The distinction between intended and unintended consequences is a feature within rationalist social theory, not a criterion for departing from it—as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith both demonstrated.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Adam Ferguson(cited as a historical example): An 18th-century Scottish philosopher and sociologist who studied how societies develop and function, often examining outcomes that weren't deliberately planned.
Adam Smith: Adam Smith was an 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist who is often called the "father of modern economics." He's most famous for writing *The Wealth of Nations*, which explained how free markets and self-interest drive economic prosperity—introducing the now-famous idea of the "invisible hand," suggesting that individuals pursuing their own profit naturally benefit society as a whole. His ideas fundamentally shaped how we think about capitalism, trade, and economics today.
Criterion for departing from(explains how unintended consequences relate to rationalist theory): A reason or standard for abandoning or rejecting a theory or approach.
Rationalist social theory(the main subject of the statement): An approach to understanding society that believes human behavior and social outcomes can be explained through reason, logic, and rational decision-making rather than tradition or emotion.
intended consequences(as used in ethics): The effects or outcomes you deliberately aim to bring about when you take an action.
unintended consequences(Hayekian economics): Economic or social outcomes that emerge from rational individual action but bear no resemblance to the outcomes those individuals intended

2 topics