Steuart and Smith had different views concerning history and human nature, though some of the theoretic concepts were related. According to Steuart, man acts uniformly throughout all ages irrespective of the country and the climate. Moreover, he adds that man is indifferent in any other aspect. Smith asserts that the latter actions of human being produce a number of circumstances that if different species of animals were considered in the creation, no individual from similar class would act as a human. Steuart claims that because human being are highly sociable due to both inclination and necessity, there are various changes and modification in all countries, ages, and climates pertaining the subordination and governments established by the humankind. As a result, people are provided with varieties because of the diversity in societies. However, every community has the same accord and agreement that voluntary subordination to authority is limited, which is the view of promoting the general good of the people.
In addition, uninterrupted and constant experiences, according to Steuart, have occasionally proved to man that justice and virtue are sufficient components of society’s well-being under different government. Indeed, he believes that justice and virtue employed by any government create affection for the people in the society. Moreover, it is an impartial and exact regard when it comes to the interest of each class. Steuard perceived all things and actions as of only bad or good nature. In fact, the degree of complexity is based on the society’s views. Moreover, nothing is as compound as discovering the truth when the proper comparison is put in place. Therefore, each government operation has to become uncertain and problematic due to itsconsequences, while particular actions are evidently bad or good. As a result, the government must be continually in action. In fact, experience is bound to show what could be foreseen by human prudence, and the mistakes can be rectified as soon they take place.
On the other hand, Smith argues that the division of labor is not the natural effect of human wisdom that forecasts the general opulence to the given occasion. However, he agrees that many advantages can be derived from the division of labor. Smith adds that division of labor is imperative in various propensities of the human nature, which has no extensive utility such as barter, propensity to truck and trade.
According to Smith, the concept of labor division is common to man, but not to any other class of animals. For instance, no case has ever been noticed of a dog to deliberately exchange bones with another dog. At the same time, animal do not signify to another its belongings. In addition, no animal has ever gestured that it is willing to complete exchange of items. Indeed, when animal intends to get something from another animal or from a man, the only means of persuasion is to depend on the mercies of those providing the service it needs.
Nevertheless, man has different behavior because of the assistance from their brethren, and it is normally in vain for him to anticipate it from the benevolence of others. Man is only able to survive if he has the capacity to attract the love towards his favor and show community members that they would benefit from cooperating with him. Indeed, man proposes to offer one thing in anticipation of reward of equal measure or quality. Therefore, man does not gain from the benevolence of the brewer, butcher, or even the bakker from whom he plans to get the dinner. In fact, the suppliers benefit from cooperation and gain the interest of their own.
Smith believes that man addresses himself to his self-love but never to his humanity. Thus, men will never talk about the commodities they need from other people, but he will always explain the advantages his partners will derive from their actions. In society, only beggars choose to depend on the benevolence of other well-wishers and will to some degree not depend on benevolence entirely. Most of their needs are provided through the barter, purchase and treaty. For instance, people purchase food with the money they receive from the fellow citizens.
Thus, man obtains things from other men by barter, treaty, and purchase and the same process gives occasions to division of labor. Smith provides an example of a man who makes arrows and bows and exchanges them for venison or cattle from different people. In regards to his interest, the making of arrows and bows is his major business because he realizes that with such items he can easily obtain many more venison and cattle than if he went hunting.
Nonetheless, the views of Steuart and Smith are related, as far as the Smith’s perspective claims that there is only one best economic and social order. In addition, Steuart believes that man has a uniform way of doing things irrespective of their geographical positioning and psychosocial characteristics. As a result, humankind experiences one social and economic dimension. Finally, Smith asserts that man obtains things from other men by barter, treaty, and purchase and the same process gives occasions to division of labor. Therefore, the latter makes man to have one social and economic order.