▸ HEAD-TO-HEAD
ADAM SMITH VS JEREMY BENTHAM
Adam Smith
1723–1790
What is is not what must be.
Jeremy Bentham
1748–1832
What is is not what must be.
▸ WHERE THEY SHARPLY DISAGREED
The three dimensions on which Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham are farthest apart on Mull's 0–10 scale.
- Trust in ReasonΔ 1 / 10Adam Smith: 6/10Jeremy Bentham: 7/10
somewhat (1/10): Jeremy Bentham trusts reasoned argument more strongly than Adam Smith does.
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 1 / 10Adam Smith: 7/10Jeremy Bentham: 6/10
somewhat (1/10): Adam Smith locates the self in community and relationship; Jeremy Bentham starts from the individual.
- Practical OrientationΔ 1 / 10Adam Smith: 7/10Jeremy Bentham: 8/10
somewhat (1/10): Jeremy Bentham is oriented toward what helps a life go well in practice; Adam Smith foregrounds other priorities.
▸ WHERE THEY OVERLAPPED
Where the gap is smallest — both with meaningful presence on the dimension (not "neither cared").
- Embodied Sensibilitygap 0 / 10Adam Smith: 5/10Jeremy Bentham: 5/10
Both register moderate embodied sensibility.
- Theoretical Drivegap 0 / 10Adam Smith: 6/10Jeremy Bentham: 6/10
Both register moderate theoretical drive.
- Sovereign Selfgap 0 / 10Adam Smith: 6/10Jeremy Bentham: 6/10
Both register moderate sovereign self.
▸ ALL 16 DIMENSIONS
The full vector comparison. Bars show their 0–10 scores side-by-side.
- Ascetic TendencyΔ 0
- Communal EmbeddednessΔ 1
- Embodied SensibilityΔ 0
- Mystical ReceptivityΔ 0
- Practical OrientationΔ 1
- Reverence for TraditionΔ 0
- Self as IllusionΔ 0
- Skeptical ReflexΔ 0
- Sovereign SelfΔ 0
- Theoretical DriveΔ 0
- Trust in ExperienceΔ 0
- Trust in ReasonΔ 1
- Tragic VisionΔ 0
- Universalist ImpulseΔ 1
- Vital AffirmationΔ 0
- Will to PowerΔ 0
◀ ADAM SMITHJEREMY BENTHAM ▶
▶ What to do next