The times during which Adam Smith lived and published his remarkable works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) and The Wealth of Nations (WN), were very divided philosophically and politically. and economic reasons. Interestingly, the sixth and final edition of TMS was published in 1790, coinciding with the start of the French Revolution and the emergence and uprising of radical egalitarian ideas across Europe. So I was curious to understand what Adam Smith, the moral philosopher, thought about equality. In this essay, I would like to discuss Smith's views on equality and egalitarianism from a moral and socio-economic perspective, based on his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. I would also like to loosely define "egalitarianism" as a doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In TMS, sympathy is a central aspect of social interactions and moral judgments and it is implied that all human beings have a propensity toward sympathy (Dwyer ). Sympathy is the “fellowship” that helps us relate to passions, people, and situations. But this sympathy is the result of the viewer's unbiased understanding of emotions and actions. The “impartial spectator” seems to present himself as the evaluator or regulator (Darwall) of his moral judgments. When we sympathize, we imaginatively place ourselves in the situations of others and judge our actions by evaluating whether an impartial third person observing us from the outside would take the same actions as us in those situations. It's from the first pages. It is from TMS that Smith's morally egalitarian views begin to manifest. Smith recognizes that because of the innate selfishness of human beings, it is difficult to look beyond our own interests and the interests of others. He says: “…Before we can make a proper comparison between…opposing interests, we must change our position. We must look at them, neither from our own place nor from theirs... but from the place and with the eyes of a third person, who has no particular link with one or the other, and who judges with impartiality between us. The fact that people put themselves in other people's shoes so that we can empathize and identify with them implicitly means that we view the individuals we sympathize with as having equal value, or simply as individuals worthy of our perspectives. Smith even goes on to say that individuals who don't treat others around them as equals or see themselves in a higher light than those around them are inspiring us. He declares: “What especially makes us angry with the man who hurts or insults us is the little consideration he seems to have for us, the unreasonable preference he gives himself above us. , and that absurd self-love by which he seems to imagine that other persons may be sacrificed at any moment..." (TMS II.iii.1.6) It now seems quite obvious that according to Smith we all assume equal worth and when we are treated differently, at odds with the value we think we share with others makes us irritated. I think this implies that the underlying assumption of moral equality and the precondition of viewing all human beings as equal is at the forefront of sympathy and, therefore, of all social interactions. Therefore, it seems fair to say that Smith most certainly believed in and endorsed moral equality. In the same book,.