亚当·斯密的国富论的基础是审慎和自律的美德,而不是杰里米·边沁(Jeremy Bentham)的Max U或市场看不见的手

M. E. Brady
{"title":"亚当·斯密的国富论的基础是审慎和自律的美德,而不是杰里米·边沁(Jeremy Bentham)的Max U或市场看不见的手","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3438898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790) is the foundation for the Wealth of Nations(1776).Smith recognized, like all other major spiritual and moral teachers, that Prudence is the most important virtue because nothing can be accomplished without it being applied successfully first. The virtue of Prudence applies in all facets of life. However, there were individual philosophers who rejected virtue ethics. One such individual was Jeremy Bentham (another was Karl Marx). Bentham sought to replace Smith’s Virtue Ethics with his Principle of Maximizing Utility. Bentham argued that only his principle of maximizing utility could support the study of ethics. \n \nBentham attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics approach in 1787 in the same fashion as J.Viner attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics in 1927. \n \nBoth Bentham and Viner argued that \n• Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (virtue ethics) is very flawed \n• Smith’s support of interest rate control laws and skewing of bank credit to the sober people and away from the prodigals,imprudent risk takers, and projectors (Bentham was a strong supporter and employee all his life of the major projector company, the British East India Company, which started the American Revolutionary War) was very ill advised \n• Smith’s analysis of the macroscopic impact that the prodigals, imprudent risk takers ,and projectors have on an economy,endangering the sober people, was incorrect because the prodigals, imprudent risk takers, and projectors were really just innovative entrepreneurs pursuing their own self interest \n• Smith never actually made a single advance in the field of economics (political economy) in his lifetime as all of the parts of his theory were already available from other, earlier sources, which he failed to acknowledge properly and cite \n \nSmith responded to Bentham’s two pronged attack in 1787 by rewriting major parts of the The Theory of Moral Sentiments so that its virtue ethics message would be fine tuned in order to target legislators and government officials, which would counter the utilitarian message of Bentham’s Defense of Usury and The Principles of Morals and Legislation. There was now a clear cut choice between two completely different ethical systems upon which to build capitalism. \n \nSmith envisaged a completely different approach to capitalism than Bentham. Like the inhabitants of Augustine’s Earthly City and Heavenly City,there were two opposing groups, the middle class sober people, who practiced virtue ethics, and the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors, who practiced utilitarian ethics. The proper role of government was to use legislation, law and sanction to prevent the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors from damaging the middle class, sober people. \n \nThe Smith and Bentham views about the correct evolution of capitalism over time are as different as night and day. \n \nA major confusion among economists, except G.Kennedy, since Smith’s death in 1790,is to confuse the operation and impacts of the virtue of prudence with the Invisible Hand. It is simply impossible for any Invisible Hand of the market to conceivably operate unless the sober people completely dominate the political, economic, social and institutional levers of power. Smith’s comments about the Invisible Hand in Part IV of the Wealth of Nations are simply a repetition of his comments in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790), about the racer in a running competition always doing his very best to win the race, being applied to those engaged in a comparable economic race doing the best they can to sell their particular products. This brings out a positive response from their competitors, who also run and train harder. This positive interactive feedback effect is referred to metaphorically as an invisible hand, although it is actually the result of all of the sober people simultaneously applying the virtue of prudence. None of this has anything to do with Bentham’s Max U utilitarian approach. \n \nOnce the gain, profit, or savings has been won, it is now time to apply the Virtue of Self Command (the Virtues of Temperance and Courage) to invest to expand one’s business.The correct choice is not financial manipulation , stock market speculation or conspicuous consumption, but investment in physical durable capital goods, worker training,and inventories of intermediate parts and materials.Business success now allows one to apply the final virtues of justice (fairness, equity), magnanimity and benevolence as worker wages and benefits can be increased.The result is opulence for all.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Virtues of Prudence and Self-Command, not Jeremy Bentham’s Max U or the Invisible Hand of the Market, are Adam Smith’s Foundation for the Wealth of Nations\",\"authors\":\"M. E. Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3438898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790) is the foundation for the Wealth of Nations(1776).Smith recognized, like all other major spiritual and moral teachers, that Prudence is the most important virtue because nothing can be accomplished without it being applied successfully first. The virtue of Prudence applies in all facets of life. However, there were individual philosophers who rejected virtue ethics. One such individual was Jeremy Bentham (another was Karl Marx). Bentham sought to replace Smith’s Virtue Ethics with his Principle of Maximizing Utility. Bentham argued that only his principle of maximizing utility could support the study of ethics. \\n \\nBentham attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics approach in 1787 in the same fashion as J.Viner attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics in 1927. \\n \\nBoth Bentham and Viner argued that \\n• Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (virtue ethics) is very flawed \\n• Smith’s support of interest rate control laws and skewing of bank credit to the sober people and away from the prodigals,imprudent risk takers, and projectors (Bentham was a strong supporter and employee all his life of the major projector company, the British East India Company, which started the American Revolutionary War) was very ill advised \\n• Smith’s analysis of the macroscopic impact that the prodigals, imprudent risk takers ,and projectors have on an economy,endangering the sober people, was incorrect because the prodigals, imprudent risk takers, and projectors were really just innovative entrepreneurs pursuing their own self interest \\n• Smith never actually made a single advance in the field of economics (political economy) in his lifetime as all of the parts of his theory were already available from other, earlier sources, which he failed to acknowledge properly and cite \\n \\nSmith responded to Bentham’s two pronged attack in 1787 by rewriting major parts of the The Theory of Moral Sentiments so that its virtue ethics message would be fine tuned in order to target legislators and government officials, which would counter the utilitarian message of Bentham’s Defense of Usury and The Principles of Morals and Legislation. There was now a clear cut choice between two completely different ethical systems upon which to build capitalism. \\n \\nSmith envisaged a completely different approach to capitalism than Bentham. Like the inhabitants of Augustine’s Earthly City and Heavenly City,there were two opposing groups, the middle class sober people, who practiced virtue ethics, and the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors, who practiced utilitarian ethics. The proper role of government was to use legislation, law and sanction to prevent the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors from damaging the middle class, sober people. \\n \\nThe Smith and Bentham views about the correct evolution of capitalism over time are as different as night and day. \\n \\nA major confusion among economists, except G.Kennedy, since Smith’s death in 1790,is to confuse the operation and impacts of the virtue of prudence with the Invisible Hand. It is simply impossible for any Invisible Hand of the market to conceivably operate unless the sober people completely dominate the political, economic, social and institutional levers of power. Smith’s comments about the Invisible Hand in Part IV of the Wealth of Nations are simply a repetition of his comments in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790), about the racer in a running competition always doing his very best to win the race, being applied to those engaged in a comparable economic race doing the best they can to sell their particular products. This brings out a positive response from their competitors, who also run and train harder. This positive interactive feedback effect is referred to metaphorically as an invisible hand, although it is actually the result of all of the sober people simultaneously applying the virtue of prudence. None of this has anything to do with Bentham’s Max U utilitarian approach. \\n \\nOnce the gain, profit, or savings has been won, it is now time to apply the Virtue of Self Command (the Virtues of Temperance and Courage) to invest to expand one’s business.The correct choice is not financial manipulation , stock market speculation or conspicuous consumption, but investment in physical durable capital goods, worker training,and inventories of intermediate parts and materials.Business success now allows one to apply the final virtues of justice (fairness, equity), magnanimity and benevolence as worker wages and benefits can be increased.The result is opulence for all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

《道德情操论》(1759;1790)是《国富论》(1776)的基础。像所有其他重要的精神和道德导师一样,斯密认识到谨慎是最重要的美德,因为如果不首先成功地运用它,任何事情都无法完成。谨慎的美德适用于生活的各个方面。然而,也有个别哲学家反对美德伦理学。其中一个这样的人是杰里米·边沁(另一个是卡尔·马克思)。边沁试图用效用最大化原则取代斯密的美德伦理学。边沁认为,只有他的效用最大化原则才能支持伦理学的研究。边沁在1787年攻击史密斯的美德伦理学方法,就像维纳在1927年攻击史密斯的美德伦理学一样。边沁和维纳都认为,•斯密的《道德情操论》(美德伦理学)存在很大缺陷•斯密支持利率控制法,并将银行信贷倾斜给清醒的人,远离浪子、鲁莽的冒险者和放映机(边沁一生都是大型放映机公司——英国东印度公司——的坚定支持者和雇员,•史密斯对浪子、鲁莽的冒险者和投影仪对经济的宏观影响的分析,危及清醒的人,是不正确的,因为浪子、鲁莽的冒险者、实际上,史密斯一生中从未在经济学(政治经济学)领域取得任何进步,因为他的理论的所有部分都已经从其他更早的来源获得了。1787年,斯密对边沁的两种攻击做出了回应,他重写了《道德情操论》的主要部分,使其美德伦理信息得以调整,以针对立法者和政府官员,这将与边沁的《为高利贷辩护》和《道德与立法原则》中的功利主义信息相对抗。在建立资本主义的两种完全不同的道德体系之间,现在有了一个明确的选择。斯密设想了一种与边沁完全不同的资本主义研究方法。就像奥古斯丁的“尘世之城”和“天国之城”的居民一样,有两个对立的群体,中产阶级是清醒的人,他们奉行美德伦理,而上层阶级是投影仪,鲁莽的冒险者和投影仪,他们奉行功利伦理。政府的作用应该是通过立法、法律和制裁,防止上层社会的放映者(鲁莽的冒险者)和放映者伤害中产阶级(清醒的国民)。斯密和边沁对资本主义正确演变的看法,就像白天和黑夜一样不同。自1790年史密斯去世以来,除了肯尼迪(G.Kennedy)之外,经济学家们的一个主要困惑是,把审慎美德的运作和影响与看不见的手(Invisible Hand)混为一谈。除非清醒的人完全控制了政治、经济、社会和制度的权力杠杆,否则市场的任何看不见的手都不可能令人信服地发挥作用。斯密在《国富论》第四部分中对看不见的手的评论,只是他在《道德情操论》(1759;1790年),关于赛跑者在赛跑中总是尽他最大的努力赢得比赛,适用于那些从事类似经济竞赛的人尽他们最大的努力销售他们的特殊产品。这给他们的竞争对手带来了积极的反应,他们也更加努力地跑步和训练。这种积极的互动反馈效应被比喻为看不见的手,尽管它实际上是所有清醒的人同时运用谨慎美德的结果。这些都与边沁的最大功利主义方法毫无关系。一旦获得收益、利润或储蓄,现在是时候运用自制的美德(节制和勇气的美德)来投资,扩大自己的业务。正确的选择不是金融操纵、股市投机或炫耀性消费,而是投资于有形的耐用资本货物、工人培训以及中间零部件和材料的库存。如今,商业上的成功使人们能够运用正义(公平、公平)、宽宏大量和仁慈等最终美德,从而提高工人的工资和福利。结果是所有人都富裕起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Virtues of Prudence and Self-Command, not Jeremy Bentham’s Max U or the Invisible Hand of the Market, are Adam Smith’s Foundation for the Wealth of Nations
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790) is the foundation for the Wealth of Nations(1776).Smith recognized, like all other major spiritual and moral teachers, that Prudence is the most important virtue because nothing can be accomplished without it being applied successfully first. The virtue of Prudence applies in all facets of life. However, there were individual philosophers who rejected virtue ethics. One such individual was Jeremy Bentham (another was Karl Marx). Bentham sought to replace Smith’s Virtue Ethics with his Principle of Maximizing Utility. Bentham argued that only his principle of maximizing utility could support the study of ethics. Bentham attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics approach in 1787 in the same fashion as J.Viner attacked Smith’s Virtue Ethics in 1927. Both Bentham and Viner argued that • Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (virtue ethics) is very flawed • Smith’s support of interest rate control laws and skewing of bank credit to the sober people and away from the prodigals,imprudent risk takers, and projectors (Bentham was a strong supporter and employee all his life of the major projector company, the British East India Company, which started the American Revolutionary War) was very ill advised • Smith’s analysis of the macroscopic impact that the prodigals, imprudent risk takers ,and projectors have on an economy,endangering the sober people, was incorrect because the prodigals, imprudent risk takers, and projectors were really just innovative entrepreneurs pursuing their own self interest • Smith never actually made a single advance in the field of economics (political economy) in his lifetime as all of the parts of his theory were already available from other, earlier sources, which he failed to acknowledge properly and cite Smith responded to Bentham’s two pronged attack in 1787 by rewriting major parts of the The Theory of Moral Sentiments so that its virtue ethics message would be fine tuned in order to target legislators and government officials, which would counter the utilitarian message of Bentham’s Defense of Usury and The Principles of Morals and Legislation. There was now a clear cut choice between two completely different ethical systems upon which to build capitalism. Smith envisaged a completely different approach to capitalism than Bentham. Like the inhabitants of Augustine’s Earthly City and Heavenly City,there were two opposing groups, the middle class sober people, who practiced virtue ethics, and the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors, who practiced utilitarian ethics. The proper role of government was to use legislation, law and sanction to prevent the upper class projectors, imprudent risk takers, and projectors from damaging the middle class, sober people. The Smith and Bentham views about the correct evolution of capitalism over time are as different as night and day. A major confusion among economists, except G.Kennedy, since Smith’s death in 1790,is to confuse the operation and impacts of the virtue of prudence with the Invisible Hand. It is simply impossible for any Invisible Hand of the market to conceivably operate unless the sober people completely dominate the political, economic, social and institutional levers of power. Smith’s comments about the Invisible Hand in Part IV of the Wealth of Nations are simply a repetition of his comments in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 1790), about the racer in a running competition always doing his very best to win the race, being applied to those engaged in a comparable economic race doing the best they can to sell their particular products. This brings out a positive response from their competitors, who also run and train harder. This positive interactive feedback effect is referred to metaphorically as an invisible hand, although it is actually the result of all of the sober people simultaneously applying the virtue of prudence. None of this has anything to do with Bentham’s Max U utilitarian approach. Once the gain, profit, or savings has been won, it is now time to apply the Virtue of Self Command (the Virtues of Temperance and Courage) to invest to expand one’s business.The correct choice is not financial manipulation , stock market speculation or conspicuous consumption, but investment in physical durable capital goods, worker training,and inventories of intermediate parts and materials.Business success now allows one to apply the final virtues of justice (fairness, equity), magnanimity and benevolence as worker wages and benefits can be increased.The result is opulence for all.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信