🍀 Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! 🍀 I concluded my previous post with the following observation: “Although Adam Smith is a champion of religious liberty …, he identifies one major downside of allowing people the freedom to choose their own religion.” So, what is this downside? According to Smith, the downside is this: people might become too religious, i.e. too strict in their adherence to religious rules, or more simply put, too moral! In today’s post, I will explain how Smith reaches this surprising and counter-intuitive conclusion. (I will then survey Smith’s proposed remedy in my next post.)

To begin, for Smith all systems of morality fall into one of two categories: (A) strict or austere, and (B) liberal or loose:

“In every civilised society, in every society where the distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there have been always two different schemes or systems of morality current at the same time; of which the one may be called the strict or austere; the other the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system. The former is generally admired and revered by the common people: the latter is commonly more esteemed and adopted by what are called people of fashion.” (WN, V.i.g.10)

Next, Smith explains why most new religious sects end up preaching “strict” or “austere” systems of morality: to attract new members! Or in the immortal words of Adam Smith:

“Almost all religious sects have begun among the common people, from whom they have generally drawn their earliest as well as their most numerous proselytes. The austere system of morality has, accordingly, been adopted by those sects almost constantly, or with very few exceptions; for there have been some. It was the system by which they could best recommend themselves to that order of people to whom they first proposed their plan of reformation upon what had been before established.” (WN, V.i.g.11)

So, what’s the problem? Simply put, the Scottish philosopher appears to be saying that there is an optimal level of morality, i.e. an Aristotelian golden mean between the two extremes. For Smith, the problem is that most religious sects end up becoming too austere and strict:

“Many [religious sects], perhaps the greater part of them, have even endeavoured to gain credit by refining upon this austere system, and by carrying it to some degree of folly and extravagance; and this excessive rigour has frequently recommended them more than anything else to the respect and veneration of the common people.

And:

“In little religious sects, accordingly, the morals of the common people have been almost always remarkably regular and orderly; generally much more so than in the established church. The morals of those little sects, indeed, have frequently been rather disagreeably rigorous and unsocial.” (WN, V.i.g.12)

So, what is to be done? What is Smith’s remedy? Today, for example, whenever we are worried about other people’s behavior (such as social media addiction), our knee-jerk reaction is to call for government regulation or even prohibition. But that is not Adam Smith’s approach, for Smith is a true champion of liberty: the government should not pick sides; people should be free to choose their own religion. Instead, Smith proposes two alternative solutions, two antidotes to strict religions and strict moral systems more generally: one is “the study of science and philosophy” (WN, V.i.g.14); the other is “the frequency and gaiety of publick diversions” (WN, V.i.g.15). I will further explore both of these Smithian antidotes in my next post.