.

Overall, I learned a lot in this book, and found it quite enjoyable.

Evaluation: Professor Rasmussen reveals the depth of influence David Hume had on Adam Smith, as well as the many beneficial aspects of their growing, deep friendship. The book isn’t that long, but serves as an excellent introduction to the thought of each man, both of whom have had an outsized influence on the way we think in the West today. ( )

Interesting dual biography of two Scottish intellectual giants of the 18th century, Hume and Smith, concentrating on their long friendship. I would’ve enjoyed a little more about the contents of their books and perhaps a little less about fairly mundane biographical details. Learned a lot from the book anyway. ( )

Great biography of both Hume and Smith, as well as a great overview of their philosophies. Definitely meant for those interested in the political theory of the Scottish Enlightenment, but excellent nonetheless. ( )

Great biography of both Hume and Smith, as well as a great overview of their philosophies. Definitely meant for those interested in the political theory of the Scottish Enlightenment, but excellent nonetheless. ( )

Great biography of both Hume and Smith, as well as a great overview of their philosophies. Definitely meant for those interested in the political theory of the Scottish Enlightenment, but excellent nonetheless. ( )