Between Adam Smith’s Self-Love and the Impartial Spectator: Ādamiyyah as a Moral Bridge in Human Conscience

Şentürk, Recep and Aysan, Fatma Nur and Aysan, Ahmet Faruk and Özalkan, Seda (2026): Between Adam Smith’s Self-Love and the Impartial Spectator: Ādamiyyah as a Moral Bridge in Human Conscience. Published in:

Abstract

This article proposes a novel moral synthesis between Adam Smith’s Enlightenment conception of the impartial spectator and the Abrahamic concept of Ādamiyyah. It argues that while Smith’s theory offers a robust model of internal moral regulation, its reliance on socially constructed norms leaves it vulnerable to moral relativism and cultural fragmentation. In contrast, Ādamiyyah, rooted in Qur’anic anthropology, provides a fixed ontological foundation for human dignity, affirming rights and duties by virtue of being human. Through a comparative philosophical methodology, this paper demonstrates that Ādamiyyah can validate self-regard as sacred and universal, while also anchoring the impartial spectator in a transcendent framework of accountability. Ibn Khaldūn’s notion of wāziʿ min anfusihim, the internal restraining power, offers an applied articulation of this synthesis. It mirrors Smith’s impartial spectator as a mechanism of self-regulation, yet grounds it in the Adamic dignity of Ādamiyyah, where moral restraint links the self to both divine accountability and social order. The article further employs the metaphor of the fixed-point theorem from mathematics to conceptualize Ādamiyyah as an invariant moral constant, stabilizing ethical reasoning across cultural and technological transformations. By addressing both individual moral formation and institutional justice, this framework resolves the micro–macro divide in ethics. The paper concludes by proposing that this integration contributes to the emerging discourse on “Rooted Futures,” a call to design inclusive, ethically grounded futures by drawing on the enduring insights of classical moral traditions, and to renew the Adamic covenant of human dignity that signifies the primordial moral bond between humanity and God vertically, and among human beings horizontally. Reclaiming this covenant not only restores a global moral order grounded in justice, equality, and the inviolability of every person, but also provides the impartial spectator with the transcendent moral anchor it lacked, thereby closing the gap between self-regard and universal moral responsibility.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Ādamiyyah; Impartial Spectator; Self-Love; Adam Smith; Moral Psychology; Islamic Ethics; Comparative Ethics; Ibn Khaldun; Fixed-point theorem.
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A13 - Relation of Economics to Social Values; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B12 - Classical (includes Adam Smith); D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement; P - Economic Systems > P1 - Capitalist Systems > P16 - Political Economy; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology > Z12 - Religion

References

Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press. Griswold, C. L., Jr. (1999). Adam Smith and the virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). MIT Press. Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1-25. Habermas, J. (2008). Between naturalism and religion: Philosophical essays (C. Cronin, Trans.). Polity Press. Ibn Ābidīn. (n.d.). Hashiyat ibn Abidin Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (Vol. 5, p. 58). Ibn Khaldūn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad. Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldūn. Edited by ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-Darwīsh. Damascus: Dār al-Yaʿrib, 2004. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. Mandeville, B. (1988). The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (F. B. Kaye, Ed., Vols. 1–2). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1714). Nash, J. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969529 Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy’s discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Harvard University Press. Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day Sen, A. (2010). Adam Smith and the contemporary world. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3(1), 50–67. Smith, A. (2006). The theory of moral sentiments (6th ed., originally published 1790). MetaLibri. Smith, A. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (A. S. Skinner, Ed.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1776) Smith, A. (2008). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (K. Sutherland, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1776) Smith, A. (1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (R. H. Campbell & A. S. Skinner, Eds., Vols. 1–2). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1776) Şentürk, R. (2002). Âdamiyyah and ’Ismah: The contested relationship between humanity and human rights in the classical Islamic law. İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8, 39–69. Şentürk, R. (2005b). Sociology of rights: “I am therefore I have rights”: Human rights in Islam between universalistic and communalistic perspectives. Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, 2(1), 1–30. Şentürk, R. (2011). Why should all human beings be inviolable? In M. A. Glendon & H. Zacher (Eds.), Universal rights in a world of diversity: The case of religious freedom (pp. 201–212). Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Şentürk, R. (2021). Islamic law and the children of Adam. Renovatio: The Journal of Zaytuna College. https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/islamic-law-and-the-children-of-adam Şentürk, R. (2025b). Ādamiyyah: I am therefore I have rights. Usul Academy Press. Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Harvard University Press.