The Denial of Virtue

Abstract

When a New York City man risked his own life to save a stranger on the subway tracks, the New York Times interpreted his behavior not in terms of virtue but as a product of certain ‘hard-wiring’ he happened to possess. In denying virtue, the Times followed a school of thought that is pervasive in social science (referred to in this paper as the ‘individualists’) who, for example, explain charitable donations by pointing out tax deductions, explain volunteer work by revealing the opportunities contained therein to meet other singles, and so on. Actually, the assumptions and arguments which ground this widespread ‘denial of virtue’ are both empirically and normatively flawed, and the theory itself is belied by data about people doing good for moral reasons. Evidence drawn from personal introspection, from empirical studies of human behavior, from analysis of voting as a civil act, from interpreting peoples’ reaction to Alzheimer’s disease, from critical inspection of the logic of ‘individualist’ social explanations, and from a normative criticism of the products of the ‘individualist’ approach all support a rejection of the ‘individualist’ approach. The deniers of virtue should heed the evidence and pay mind to the amoralizing consequences of their erroneous theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Losco, J. (1986). Understanding altruism: a critique and proposal for integrating various approaches. Political Psychology, 7(2), 323.

  2. 2.

    Buckley, C. (2007). Why our hero leapt onto the tracks and we might not. New York Times, 7 January WK3.

  3. 3.

    Smith, A. (1969). The theory of moral sentiments (p. 446). New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

  4. 4.

    Smith, A. (1937). Wealth of nations. New York: Random House, 14.

  5. 5.

    Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (p. 1). New York: Hafner.

  6. 6.

    Crouch, R. L. (1979). Human behavior: an economic approach (p. 2). North Scituate, MA: Doxbury.

  7. 7.

    Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, et al. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology vol. 2, 4th ed., (p. 283). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  8. 8.

    Graeber, D. (2007). Army of altruists. Harper’s Magazine, 31–38, January.

  9. 9.

    Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy (p. 28). New York: Harper & Row.

  10. 10.

    Tullock, G. (1974). The social dilemma: the economics of war and reconstruction (pp. 46, 140). Blacksburg, VA: University Publications.

  11. 11.

    Brandt, R. B. (1982). Two concepts of utility. In H. B. Miller and W. H. Williams (Eds.) The limits of utilitarianism (p. 169). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  12. 12.

    Kwilecki, S., & Wilson, L. S. (1998). Was Mother Teresa maximizing her utility?: An idiographic application of rational choice theory. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37(2): 206.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., 211.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., 213.

  16. 16.

    Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments (p. 9). Oxford: Clarendon.

  17. 17.

    Hornstein, H. A., et al. (1968) Influence of a model’s feelings about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison to other observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 222–226.

  18. 18.

    Hornstein, H. A., et al. (1971, 1976). Effects of sentiment and completion of a helping act on observer helping: A case for socially mediated Zeigarnik effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 110; Cruelty and Kindness (pp. 95–96). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  19. 19.

    Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: An experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 154, 284.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 289.

  21. 21.

    Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221.

  22. 22.

    Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289–299.

  23. 23.

    Fischbacher, F., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 787, 23 October.

  24. 24.

    Wells, A. (1970). Social institutions (p. 47). London: Heinemann.

  25. 25.

    Etzioni, A. (1988) The moral dimension: Toward a new economics (p. 59) New York: Free Press.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., 60.

  27. 27.

    Switzer, G. E., et al. (1997). Understanding donors’ motivations: A study of unrelated bone marrow donors. Social Science and Medicine, 45(1), 138.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., 137.

  29. 29.

    Mueller, D. (1989). Public choice 2nd ed (p. 349). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  30. 30.

    Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice theory (p. 137). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  31. 31.

    Fong, C. M., Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2005). Reciprocity and the welfare state. In H. Gintis, et al. (Ed.) Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life (pp. 278–279). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  32. 32.

    For instance, parents are said to take care of their children, in anticipation that children take care of them when they grow old, disregarding that there is no way to enforce this implicit contract and hence only very naïve parents would invest in their children rather than in enlarging their retirement accounts if this were really their motive.

  33. 33.

    Roberts, R. D. (1986). Why do we feel guilty tipping less than 15%? Wall Street Journal 1, 25 November.

  34. 34.

    Solow, R. M. (1981). Replies to Steven Kelman. Regulation, 40, March/April.

  35. 35.

    Dyke, C. (1981). Philosophy of economics (p. 29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  36. 36.

    Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Modern labor economics: theory and public policy (p. 32). Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman.

  37. 37.

    Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior (p. 172). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  38. 38.

    Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (1982). Is public choice immoral? Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Meetings, San Antonio, Texas, 6, 5–9 March.

  39. 39.

    Wermeil, S. (1984). Is analysis out of touch?: Scholars blend law, economics. Wall Street Journal, 64, 18 December 1984.

  40. 40.

    Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else? Journal of Public Economists, 15, 295–310.

  41. 41.

    See also Robert H. Frank, What Price the Moral High Ground?: Ethical Dilemmas in Competitive Environments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 155–78.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amitai Etzioni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Etzioni, A. The Denial of Virtue. Soc 45, 12–19 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-007-9048-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Virtue
  • Social science
  • Sociology
  • Moral behavior
  • Economics