Menu Expand

Positive Endogenous Ethics: Smith’s Unique Contribution to Moral Analysis

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style

Witztum, A. Positive Endogenous Ethics: Smith’s Unique Contribution to Moral Analysis. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 99999(), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.384008
Witztum, Amos "Positive Endogenous Ethics: Smith’s Unique Contribution to Moral Analysis" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 99999., 2024, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.384008
Witztum, Amos (2024): Positive Endogenous Ethics: Smith’s Unique Contribution to Moral Analysis, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 99999, iss. , 1-22, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.384008

Format

Positive Endogenous Ethics: Smith’s Unique Contribution to Moral Analysis

Witztum, Amos

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. (2024), Online First : pp. 1–22

Additional Information

Article Details

Author Details

Amos Witztum, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences (CPNSS), London School of Economics Houghton Street WC2 A 2AE London, United Kingdom

References

  1. Evensky, J. 1987. “The Two Voices of Adam Smith: Moral Philosopher and Social Critic.” History of Political Economy 19 (3): 447 – 68.  Google Scholar
  2. Fleischacker, S. 1999. A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Force, P. 2003. Self-Interest before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  4. Griswold, C. L. 1999. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  5. Haerpfer, C., R. Inglehart, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin, and B. Puranen (eds.). 2022. World Values Survey: Round Seven. Country-Pooled Datafile Version 6.0 (WVS 2017 – 2022). Madrid and Vienna: JD Systems Institute and WVSA Secretariat.  Google Scholar
  6. Hancock, R. 1963. “A Note on Hare’s The Language of Morals.” The Philosophical Quarterly 13 (50): 56 – 63.  Google Scholar
  7. Hare, R. M. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  Google Scholar
  8. Hume, D. (1740) 1969. Treatise of Human Understanding. London: Penguin Classics.  Google Scholar
  9. Hutcheson, F. 1728. An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections. London: J. Darby & T. Browne.  Google Scholar
  10. Kant, I. (1785) 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. London: Harper and Row.  Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, G. 2011. “The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 33 (3): 385 – 402.  Google Scholar
  12. Mandeville, B. (1714) 1988. The Fable of the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  13. Polanyi, K. (1944) 2002. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Smith, A. (1759) 1982. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  15. Smith, A. (1776) 1981. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (WN), 2 vols., Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  16. Smith, A. 1978. Lectures on Jurisprudence (LJ), Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  17. Smith, A. 1982. Essays on Philosophical Subjects (EPS), Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  18. Smith, A. 1982. “The Principle which Lead and Direct Philosophical Enquiries; Illustrated by the History of Astronomy” (HA), in his Essays on Philosophical Subjects (EPS), 31 – 105.  Google Scholar
  19. Smith, A. 1982. “The Principles which Lead and Direct Philosophical Enquiries; Illustrated by the History of Ancient Physics” (HAP), in his Essays on Philosophical Subjects (EPS), 106 – 117.  Google Scholar
  20. Smith, A. 1982. “The Principles which Lead and Direct Philosophical Enquiries; Illustrated by the History of the Ancient Logics and Metaphysics” (HALM), in his Essays on Philosophical Subjects (EPS), 118 – 129.  Google Scholar
  21. Stewart, D. 1793. “Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith, LL.D. (ALW), in A. Smith (1982), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (EPS), 267 – 351.  Google Scholar
  22. Viner, J. 1927. “Adam Smith and Laissez–faire.” Journal of Political Economy 35 (2): 198 – 232.  Google Scholar
  23. Waterman, A. 2002. “Economics as Theology: Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.” Southern Economic Journal 68 (4): 907 – 21.  Google Scholar
  24. Witztum, A. 1997. “Distributional Consideration in Smith’s Concept of Economic Justice.” Economics and Philosophy 13: 242 – 59.  Google Scholar
  25. Witztum, A. 1998. “A Study into Smith’s Conception of the Human Character: Das Adam Smith Problem Revisited.” History of Political Economy 30 (3): 489 – 513.  Google Scholar
  26. Witztum, A. and T. J. Young. 2013. “Utilitarianism and the Role of Utility in Adam Smith.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 20 (4): 572 – 602.  Google Scholar
  27. Witztum, A. 2019. The Betrayal of Liberal Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  28. Young, J. 1986. “The Impartial Spectator and Natural Jurisprudence: An Interpretation of Adam Smith’s Theory of the Natural Price.” History of Political Economy 18 (3): 365 – 82.  Google Scholar

Abstract

There are two elements which make Smith’s ethics unique as well as more universal in nature. The first is that it is a positive theory of ethics in the sense that it is not about what is intrinsically good or just as it is about the way in which people form their opinion about it. The second is that it is embedded in social context in the sense that what lies behind the way in which people form their moral opinion is socially dependent as well as related to the way in which people behave. From an exegetic point of view, this also helps in explaining the dissonance that may exist between Smith’s own views about morals and what he observes as the contemporary prevailing view. Applying this to his economic analysis will yield surprising conclusions which may explain why the Wealth of Nations cannot be seen as a moral advocacy of natural liberty.