Advertisement

Bring Back the Moral Wrestler

  • Amitai Etzioni
Chapter
Part of the Library of Public Policy and Public Administration book series (LPPP, volume 11)

Abstract

Each branch of social science bears within it an implicit characterization of human nature. To an economist, humans are self-interest maximizers; to a behavioral economist, they are hopelessly irrational; to an anthropologist, they are products of a cultural time and place; to a sociologist, they are units in broad social webs and power structures; and so on. Each discipline makes a contribution to the aggregated conception of what constitutes human nature, but none can convincingly account for humans as “moral wrestlers,” as creatures that are concerned about themselves as well as questions of right versus wrong. Historically, the world’s major religions have carried the torch for man’s moral nature. Since the Enlightenment project has not sent religion off into obsolescence as promised, the practitioners of human-based sciences can still today learn from the religious conception of humans as moral wrestlers. This chapter calls on social scientists to break with their disciplines’ consensuses and refocus their image of human nature.

References

  1. Andreoni, J. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 100 (401): 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubrey, J. 1898. In Brief lives, ed. A. Clark. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Azzi, C., and R. Ehrenberg. 1975. Household allocation of time and church attendance. Journal of Political Economy 83 (1): 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedict, R. 1934. Patterns of culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, J. 1789. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from http://caae.phil.cmu.edu. Accessed 9 June 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, A.K. 2008. Deviant behavior. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/deviant-behavior.
  7. Cushman, P. 1990. Why the self is empty. American Psychologist 45 (5): 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Tella, R., R.J. McCulloch, and A.J. Oswald. 2003. The macroeconomics of happiness. The Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (4): 809–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank, J.D. 1978. Psychotherapy and the human predicament. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
  10. Freud, S. 1989. Civilization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1930).Google Scholar
  11. Frey, B.S., and A. Stutzer. 2002. What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2): 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottheil, F. 2013. Principles of economics. 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  13. Hamermesh, D.S., and N.M. Soss. 1974. An economic theory of suicide. Journal of Political Economy 82 (1): 83–98. Retrieved from http://www.becker-posner-blog.com. Accessed 26 June 2015.
  14. Hammond, P. 1975. Charity: Altruism or cooperative egoism? In Altruism, morality, and economic theory, ed. E.S. Phelps. New York: Sage Found.Google Scholar
  15. Haney, C., C. Banks, and P.G. Zimbardo. 1973. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 69–97.Google Scholar
  16. Jurges, H. 2001. Do Germans save to leave an estate? An examination of the bequest motive. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 103 (3): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, and R.H. Thaler. 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review 76 (4): 728–741.Google Scholar
  19. Lynn, M. 2006. Tipping in restaurants and around the globe: An interdisciplinary review. Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration. http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/99. Accessed 26 June 2015.
  20. Mankiw, G. 2011. Principles of microeconomics. 6th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  21. Marwell, G., and R. Ames. 1981. Economists free ride, does anyone else? Journal of Public Economics 15: 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGinnis, J. 2011. The young and the restless: Generation Y in the nonprofit workforce. Public Administration Quarterly 35 (3): 342–362.Google Scholar
  23. Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4): 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mill, J.S. 1863. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son & Bourn, West Strand. Retrieved from www.utilitarianism.com. Accessed 9 June 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Parker, K. 2014. Parenthood and happiness: It’s more complicated than you think. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/07/parenthood-and-happiness-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/.
  26. Smith, A. 1937. The wealth of nations. New York: Random House. (Original work published 1776).Google Scholar
  27. Stigler, G. 1987. The theory of price. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Thaler, R.H. 2015. Misbehaving. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, J.Q. 1993. The moral sense. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wolfers, J. 2014. How Gary Becker transformed the social sciences. New York Times. https://nyti.ms/2vtVjCN.
  31. Xefteris, D. 2012. Formalizing happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies 13 (2): 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amitai Etzioni
    • 1
  1. 1.The George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations