QuestionsWhat is happiness?The beggar in the sun: wealth does not buy peace
What is happiness?Virtue and wisdom

The beggar in the sun: wealth does not buy peace

The poor man's son; the beggar who suns himself; the trinkets of greatness

Adam Smith 1723 · 1790We judge right and wrong by putting ourselves in others' place, under the eye of an "impartial spectator".
See profile
What it claims

The pursuit of wealth and greatness rests on an illusion: it does not make one happier, and happiness does not depend on rank.

Why

The ambitious son wears himself out for a rest that wealth does not give; for ease of body and peace of mind, all ranks are nearly level.

The same idea through history
Épicure300 BCEpicurus separates natural and necessary desires from vain ones: tranquillity comes from the first group. Smith finds the idea again in a concrete case, that of the ambitious man, with an explanation through the imagination.
In short

"The beggar in the sun: wealth does not buy peace" is an argument by Adam Smith (Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759 (1777 ed.), IV, ch. 1) on the question "What is happiness?" (answer: virtue and wisdom). Its claim: The pursuit of wealth and greatness rests on an illusion: it does not make one happier, and happiness does not depend on rank. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759 (1777 ed.), IV, ch. 1
Valid with an implicit premise

The son of a poor man, whom Heaven in its anger has visited with ambition, admires the condition of the rich. He thinks that with a palace, servants and a carriage he would at last be at ease. To get there, he accepts in the first year more fatigue and worry than he would ever have known from lacking all this. He devotes his whole life to an artificial tranquillity, and sacrifices a real one that was within his reach. At the end of his life, sick and bitter, he finds that wealth is a mere trinket of little use. Smith concludes that, for ease of body and peace of mind, all ranks are nearly level: the beggar who suns himself by the roadside has the security for which kings are fighting.

P1From the first month, the ambitious man submits to more fatigue of body and uneasiness of mind than he could have suffered through his whole life from lacking riches.
P2He pursues all his life a certain artificial and elegant repose which he may never reach, and for it sacrifices a real tranquillity that was always in his power.
P3When he gets there, he finds that wealth and greatness are mere trinkets of frivolous utility, no more adapted to procure ease of body or tranquillity of mind than the tweezer-cases of the lover of toys.
P4In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, ease of body and peace of mind, all ranks are nearly upon a level: the beggar who suns himself by the side of the highway possesses the security for which kings are fighting.
P5 · implicit premiseHappiness in life consists mainly in ease of body and peace of mind, not in rank, wealth or distinction.
Therefore the pursuit of wealth and greatness rests on an illusion: it does not make one happier, and happiness does not depend on rank.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a case where happiness depends on wealth: wealth gives freedom to act, health and education, which make life better even without more inner peace.
The argument is valid with the hidden premise P5. P1 to P3 describe the case of the ambitious man: he pays dearly for a good he does not obtain. P4 generalises: for ease and peace, ranks are nearly equal. P5 says happiness comes down to this. Objections target P5 and P4: happiness also needs external goods and resources to act.
Analogy. A student spends nights revising to get into the best school, believing he will finally be at peace there. Once in, he sees that his classmates are no more at peace than those who chose a simpler path. Smith thinks the ambitious man makes the same mistake on the scale of a life.

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Aristotle (happiness needs external goods) 340 BC · attacks premise 5

For Aristotle, happiness is above all an activity of the soul, but it also needs external goods: it is impossible, or hard, to act well without resources, friends, wealth and political power, which serve as instruments.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Smith in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Our summary: Smith speaks of ease of body and peace of mind, not of virtuous action. His readers can hold that he and Aristotle answer two different questions: Smith says wealth does not give peace, Aristotle that virtue needs means.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Our summary: partial agreement. Both admit that a minimum of resources is necessary; they differ on what more can be added. The debate is open.
Adam Smith himself (poverty is not happiness) 1776 · attacks premise 4

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith writes that no society can be flourishing and happy if the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. He adds that it is only equity that those who feed, clothe and lodge the whole people should be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Smith in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Our summary: there is no forced contradiction. In the Theory, Smith compares a beggar with a king, not destitution with comfort. Poverty that prevents feeding, clothing and lodging oneself is not that of the beggar in his image. The objection forces one to specify the threshold from which the ranks become "nearly" level.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Our summary: everything depends on the threshold. Above a minimum of material security, Smith can maintain his idea; below it, he does not maintain it himself. The debate is open.
Adam Smith himself (the illusion is useful) 1759 · attacks the conclusion

Smith writes just afterwards that it is well that nature imposes on us in this way: this illusion keeps the industry of mankind in motion. If the illusion were dispelled, nobody would cultivate the ground or build cities. The conclusion "do not run after wealth" would have a cost for all.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Smith in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Our summary: Smith separates the good of the individual (peace) from the good of society (effort). For the ambitious man, the illusion is a misfortune; for everyone, it is useful. He does not say in this passage that an enlightened individual should keep pursuing wealth.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Our summary: the objection does not refute P1 to P4; it shows the social cost of believing them. The debate is open on the choice between individual happiness and collective utility.