The term, "the invisible hand" was first coined by Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Most often when it is used, it relates to economics, and is one of the arguments for a free-market.
The argument itself states that people, because of their own motives, follow an end in which they did not envision themselves (and which often leads to the improvement of society as a whole). Thus, like motives across a population can have drastic effects.
Adam Smith wrote, for example (about tariffs):
By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
But this is not the only situation in which such an argument is used.
As Robert Nozick points out in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, there are several similar examples of arguments that fall under this "class" of arguments.
One, for example, is an argument for the theory of evolution:
There exists genetic variation within a population, and the difference in traits between individuals affects their survival and ability to produce fertile offspring. There is a mode of inheritance - traits are inherited from parents. This shows how a beneficial trait may be passed on from generation to generation.
Thus, over time, one can observe that beneficial traits become more common within populations, and they lead to genetic change in the species as a whole over time. This genetic change explains the ideas of macroevolution as well (microevolution leads to macroevolution when you take into account the effects of the interactions between species on survival and reproduction).
An argument for the free-market using this type of argument would be as follows:
People pursue their own self-interest. In a society in which coercion is not allowed (a capitalistic or libertarian society) by the government or other people, one will have to engage in interactions which are beneficial to both one's self and others (and in doing so, allowing both people to pursue their own self-interest simultaneously). In societies in which coercion is allowed, it may become beneficial to use coercion in order to pursue one's own self-interest. This leads to interactions in which only one person benefits (the perpetrator), and the other suffers. From the above arguments, the Non-Aggression Principle follows.
Is such an argument (as those above) proof for the ideas that they discuss? Is such an argument particularly strong or weak? Any other discussion relating to this type of argument or other examples of these arguments?
