In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith explains that we want to establish a “mutual sympathy of sentiments.” We want people to agree with our views, and we want to agree with their views. Smith first expanded on this idea—that we are constantly searching for ways to cooperate with one another—in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, before he developed his broader theory of a commercial society in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The implications were astounding: a complex division of labor and division of knowledge, and the kind of prosperity we see today.

That’s what every bid and ask in a market is: a request to cooperate through mutual sympathy with another person. It can be plainly rejected by someone who doesn’t share similar sentiments, but every opportunity to exchange is a sacred opportunity to work together with someone to mutual advantage.

Not everyone has to agree, of course, and many may disapprove. The beauty of a commercial society is that it doesn’t really matter. The only ones who truly need to agree are the trading partners. While obviously there are exceptions for force and fraud, it’s clear that a mutually agreed-upon, voluntarily negotiated exchange is an effort to establish mutual sympathy of sentiments and a shared vision of a better world.

The bloggers and economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok titled their blog Marginal Revolution with the tagline “small steps toward a better world.” And that is exactly what every exchange is: it’s a small step toward a better world as evaluated by the people who are entering into the exchange. When Mary trades apples to Burt for oranges, it’s because they share a vision of a better world: one where Mary has more oranges and fewer apples while Burt has more apples and fewer oranges. It’s a small step, but it’s a step nonetheless. In a world of 8.5 billion people, it means billions upon billions of small steps toward a better world through mutual sympathies, sentiments, and shared visions.

Raymond Tallis explained the evolving world as the product of “trillions of cognitive handshakes,” in which each handshake occurs only because two people share a vision of a better world. Each agreement is a bet on a better future and a move into a position from which one can make even better bets on a better world.

Not every cognitive handshake means people are ennobling themselves, flourishing, and living well. But we have to take the chaff with the wheat. We must accept both the good and the less beneficial aspects. Importantly, disrupting these cognitive connections among individuals poses a significant risk: it might hinder their ability to realize a shared vision of a better world.

This doesn’t imply that government is the answer. Every political agreement reflects a shared sentiment about what actions should be imposed on others. It lacks dignity and fails to honor the liberty and dignity of those whose choices we might disapprove of. Yet agreements are often pursued in the name of addressing problems we may not fully comprehend. As economists, instead of dismissing people’s actions with “well, that’s stupid,” we should ask, “what problem does this solve? What goal does this achieve?” Even if we don’t agree with their version of a better world, we should question our inclination to intervene. Next time you’re in the grocery store, consider this perspective:  every product on the shelves represents an effort to foster mutual sympathy and a shared vision of a better world. It may not align with your vision, but it matters to someone-and that is significant.