The sympathetic process, as the pillar of Smith's moral system, is enhanced further by the virtue of self-command and the sense of propriety. This trilogy allows us to assess Smith's broader aim by reading sympathy not only in terms of moral approbation, but also moral dispositions that imply duty as an important component of how to act, the role of an agent, acting with moral autonomy, and not determined by a particular felicitatis calculus, places Smith in a methodological position that differs from the neoclassical picture of the homo economicus.Just as the Theory of Moral Sentiments has ironically been overshadowed by the success of the Wealth of Nations, Smith's philosophical concept of propriety has been eclipsed by the beneficial unintended consequences of the invisible hand. This has resulted in a great loss for economists and philosophers alike. Fortunately, the rapid growing field of Smithian studies has revived interest in Smith's moral philosophy, but in spite of this fact, the importance of propriety has received little attention. Its deontological facet poses a challenge, as the nexus between Smith's ethics and economics presents an inexhaustible source of research. Amartya Sen complained that 'the role of ethical considerations in human behavior, particularly the use of behavior norms in Smith's writings, have become relatively neglected' brilliantly concluding that it is precisely the narrowing of the broad Smithian view of human beings, in modern economies, that can be seen as one of the major deficiencies of contemporary economic theory.An understanding of propriety as a fundamental philosophical concept that focuses upon the motives that generate actions, as an internal process of deliberation encompassed by the role of conscience and the command of one-self, gives pre-eminence to the individual as an end in itself, not as a means to an end. Classical utilitarianism would stress the latter in terms of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Respect for human beings, as diverse and unique individuals, but always considered as members of society, is a conception that contrasts with the homo economicus of neoclassical economicus, and is conspicuously absent in modern mainstream economics. A reassessment of the original ethical thought of the father of the science certainly encourages a sense of propriety for our discipline.