Adam Smith Theory on Moral Sentiments - Tentative Answer

If Smith is right about where one can find morals, are they distinct to a city, a religion, or shared by all?

In the Theory of Moral Sentiments  Smith urges that morals are should be based on the perceived consequences one’s actions might have. This is in contrast to Kant who has a binary approach to morals and instead focuses on the intention of an action rather than the consequences. Smith offers the idea of the impartial observer, in which a person’s actions is dictated on how an unbiased witness might feel about your actions. It is a way to think about how your actions will affect others and is an attempt to make unbiased decisions. However, in thinking about the impartial observer there is the implication that the imaginary person is just and morally sound. The problem here is that where a person finds their morals differs. Where one might use religion has the highest form of moral code another person might use something else. There has to be a set upon agreed code of moral understanding for Smith’s impartial observer to be implemented. While there are some moral truths that are generally agreed upon (murder is bad, etc.) by all, the difference in a people’s moral code makes it hard to apply Smith’s theory universally. However, because Smith’s theory is based on individual consequences (a case by case basis) rather than on a binary like Kant, it probably wasn’t Smith’s goal in the first place to make a universal code of morals; only to attempt to make judgements less biased.