Abstract
Adam Smith was very consistent in both the Wealth of Nations and in The Theory of Moral Sentiments concerning the role of the virtue of prudence(self-interest) in both books. Like all advocates of virtue ethics, the first virtue that must be mastered had to be the Virtue of Prudence, which required the satisfaction of the necessary condition of being able to take care of oneself and family first, before any other virtue could possibly be attempted, applied and mastered. Smith assumed that readers of the Wealth of Nations had previously read his Theory of Moral Sentiments, so that they understood that the butcher, brewer, and baker all had to succeed financially first before they could consider the interests of others second. Only after a clear and large economic surplus had been built up by the butcher, brewer, and baker from their small businesses would it be possible to meet the interests of others through the practice of the virtue of benevolence. There is simply no contradiction or inconsistency between Smith’s position, made all through The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that prudence is the most important virtue and that all other virtues must come second or after prudence(self-interest) has been successfully deployed first. Smith though it obvious that we get our dinner from the prudent behavior (self-interest or self-love) of the butcher, brewer, and baker and not from the virtue of Benevolence because Benevolence can only be practiced if the butcher, brewer, and baker have been successful in their businesses in amassing a surplus. The butcher, brewer, and baker can’t practice Benevolence if they are suffering losses or merely breaking even. The virtue of benevolence should not be confused with altruism.