Hutcheson's view of human nature: Are people naturally selfish?

To fully understand Francis Hutcheson's views on human nature we first need to explore the criticism he has of Mandeville. Bernard Mandeville challenged the notion that Christian morality was what  held society together. His views and moral of his tale reflected that "people are naturally selfish, but in a well-ordered society they will be induced voluntarily to do what is best" (Backhouse 113). He believed private vices could potentially produce public benefits. 

Hutcheson's criticism came into play when he challenged the idea that people were purely self interested. He argued that men were indeed not selfish, and had true concern for others. Hutcheson felt that people were motivated by more then just their own self interest. He thought that feelings for others and the desire to better one's condition were the real motivational factors. Tying this in with Adam Smith, Hutcheson also expressed the importance of the need for division of labour. Overall I find these opposing views on people self interest and motivation very compelling. Considering the society and economy we live in today do you think Hutcheson's or Mandeville's perspective better fits the bill of how people behave and act? 

Is Economics Ethical?

After studying different aspects of economics, I’ve come to question the relationship between both economics and ethics.  Do they work in a converging way, where they coincide and work together, or in a contrasting way, where they are simply completely separate entities?  A lot of economic ideas imply there is a lack of ethics.  For example, one main economic idea that Adam Smith discussed in his Wealth of Nations is that people work and make decisions based on their self-interest.  Another example of a lack of ethics within economics is that there is so much focus on markets, profits, efficiency, prices, and equilibriums that there leaves little room for a focus on a moral code or ethical behavior for a society or an individual.  Also, some economists have developed theories based on the mechanical view of human beings rather than considering the side of human beings as simply human beings with emotions and sentiments. 

From a business perspective, is it good or bad for a business to act ethically?  What is the opportunity cost for a business that decides to act ethically?

Do you think economics incorporates ethics?  Is it even possible for economics to consist of a moral code foundation? 

Malthus: Ethics in Population Control

In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus addressed the concern for the human population's growth and the toll that it would eventually take on the resources available to sustain it.  Claiming that population would experience "geometric growth," while resources (i.e. food supply) would only grow at "arithmetic growth." (Backhouse 134)  Malthus begins with providing two sources to handle population growth.  Through preventative checks lowering the birth rate (misery) and positive checks increasing the death rate (vice), Malthus proposed to format a type of population control.  In a further addition of the Essay, he added the last category of moral restraint to his other solutions for population growth, thereby covering for his evidence lacking in supporting facts. (134)  Failing to have an optimistic outlook on human nature, Malthus tried to give moral guidance through his controls on population. (135)

While Malthus did have a point about population growth becoming a problem, he failed to bring the factor of technology into his discussion. Technology allows for an exponential increase in resources, thereby allowing for a larger population growth than Malthus would have otherwise predicted.  Lacking this factor, the population situation would have indeed been concerning.  However, with the factor of technology, this concern need not have been as pressing.

Technology aside, there is a larger question that I see here, and that would be the ethics inherent in population control. When Malthus gives examples of misery through war and famine, and then vice through war, infanticide, prostitution, and contraception, he seems cold and cruel to the humanity present I would consider as present in this situation. (134)  Ethically could you really control the ability of one to have children or use their body as they see fit?  Are natural rights a factor in his argument at all?

Existence of Economic Thought Prior to Adam Smith

             Although Adam Smith is often regarded as the father of economics, there were many developments in economics before Adam Smith.  In fact, some argue that Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations does not include a single original idea and is merely a collection of economic thought that was already developed (Backhouse 130).  Although often ignored, the economic thought before Adam Smith was important and much of the thought is still relevant today.  In the ancient world, for example, Plato advanced the idea of efficiency and advocated specialization as a means to being efficient (18).  In business, and markets in general, there is always the concern with being efficient and the debate on whether or not workers should specialize still takes place.  In the middle ages, Ibn Kaldun put forth the idea of the process of economic development, describing how a nation transitions from peak points to trough points (38).  This is indicative of the business cycle where the economy is constantly going through high points and low points.  In seventeenth-century England, William Petty compiled a list of national accounts and was able to make estimates of the figures on a national level (69).  Compiling national accounts lists and estimates is, of course, still used today.  While these are only a few examples, there are many other areas of important economic theories developed before the time of Adam Smith.  Yet Adam Smith still receives that majority of the credit for the beginnings of economics.  Why these earlier writers are often ignored, I am not sure.  It could be because the ideas were developed here and there and not on a larger scale.  Adam Smith was able to pull all of these ideas together into a collection, and that could be a reason for his praise.  Adam Smith also wrote his Wealth of Nations at the same time as the Industrial Revolution was underway.  As the Industrial Revolution is regarded as the reason for large economic growth in various nations, Adam Smith’s writings seem to coincide with this progress and advancement.  It could also be due to the fact that, as an individualistic society motivated by profit, some of the early economists who wrote about the harmful effects of self-interest and the accumulation of too much wealth do not appear to accurately represent some current views of economics.  Although Adam Smith was concerned with having a moral society, he also advocated self-interest and explained how the two could be related.

Self-Interest?

I've been saving this link for our discussion on Adam Smith. It's an opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal. The author, Matt Ridley, often writes on things philosophical and economic. Here he's asking whether we benefit more from trading with others or from teamwork?

It's an interesting question. Both of them involve cooperation. One can make the case that teamwork involves a clearer application of the comparative advantage principle. But one can also demonstrate that the "us vs. them" view is bound to involve costs that wouldn't have to be incurred.

Read it over and try to relate it to our discussion about Smith, the invisible hand, and the impartial spectator. You can even discuss economic economic systems (Mandeville, etc.). The article has lots of possibilities and I'm keen to see which ones you see and how you see them connecting.