Advertisement

Economics and Ethics I

Formal Ethics
  • Peter Koslowski
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 17)

Abstract

The preceding chapter has shown that the market can perform its coordination function fully only when there exists a minimum of mutual, justified trust that the other market participants will comply with ethical rules, because otherwise the transaction costs of the market become too high and the repetition of business relationships is reduced to a smaller and, in terms of allocation theory, inefficient size. Market coordination does not function so ideally that the pursuit of self-interest by market participants leads to the efficiency of the entire economy without consideration of the ethical norms of contract compliance and without transaction costs resulting from the absence of trust. Ethics is, therefore, by no means superfluous in the competitive market. The ethical rules, for their part, are not appropriated to such a universal extent that ethical failure is excluded and the religious assurance of ethics is superfluous. Only if ethics is universally acknowledged and the assurance problem is solved will ethical failure be avoided and will it be unnecessary to compensate for ethical failure by religious assurance and to validate ethics religiously.

Keywords

Human Person Economic Principle Formal Ethic Ethical Rule Perfect Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Cf. Jon Elster, Ulysses and the Sirens, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge. 1984). pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oswald Schwemmer, Philosophie der Praxis (Frankfurt, 1971), p. 114.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. E. G. West (Indianapolis, 1976), p. 312: “The pleasure which we are to enjoy ten years hence interests us so little in comparison with that which we may enjoy to-day; the passion which the first excites is naturally so weak in comparison with that violent emotion which the second is apt to give occasion to, that the one could never be any balance to the other, unless it was supported by the sense of propriety, by the consciousness that we merited the esteem and approbation of every body.”Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno — On Reconstruction of the Social Order (Rome. 1931): “Expending larger incomes so that opportunity for gainful work may be abundant, provided, however, that this work is applied to producing really useful goods, ought to be considered. as We deduce from the principles of the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, II–II. Q. 134) an outstanding exemplification of the virtue of munificence and one particularly suited to the needs of the times.”Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cf. Richard B. McKenzie, “The Economic Dimension of Ethical Behavior,” Ethics. 87 (1977), p. 219: “Needless to say, persons with high discount rates on future income… would be less inclined to behave ethically.”Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The condition of a low time-preference or discount rate for the present as a preliminary stage of the ethical is also in agreement with the observation of Robert Axelrod. The Evotution of Cooperation (New York, 1984), pp. 124–28, that a decrease in the preference for present utility and a reduction of uncertainty about the future increase the readiness for cooperation in interactions and reduce the tendency toward non-cooperatively taking advantage of other persons. The anticipation of repeat business in the present increases the readiness to cooperate, as well as both the inclination toward and the probability of repeat business.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James M. Buchanan, “Ethical Rules, Expected Values, and Large Numbers,” Ethics. 76 (1965), pp. 10–1l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. “Economic Analogues for the Generalization Argument,” Ethics, 74 (1964), pp. 300–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Part II, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, 1987), p. 270: The childish rigorism with which 1 at that time distinguished between rule and exception, in life as well as in grammar, has certainly been mitigated, but I still have the distinction with me. I know how to call it up, especially when I see you and your kind, who seem to advance the doctrine that the exception is the more important — indeed, that the rule exists only so that the exception can show up to advantage.”Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cf. Koslowski, “Economy Principle, Maximizing, and the Co-Ordination of Individuals in Economics and Philosophy,” in Koslowski, ed., Economics and Philosophy (Tübingen. 1985), pp. 39–67, for a discussion of the range of maximization concepts.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Augustine, The City of God, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan (Washington. 1952), Book X, Chap. 3, pp. 121–22.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    -, The City of God, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan (Washington. 1952), Book X, Chap. 3 Ibid., p. 121. On the philosophy of Augustine, see also Koslowski, Gesellschaft und Staat (Stuttgart, 1982), pp. 58–90.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. Olive Wyon (Chicago, 1981), Vol. I, p. 55.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Augustine, The City of God, Book X, Chap. 3, p. 122.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    On Hegel’s concept of splitting, see Koslowski, Gesellschaft und Staat, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, p. 56.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    François Fénelon, Dissertatio de amore puro, in Oeuvres complètes (Paris. 1851). Vol. III. p. 424: «Deus … creaturam suam amat, non ex motivo suae beatitudinis. quae ex hoc nullatenus pendet; sed gratis amat, non ut ex eo quod amat, aliquid proveniat sibi, et suae beatitudini perficiendae conducat. Eâ puré gratuitâ voluntate mundum extra se condidit; voluntate aequè gratuitâ homines lapsos in Christo redemit. Haec est ea magna voluntas; hie est ille perfectus amor, nostri amoris pro modulo forma et exemplar. Ad illius imaginem ac similitudinem facti. debemus velie et amare, quemadmodum ipse vult et amat, id est gratis et absque beatitudinis comparandae motivo.»Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, Cinquième écrit ou mémoire de M l’Évêque de Meaux à M. l’Archevêque de Cambrai, in Oeuvres Complètes (Paris. 1846), Vol. IX, p. 368: «Il n’ appartient qu’à Dieu seul d’ aimer sans besoin; notre besoin essential nous attache et nous assujettit à lui comme à celui qui nous rend heureux en se donnant lui-même.»Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Twenty-three of Fénelon’s propositions were condemned by Pope Innocent XII in 1699. On Fénelon, see Robert Spaemann, Reflexion und Spontaneität (Stuttgart, 2nd Ed.. 1990). especially pp. 34–57.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Ludwig von Mises, „Soziologie und Geschichte,“ Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, 61 (1929), p. 485. cf. below, Section 6.1, pp. 143–49.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Max Weber, Economy and Society. ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York. 1968), Vol. I, pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    -, Economy and Society. ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York. 1968), Vol. I Ibid., pp. 24–26.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    Mises, „Soziologie und Geschichte,“ p. 479.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    Mises, Human Action (New Haven, 1949), p. 18: “Human action is necessarily always rational. The term ‘rational action’ is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such.”Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    Karl Popper, „La rationalite et le statut du principe de rationalité:“ in Jacques Rueff and Emil M. Claassen, eds., Les fondements philosophiques des systèmes économiques (Paris. 1967). pp. 142–50.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (London, 1961), Proposition 5.4731. p. 47.Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    -. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (London, 1961) Ibid., Proposition 6.3211, p. 67.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    -. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (London, 1961) Ibid., Preface, p. 4.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Lewis White Beck (New York, 1959), p. 39.Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Beck (New York, 1985), p. 30.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    R. C. O. Matthews, in “Morality, Competition, and Efficiency,” The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 49 (1981), p. 295, overlooks this distinction between the universalization of actions and the universalization of maxims. He raises against Kant the objection that the individual would no longer be able to do anything at all, if he had to examine the universalizability of all of his actions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 34.
    Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 39. Kant’s solution to the problem of understanding the relationship between the individual case and the natural law, and his definition of natural law for the concept of nature in ethics and “human nature” leaves questions open. of course, because the particular receives too little space in his ethical theory. Cf. below, Section 3.5. p.104.Google Scholar
  33. 35.
    Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, p. 17.Google Scholar
  34. 36.
    Heinrich Rickert, Science and History, trans. George Reisman (Princeton, 1962), p. 57. Rickert introduces this principle thus: “With the object of making clear and explicit two purely logical, and hence purely formal, concepts of nature and history — by which I mean not two different domains of reality, but the same reality seen from two different points of view — I myself have attempted to formulate the fundamental logical problem of classifying the sciences according to their methods in the following way…” (p. 56). See also Rickert, The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science, trans. Guy Oakes (Cambridge, 1986).Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    Matthews, “Morality, Competition, and Efficiency,” p. 295.Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    Cf. McKenzie, “The Economic Dimension of Ethical Behavior,” p. 221.Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    -, “The Economic Dimension of Ethical Behavior,” Ibid., p. 214.Google Scholar
  38. 41.
    Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Beck (New York. 1985). p. 30.Google Scholar
  39. 42.
    On the problem of market failure and democratic failure as failure of discourse. see Koslowski, „Markt-und Demokratieversagen?“ Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 24 (1983), pp. 166–87. and “Market and Democracy as Discourses,” in Koslowski. ed. Individual Liberty and Democratic Decision-Making (Tübingen, 1987), pp. 58–92.Google Scholar
  40. 43.
    Johannes Messner, Sozialökonomik und Sozialethik, 2nd Ed. (Paderbom, 1929), pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar
  41. 44.
    Cf. Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (Chicago, 1976), p. 287.Google Scholar
  42. 45.
    Cf. Robert Spaemann, „Nebenwirkungen a1s moralisches Problem,“ in Spaemann, Kritik der politischen Utopie (Stuttgart, 1977), pp. 167–82.Google Scholar
  43. 46.
    Mises, „Soziologie und Geschichte,“ p. 467, and Schütz, The Phenomenology of the Social World, trans. George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert (Evanston, 1967), § 49, pp. 243-48.Google Scholar
  44. 47.
    Schütz, The Phenomenology ofthe Social World, § 49, p. 241.Google Scholar
  45. 48.
    On the problem of bio-economy — socio-biology, see Koslowski, Evolution und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Koslowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Forschungsinstitut für Philosophie HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations