Economics and Ethics
This chapter explores the links between economics and ethics, which depend on the notion of economics considered. Political economy is a science of ends—a practical and moral, science, while economic theory is a technique that should be subordinated to th
- PDF / 185,087 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 78 Downloads / 237 Views
Economics and Ethics
As made clear at the beginning of this book, the relationship between economics and ethics is a constant theme throughout this work: Chaps. 2 and 3 have shown that, for Aristotle and for an Aristotelian approach, ‘‘the economic’’ and the economic science are characteristically ethical. However, it will certainly prove helpful to dedicate a separate chapter to the topic, though, of course, it will not suffice to cover the entire topic. It must be completed with references to other chapters, and, even then, there will be much left to say. Perhaps it is time to repeat the Chap. 1’s advice to read the books by van Staveren (2001), Yuengert (2004 and 2012), and Halteman and Noell (2012)—all of them containing an Aristotelian approach to this subject. The relationship between economics and ethics hinges on the economics definition taken. Thus far, it has been established that ‘‘political economy’’ is a science of ends, a practical science, and, therefore, a moral science, with ‘‘economic theory’’ subordinated to it. However, it is impossible to apply economic theory to specific cases without adopting values. Economics has gradually drifted away from its original moral science character. Still, it was not until Mill ([1843] 1974, pp. 120ff.) came along that economics really started growing apart from politics and morality. This separation reflects an increasing disconnection between economics and the pursuit of what is necessary for the ‘‘good life’’. Because of most modern thought’s inability to rationally determine what is good for people, maximization appears as the determinant criterion in the field of ‘‘the economic’’, as an economic substitute for what is optimal (construed as a superlative of good). A principle of need is replaced by a principle of maximization, which also, though in other terms, is known by Aristotle as limitlessness, due to the unlimited nature of the human appetite. As Polanyi ([1944] 1983, p. 85) describes, a division is produced between the principle of use and that of earning, causing a rupture between economic motives and social ends. Polanyi (1971, p. 68) states: ‘‘Aristotle divined the full-fledged specimen [economics] from the embryo’’, adding that ‘‘his famous distinction of householding proper and moneymaking, in the introductory chapter of his Politics, was probably the most prophetic pointer ever made in the realm of the social sciences’’ (Polanyi [1944] 1983, p.84). R. F. Crespo, Philosophy of the Economy, SpringerBriefs in Philosophy, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02648-0_5, The Author(s) 2013
59
60
5 Economics and Ethics
The emancipation initiated by Mill consolidated throughout the twentieth century. However, looking back, it is safe to say that the study of the economy was closely linked to ethics for 2,200 years, while the separation of the two only dates back 130 years. Will the earlier notion return in the future? The work of economists like Amartya Sen is promising in this respect. Sen (1987, pp. 3–7) distinguishes between the tradition of economics rela
Data Loading...
