The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance

In moral philosophy and economics there typically is a dichotomy drawn between selfishness and charity or self-interest and altruism. This is the debate in which the protagonists engage throughout most of the novel: Sam argues in favor of self-interest while Laura argues in favor of altruism. These debates drive the plot arc and bring the characters closer to understanding each other’s views.

Adam Smith is the first modern thinker who combined economics and moral philosophy directly. It is from Adam Smith that Roberts—and Sam—advance from the invisible hand to the invisible heart. A major question in the novel is whether free-market capitalism can yield not only wealth or sufficient quality-of-life for most, but also compassion and kindness. One of Sam’s major fears is that he will be seen as heartless and selfish because of his defense of the value of self-interest. The novel argues that both altruism and self-interest can be virtuous, and both have unseen consequences that must be teased out with careful critical thought.

Sam argues early in the novel that self-interest isn’t a moral question but instead a “a fact of life” (77). He explains to Laura the purpose of the exercise in his class where he offers the students money. She had interpreted it as a lesson that greed is a virtue, but Sam explains that it demonstrates the power of self-interest, which drives people to invent, to achieve, to think creatively and to solve problems. Unconvinced, Laura responds, “I still think I’d rather be served by someone who’s motivated by something other than self-interest” (78), indicating that self-interest in her mind is inherently linked with immorality. Laura’s position, which is the majority opinion. However, like self-interest, altruism is more complicated than simply being kind or doing good.

Laura argues that altruism is acting in the best interests of those in need. Sam’s discussions on charity and individual protection laws like seatbelt requirements caution that altruism is only virtuous if it genuinely benefits the recipient rather than strokes the ego of the giver. Sam argues that private charity is more beneficial than tax funded government welfare. Primarily because private charity allows for preserving individual dignity. A governmental system requires a one-size-fits-all approach determined by income levels or some other generalizable metric. That, Sam argues, decreases the likelihood that the person in poverty can be lifted out of that poverty with an individualized approach. Similarly, laws requiring seat belts to be installed in cars increase the expense of every car. Therefore, they are unable to afford a car, and instead of mitigating their risks by driving more carefully, they’re forced to be safer but poorer.

Sam’s arguments demonstrate that altruism can be coaxed even from the ungenerous by the invisible hand of the market—that acting in self-interest can create altruistic acts when there is no altruistic motivation. Further, altruism for the sake of altruism can result in a trade-off where the giver gets an ego boost at the expense of the person receiving the help.