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?
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Hutcheson's opposing view different from Smith's? While Smith did believe in self-interest, he also believed that was in one's self-interest to help others and "do the right thing", as they say. Smith's idea of the "impartial observer" that governed our behavior may not be that different from what Hutcheson is suggesting. Or is it?
ReplyDeleteI believe that in today's society and economy, Hutcheson's and Mandeville's views have become one in the same. Yes I believe we are all in many ways self-interested. However, in a developed world where we operate through trade and commerce, our ability to cater to others' wants and needs plays a huge role in the volume of our success. In this respect, we must not only know how to maximize our utility, but in which way we can meet the needs and wants of others in order to get what we want/need in return. Both Mandeville's and Hutcheson's views apply to a part of this.
ReplyDeleteIn today's society, I think that Hutcheson's view would apply to our modern society more. Though remnants of Mandeville's view still exist in some corners of thought. I would insist on Hutcheson though, due to the mix between a concern for others and a self-interest that everyone holds for themselves. In the global and interconnected nature of trade in the modern world, one could propose the argument that through seeking self-interest, one is in fact focusing on the interests of others. In a sense the interests of the community as a whole become the self-interest that we seek to protect. However, I do not think that there is a clear line between which view is more present in the markets today. I would put more emphasis on a mix the ideas of Hutcheson and Mandeville. This mix being through the presence of a self-interest and a growing concern for philanthropic thoughts and efforts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how Trent approached this question. I think that Hutcheson's view is just a further developed definition of the same concept that Mandeville believes in. If we "voluntarily" do what's best for society, than does that include looking out for others and their interests/wants? I believe so. As we have mentioned before, each member of society is dependent on others in society. In order for one person to be successful in their business, they have to put into consideration the wants of the consumer. While they consider the consumers' wants, they are also fulfilling their self-interest.
ReplyDeleteAnother economist who has a different perspective on self-interest is Gary Becker. Do you all agree with his interpretation of self-interest as a "method of analysis" and not simply an assumption of particular motivations? He discusses this topic in his lecture "The Economic Way of Looking at Life" at the beginning of the lecture.
I actually agree with Becker's perspective on self-interest, although I don't see how it can be applied on a economic basis. Becker's perspective is a complex one, which takes into account the subjective side of things. Each individual comes from a different background and set of experiences that have shaped their individual perspectives, tastes, and ideas. All of these things and more come into play in how they view and value things. Because of this subjectivity their is no real way to look at how self-interest impacts demand or other economic ideas because it is impossible to understand how each individual views things. I believe that while Becker's perspective is correct, Mandeville and Hutcheson provide a more simplistic approach to self-interest that is easier to apply to economics. In this case it may not just be about what is right, but what you can also use to explain social and economic phenomena more in-depth.
ReplyDelete