Nepotism as an act of beneficence

In this blog post, I want to apply Smith’s claims about beneficent actions to the example of nepotism. In doing so, I hope to illuminate how Smith’s delineation between positive acts of beneficence and positive acts of injustice may leave us ill equipped to address problems that we would perceive as unfair or unjust. 

In Smith’s view, an act of beneficence is a positive good added to another’s life, and acts of beneficence cannot be seized by force. We have no right to receive acts of beneficence from others, but we have a right that protects us against acts of injustice from others. In this way, acts of positive good are different from acts of positive hurt–acts of positive hurt can be punished, but the lack of acts of positive good cannot be punished. For example, Smith says that the lack of beneficence in a father’s behavior toward his son cannot be punished. In contrast, if a father were to do positive harm to the son’s life by injuring him physically, the father could be punished. 

Consider the example of nepotism. Nepotism is the ability of powerful or well-connected individuals to provide advantages to their relatives or other close connections in the hiring process. This advantage is undoubtedly a positive good and an act of beneficence. An increased chance to get a job or internship is given to an individual. Nepotism is often criticized for being unjust–this is because nepotism unfairly advantages those who are already well-connected over those who are not and in this way biases the hiring process against candidates who do not have powerful connections. 

Nepotism poses an interesting series of questions within Smith’s account. Can the individual who does not receive the benefits of nepotism punish those who were able to grant him those benefits for not performing that act of beneficence? No, Smith says the lack of acts of beneficence cannot be punished. Can the individual who does not receive the benefits of nepotism punish those who did grant others the benefits of nepotism? The answer to this question is less clear, but Smith would likely say no–acts of beneficence inspire gratitude and sympathetic gratitude in the spectator, so they would not inspire the resentment and drive to punish that acts of injustice would. Unless the individual who does not receive the benefits of nepotism claimed that the process of nepotism caused him a positive harm, he would not have cause to punish the individual who granted other people advantages in the hiring process. Then, can nepotism be addressed at all in Smith’s view? Smith does say that, although the child cannot take the beneficence he expects from his father by force, the state can enforce laws that require a minimum level of care for one’s children because the state can “prescribe rules… which…command mutual good offices to a certain degree” (Smith 51). Given this, Smith might say that the state can command every parent to extend their connections and advantages to their children in a state-mandated act of beneficence. First of all, it is not clear that Smith would find that to be a justified use of the state’s power to preserve the public peace, promote the prosperity of the commonwealth, establish good discipline, and discourage vices and impropriety. Second of all, that would not address the issue of well-connected parents and unconnected parents providing their children with unequal benefits. To address that problem, Smith would have to say that the state can command each powerful individual to extend beneficent advantages in the hiring process to all the candidates, but it is even less likely that that would fall under the state’s powers. 

Nepotism is just one example of a practice that is an act of beneficence that leads to outcomes we would likely identify as unjust, but it is not clear that Smith’s tools allow us to address or solve the issue of nepotism. In fact, it seems like Smith’s tools would be rather inadequate in addressing processes that derive from the unequal distribution of positive goods that are only received by specific segments of the population.