Last month (September 2025), my colleagues Daniel Klein, Nicholas Swanson, and Jeffrey Young (KSY) published a new paper on Adam Smith’s impartial spectator in the most recent issue of Econ Journal Watch. In summary, KSY claim that Smith’s imaginary spectator is not only a godlike “beholder”; he is also an external entity. That is, according to KSY, this godlike figure is not the same thing as our inner voice or conscience: Smith’s impartial spectator and his “man within the breast” are two different beings or entities. In reply, I wrote up a six-part critique of KSY’s theistic interpretation of the impartial spectator, but what is my take on Smith’s imaginary spectator? Or as we like to say in academia, [*] “it takes a theory to beat theory“! So, starting on Monday (20 Oct.), I will make the case for why Smith most likely modelled his impartial spectator not on a god or deity but rather on a common law judge or juror.

* But, ahem, see this serpentine critique of the “it takes a theory to beat a theory” aphorism.