Well, it is in fact a good thought. But, ethics are not globally similar. A set of ethical rules followed in some parts of the world are considered as contradictory for the economical growth in the other parts.

In the world of the cats, it is not ethically wrong to hunt and capture the rats for their survival.

In the present world today, many think that, doing any thing for the sake of economic growth is right.

Until we define global ethical practices for economics, we cannot have uniform structure of ethical economics.

To some extent we can have such structures at national, regional or sub regional level.

I appreciate you for a good thought.

The concept is very good and need of the hour. But can teacher like us use the ethics in our daily lives. The first things that need to teach is to act is the ideal for others. So we start ethics , whether it may be social or economic form our sides first.

Personally, I am of the Austrian School of Economics in my own convictions, taking Ludwig Von Mises to be the most accurate observer of how economics actually works. In his terms economics is really about how the market works best: is it in an interventionist form of economics or in a non-interventionist environment? Ought government to control and manipulate the markets or ought they to be allowed to work freely? John Maynard Keynes and (somewhat differently) John Kenneth Galbraith would represent philosophies that believe very differently about the nature of the markets.

Strictly speaking, unless we are talking of controls and restrictions against abuses, addressing how Consequentialism/Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Virtue Ethics interacts with such philosophies is very subjective, and vague. However, if you wanted to pursue Applied Ethics from within the thought process of a given school of economics,and from within the framework of the laws of a given country, that would certainly be a possibility. There would seem to be ethical rules imposed on investors and representatives of financial entities by their own countries and markets. In the USA we have the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and other regulatory agencies to monitor and oversee the markets. Presumaby each country has its own agencies and its own laws.

Thus, teaching ethics as we teach economics would seem to need to be country specific and market specific. What might be acceptable in Russia may be illegal in France. What is considered economically ethical in Japan may be unethical in Israel. If one reckons with these differences then economic ethics becomes a matter of "playing by the rules" of one's own country and its markets. So this becomes a matter of Applied Ethics rather than Ethics in general.

Interesting question. Unfortunately, ethics is a difficult concept to teach. The frameworks taught at schools have a level of ethics involved with them, depending on how much they guarantee social welfare and social justice. Now, subjects or chapters regarding social and professional responsibility are important and useful and they are implemented in a few places. Ethics are more about the means than they are about the ends. Economics should be involved with the ends and the acceptable means to enact them in different contexts, such as different organizations or different countries. I think your question is a bit broad and there is more to say when we are considering microeconomics or macroeconomics, because when there is larger scope, there is larger responsibility and ethical conduct should be more scrutinized and subject to higher standards of accountability.

Economics focused on profit as part of price including price of production,transportation, marketing, and consumption but ethics focused on value. How can we conduct production, transportation/distribution, marketing based on value of honesty, integrity and compassionate to increase the consumption and for getting high profit.

economic without ethics is greedy

When you are analyzing normative models or normative questions, you are in fact introducing certain part of "ethics" such as supposed welfare maximization of a representative consumer by the government, etc.

The good thing about economics is, however, that you may also take a positive view such as in the harder sciences. You can just describe, for example, what individuals do, how they react on incentives and how government behaves. In this case there is no need to rely on "ethics" because you are describing events or explaining actions.

Finally, I would argue that you may use economic tools to analyze the "ethics" of certain individuals.

Descriptive ethics is needed to describe action to reveal the value did. Normative ethics explain the ideal norm that should be done in such situation. Economic is tool to address value of human dignity not to sell the dignity to get material profit. Economic can be part of descriptive ethics to reveal what value is most important in economic activity. All action of humans are ethics concerns.

Adam Smith found that trust, credibility and security influence on the behaviour of economic actors. These moral sentiments and self-interest are complementary factors of economic behaviour. If there is the trust between buyers and sellers, economic transactions are accelerated and the price is formed as an expression of reciprocal satisfaction of economic actors. Therefore, the price is a psychological equilibrium of the buyer and seller. Greater satisfaction of economic actors decreases transaction costs, promotes economic growth and increases wealth of the nation. Economic growth increases moral sentiments and decreases injustice in society.

Elizabeth, I agree with you. Defining the fundamental purpose of ethics enables business and political sectors to create the programs for production supporting, solving social problems, etc. This programs are promoted social interests and limited interest of particular members of business and political sectors.

From the literature I’m familiar with, I have learned that ethics is not somewhat external, but internal to rationality and economic realism. As of an historical perspective, we are reminiscent of the period when the linking between ethics and economics was interrupted, nay when ethics has been deprived of its appropriate role in economic explorations. We can rely on the hypothesis that it happened at a time when economic rules were assumed to be as laws of nature. Economics, more often than not, assumed an overwhelming ‘arrogance’ against all other social disciplines making its way in the void left by ethical relativism and insisting in taking over other areas of social life. Moreover, we remind of Sen argument expressed in his ‘capability approach’ that it is rather enigmatic why economics gradually got rid of its early interest in ethical issues to apply the problem-solving method of engineering (A. Sen, On Ethics and Economics, 1998).

On the other aspect of the question, the ethical principle assumed the function of a lookout which called for a monitoring action of the drawbacks that crawled human fate. The crisis of rationality led to disregard the link between freedom and responsibility, between the Weberian ethics of belief and the ethics of responsibility, that is a social ethics which evaluates economic action not in the name of freedom, but as fairness that takes charge of the universal destinies.

I wish to underline that the divergence between ethics and economics objectives remains appropriate and is something which is resolved not in the domain of theory but in the struggle of social life. It appeared that the core of the issue may be synthesized by saying that substantive (classic) rationality does not capture the complexity of human behavior and even of the economic one. Thus, I believe that the intersection between economics and ethics may be found analyzing the cultural evolutionary component of human conduct. So, for those who have remained ‘faithful’ to the assumptions of self-interest and ‘substantive (classic) rationality, going beyond these assumptions took the extreme meaning of cheating the game by changing its rules. For others, however, ‘to go beyond’ the classical rules represented the signal of the need to move afar an inaccurate view of human nature and to consider it - instead - as the result of an evolutionary process of a cultural nature.

Technically, in a dynamic evolutionary perspective, the instruments through which restrictions or forms of control operate at different levels of selection (monitor each other in the face-to-face interaction, social and legal norms,) act precisely on those individual trajectories that diverge from the shared goals within a group established by a process of ‘valorization’ in the socio-cultural and economic domain. The evolutionary success of the human species necessarily implies that it has developed a set of rules, for instance: social norms. Then, the following postulate must apply: in social groups, cultural transmission is driven by that set of rules that identify the objectives and functional behaviors to achieve them. However, it must be stated that it is not so much the norm itself that properly ensures the maximization of the pay-off and, consequently, the "survival" of the group as an autonomous system, as those and only those forms of control that promote the evolutionary stability of cooperation. ".... When a given behavior is stable, individuals who adopt other strategies receive lower payoffs, and evolution (via cultural transmission and learning) weeds out the mutant behaviors. (see R. Sethi, E. Somanathan, "The evolution of social norms in common property resource use", American Economic Review, vol.86, Sept., 1996, p. 769). Still, I’d stress an important point quoting the expressions used by Arjo Klamer :” Values are not fixed as the standard economic model postulates; they change in the process. In order to make sense of these processes, researcher will have to leave their theoretical positions and study values up close. (Arjo Klamer, A pragmatic view on values in economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 2003)

To identify the differences between ethics and economics and how these topics should be learned is indispensable to understand both concepts in depth.

Ethics is the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. While there are inescapable acts of individual judgment involved in ethical decisions, nevertheless, it is desirable that conclusions should be reached in ways that result in as consistent a practice as possible. A way of achieving this in a given area of activity is to adopt an ethical policy, and to formulate a code of ethics and a code of practice providing general guidelines within which individual decisions are to be made.

A code of ethics has a regulatory, educative and cultural integration functions. Often the main regulatory role of a code of ethics is actually played by an associated code of practices. A code of ethics is a basic presentation of principles and ideals; a code of practices is a detailed description of the actions that are to be performed and not performed, and of the sanctions that attach to non-performance.

A code of ethics has two aspects: a) the content comprising the requirements, rules, principles, ideals, and so forth; and b) the commitment of the members of the occupation or organization to conform to, and otherwise uphold, those rules and ideals. The commitment to that content on the part of the members of the occupation consists of an oath, or promise, or other kind of undertaking that each member has given to adhere to the code. The codes of ethics are a good place for members of occupations to signal their commitment to the basic laws, and thus basic moral standards, of their community, including the principle of individual autonomy.

It is important to stress the following: Ethics is not the same thing as etiquette or manners. So in general codes of ethics should not address issues of politeness or dress. Ethics is not the same thing as aesthetics. So in general codes of ethics should not address issues of style, rhetoric or self-presentation. Codes of ethics refer not only to moral principles, but also to ideals of the good. Sanctions – sanctions applied in the context of an appropriate complaints and discipline system - ought only to be deployed in relation to minimum standards (morality) but not in relation to ideals (ethics).

The view that codes of ethics are simply rules that prescribe what actions are to be performed, and what actions are not to be performed, is too narrow. Codes typically mention virtues e.g. integrity, and vices e.g. dishonesty, as well as actions. Further, codes of ethics are, or ought to be, concerned with affective attitudes e.g. sympathy, as well as actions.

On the other hand, economics is the social science that analyzes the relationship between men in the sphere of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. A focus of the subject is how economic agents behave or interact and how economies work. They are two levels in which the economic relationships should be studied: a) Macroeconomics and b) Microeconomics.

Macroeconomics analyzes the entire economy and issues affecting it, including unemployment, inflation, economic growth, and monetary and fiscal policy. Macroeconomics is the study of how entire nations deal with scarcity of resources. Macroeconomists analyze the systems nations create or allow for the allocation of goods and services. The questions they ask are varied and of great interest to individuals and policymakers alike. How do you measure the economy? Why does unemployment exist? How do changes in the amount of money affect the entire economy? What impact does government spending or tax policy have on the economy? How can you make the economy grow?

Microeconomics examines the behavior of basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, and their interactions. The field of microeconomics focuses its attention on the decision-making of individuals and businesses. Microeconomics is primarily concerned with markets for goods, services, and resources. Markets are central to understanding microeconomics. Whenever and wherever buyers and sellers come together to exchange resources, goods, or services, a market is created, and the behavior of these markets is of particular interest to economists. Are they functioning efficiently? Do participants have access to adequate information? Who and how many participate in the market? How the decisions do made in one market impact the decisions in a related market?

It is important to understand that economics is the study of how individuals, institutions, and society choose to deal with the condition of scarcity of resources. From a single individual to the largest society on earth, people are constantly engaged in the struggle to satisfy it basic needs, make ends meet, and even thrive given the relative scarcity they face.

Economists develop theories to explain the behavior of whatever it is they are studying. Some of these theories are then tested against real-world data, and sometimes these theories are put into practice without ever being tested.

Economists work for universities, financial institutions, major corporations, and governments. Ethicists study and evaluate human conduct in the light of moral principles. Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.

Ethics is important to prevent the practice of cannibal economics

Ethics is crucial to study along with economics. I say this because economics makes very basic assumptions about human nature and how people behave (as rationally, self-interested.) It then takes those basic assumptions and extends them to normative judgments about law and policy. The concept of "economic efficiency" is well defined and economists have found many interesting methods of maximizing efficiency--according to norms that promote economic efficiency. What gets missed is that normative economics is not morally neutral. Economists don't regularly acknowledge this. It is also rarely acknowledged that if most people do not act as rationally self-interested actors that always maximize their own "utility," economics draws improper (and sometimes counterproductive) policy conclusions. I have come to believe that every introductory economics course must acknowledge at the outset that the basic assumption underlying economic theory is utilitarian. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy. Utilitarianism also has many well-known flaws that should also be understood by students of economics. It needs to be taken into account when one is learning economics at each step. Without moral theory at its side, the study of economics can often appear to be objective, when it is, indeed, not at all, from a moral philosophy perspective.

Yes, the ethics are part of Economics for every action, in every time and evewehre, done by people.

I would like to resume the discussion between us expressing my thoughts where science and ethics of behavior are involved . Then, I begin by saying that in a world which passes over the depth and richness of the qualities of the human soul, we are almost besieged by the pervasive shallowness of feeling of solidarity and friendship that reigns supreme in a world in which we are approaching the total indifference towards everything and everyone. All this with the notable addition of foolishness that paints everything with a gray color, wrapping all of us in a dense fog and blurring the ability to distinguish between black and white , good and evil, right and wrong , true friends we have just met surfing the sites of Internet, especially those social networks where there is little room for sincerity and reflection. Instead , we need to ' hear the other who is in front of us ' , in its many possibilities of creation and invention of genuine feelings , ways of being and living, friendship, support , respect and trust.

If we really want to return to grow spiritually and morally; if we want to start to build an idea of culture that prepares tomorrow's future and where it engages a mutual innovation of human free relationships, we must think about a medium- long term period in which development goes through the enhancement of knowledge, culture, focusing in this way on the ability to drive change . It takes creativity and ingenuity to all which now are needed by everybody y because of the centrality that human capital has assumed. Culture and solidarity must return to be the true common good. In this context, the ' do ' is intertwined more and more with' know ' and ' communicate ' . There is, in addition, a need to integrate scientific knowledge with the purposes , meanings and values of the global socio-cultural system ; to cooperate in the estimate , with respect and reciprocity . Many factors, however, indicate that it is not easy to manage the complexity of the ethical issues of science, for the presence of opposing views : "ethics of truth," "strict value-free science ", " ability to understand without judging ," " uncompromising ethics reason, " Cultures are dominated by material interests that cause anxiety, despair and nihilism . Hence the search for a more solid ethics , based on truth and human dignity. Since science and technology seem increasingly unable to prevent the negative consequences of their development : destruction of environment and resources, threats to human health and survival , we should look with increasing attention to the social and cultural forces that address these difficulties by using those roads that I have just indicated.

It ' requires a positive, dynamic vision centered on a commitment having to be guided by the purposes, meanings and values, caring about the consequences and face at the service of people, society and nature .

I am reminded of a beautiful thought of Gandhi to report the failure to comply with these commitments : " The man is destroyed by politics without ethical principles , with the intelligence without character, with the wealth without solidarity and self-sacrifice , with business without morality and science without humanity.

In the course of conducting the research on the imbalances of economic resources generated by envy it was found as many are, by now, the limits, the conditioning, the shortcomings of purely scientific knowledge, brought to light by the analysis of methodological and epistemological reflection of the same scientists. The science is before the continuous creation of problems and it turns out that to be science and to go further it should go beyond itself, opening the way to new areas authentically human and humanizing.

The discourse on the sciences (epistemology and history of science) and that of other forms of knowledge (philosophy, ethics) are good examples of ‘problematization’. The reflection on the cultural value of this problematization, its performance and its ultimate meanings, requires the participation of all forms of knowledge. Presently, in particular, it is needed we ought to problematize scientific theories, consider the poles of scientific activity and the heart of scientific knowledge. They are ingenious constructions intended to describe reality in a coherent and understandable way. Being partial, provisional and conjectural, they require continuous additions, corrections and revisions, which invite knowledge to appropriate caution.

In scientific knowledge there are unsuspected depths and thicknesses, expressed as original experience and surplus of meaning, allowing a glimpse of the broader meaning of ‘scientificity’ and of the empirical investigations (experience). The content of these considerations has been expressed by various members of the research team, made up of economists, scholars of cybernetics and systems theory and epistemologists.

The level and content of ‘scientificity’, considered as a discourse suitable for their field, went widening, thus alleviating the alienation and lack of communication between the various branches of knowledge. All that without affecting each other's diversity and ensuring the independence, freedom, expertise, socio-cultural communicative role and the relational dimension of all.

Recent developments in the thinking of and on science offer to cultural dialogue another series of useful elements to all forms of knowledge. This is the new scientific vision of a universe in which order, disorder, necessity, chance, chaos and complexity are no longer unique and absolute elements, but the ingredients carefully measured by an ordering information and a planning intelligence and capacity.

This issue raises discussions of great philosophical depth: epistemological, heuristic and metaphysical. Those issues are heuristically and ethically relevant are also the intrinsic values of the genuine scientific attitude: intentionality, purpose, freedom, responsibility, social, solidarity, justice and skill development.

The scientific effort, so alive, show that: a) comprehensible reality is not limited, being immensely rich, varied and complex; b) it allows for a plurality of perspectives to explain and understand it; c) forms of knowledge and disciplines express only one of these perspectives, grabbing only one aspect of reality. This shows the need to multiply the perspectives and tools (ideas, words, concepts) instead of excluding each other, as much as possible and exchanging everything that is acquired.

One comment deserves the theme of the creation of interdisciplinary concepts, a theme that is being discussed with regard to their perspectives and tools of our investigation.

Meanwhile, the current results of historical research and the epistemological critique no longer allow to consider the scientific statements as certain and indisputable truth. By now, it was found that they are partial hypotheses, provisional, always demonstrable false (the principle of falsification), never demonstrable true (principle of verification), and always revisable and subject to possible modification according to Popper.

This means that scientific knowledge does not allow a homogeneous and organic buildup, since it is discontinuous and subject to constant and deep revisions (TS Kuhn). This does not diminish at all the greatness of science, because it indicates that the most important results of research are not resident in acquisitions always reformable, but in the problems that are always new, inexhaustible, replicated continuously.

The purpose of my comments has been stimulated by the reading of some of my fellow-researchers in their interventions in RG. Some of them are pointing out or think about the spread of mold conformist arguments. My first reaction is that there is nothing to fear from the competition of ideas. What should make us think are the consequences of the conformist attitude that often accompanies a period of new thinking.

Moreover, in the current techno-scientific cultures, many dialectical conflict complicate the recovery of a common ethics: they emphasize the meaning and value of human nature, and the rules that protect us. As a matter of fact, we do not accept that conformism is the rule. The operative occurrences of conformism are accentuated by peculiarities and localism; conformism is criticized for the flattening of the spiritual component of the human nature; priority is given to the material well-being often censuring each expression of the past. It requires an unlimited choice, but we live in the flattest ‘conventionalistic’ conformism; while people emphasize human rights, at the same time it implements a wild extreme individualism; people emphasizes the solidarity and human rights, but accentuate the claims of the single components of society.

Those who believe to develop their own models of behavior, in reality follow those of the media of communication that conceal the power of approval of the message behind a false materialistic optimism.

If we want to thrive, I do not think that we should follow those who assume such a model in social relations. Otherwise, I predict that there will be damages in social positions.

Apparently, social forms of conformism have as the lowest common denominator among the different subjectivities, the task of making life possible in society. The duty to seek the truth is absent, as there are absent doubts about the general trends prevailing in the society and on what has become a habit. Being convinced of the personal views, as well as those of others are fit enough. Man is reduced to his superficial convictions and the least deep they are, so much the better for him.

The identification of consciousness with the superficial one, the reduction of man to his subjectivity does not free at all, but it makes him a slave; it makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions and lowers also the level of the latter day after day. Who looks for coincidence with superficial consciousness identifies it with a pseudo-rational safety, woven of self-justification, conformism and laziness. Consciousness deteriorates to forgiveness from guilt, while it is precisely the transparency of the subject for the dignity and specific importance of man.

On the other hand, I note that an intelligent obedience to the precepts of fundamental ethics that is not moralism, and that is not even conformism nor conventional answer, but virtual ‘arguability’ of reasons and competition between individual goals and the purpose of the rules.

The image of conformism is like an ‘anthill’; it can become ruthless and an unseen enemy that creeps into all the environments. President Kennedy about the conformism stated: "…it is the prison of freedom and the enemy of development."

Personally, that international economic development I envisaged and that appeared in my other comments on RG is the ideal place where I posed the ethical basis to overcome the malevolent envy among peoples.

The dialogue between the components of RG research on the global redistribution of economic resources, touched - among other things - the theme: science, culture and society, which presents itself as one of the elements of the paradigm: rationality and will. Exploring the topic it is required a new awareness of the interrelationships between science, culture and society; recognition of the limits of science; overcoming the ‘scientistic’ conceptions about truth, objectivity and neutrality of science; capacity to have an inter-and trans-disciplinary dialogue between the various sectors; recognition of risk and ambiguity inherent in multinational and global dimension of the scientific enterprise; control and transparent management of its objectives and resources.

To carry out this program, it is necessary to highlight the important epistemological and historical acquisitions that have dismantled the hegemony of the rationalist and positivist. between the end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,

One of the most significant was finding that rationalism is a fideism more or less unconscious. All that reevaluated the will as an essential component of every rational act which confers a

Moral dimension. K. Popper and the later epistemologies showed that the principles upon which scientific research is based are also of an ethical nature: the 'fallibility' demands the recognition of our own mistakes; the 'discussion' entails the honest assessment of the reasons of others; recognizes the approximation and the imperfection of each approach. As a result, truth as regulative ideal and research as inexhaustible asymptotic approximation to the truth show their character both moral, epistemological and heuristic.

In this perspective, the purpose , awareness of the negative consequences and the consequent responsibility pose questions that require in-depth study . They gave rise to a series of transdisciplinary steps, designed to connect the scientific discourse to further reflection, which shows that all ethics and human activity, looking to: a) be proactive, dynamic, open to the real needs of people, societies and cultures ; b ) give rise to projects and free decisions motivated and responsible, requires an adequate anthropological foundation .

It is therefore necessary to overcome any residual rationalistic scientism pushing the systematic critical reflection, epistemological, anthropological and epistemological to the metaphysical vertices , to reaffirm the priority of the totality over all partialities. This is made possible by the recognition that all the techno-scientific knowledge , when added together, do not constitute or substitute any knowledge of the total ( or global) . It should be relied upon at all levels : epistemological (knowledge) , heuristic (truth) , ethics ( good) , ontological (being).

To carry out these tasks it needs to enhance the important epistemological and historical acquisitions between the end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that have dismantled the hegemony of the rationalist and positivist.

One of the most significant was the finding that rationalism is a fideism more or less unconscious. It reevaluated the will as an essential component of every rational act which confers a moral dimension. K. Popper (whom we have already mentioned in a previous comment) and later epistemologies showed that the principles upon which scientific research are also of an ethical nature: the 'fallibility' demands the recognition of our own mistakes; the 'discussion' entails the honest assessment of the reasons of others; the approximation'' 'recognizes the imperfection of each approach.

Another important fact for an ethic of the scientific endevour is the discovery of the complexity and of the organized systems. It shows the need to develop new approaches to knowledge (theories, models, paradigms, scientific and philosophical) opposite to those of simplification and reductive of modern science.

These new approaches are required to: 1) integrate the analytical and detailed visions with synthetic ones (dynamic interaction, wholeness, totality); 2) organize the knowledge of the complex ‘integers’; 3) promote a unified language for models and methodologies integrating the various disciplinary contributions. This is because up to now it was impossible to reconcile the basic propositions, which guarantee the truth of the knowledge acquired, with complex sentences that allow large unitary and overall visions. Also this fact shows how relative and precarious is the ‘statute' of the truth of scientific propositions.

In other words, the fabric of meaning, purposes and human values, spiritual, religious and ethical aspects of socio-cultural context of the overall system is the live context of every techno-scientific effort. In it, science and technology perform their specific functions in order to: a) produce the goods necessary to its existence and development; b) enhance the resources according to the state of current knowledge and capabilities; c) develop representation systems that allow you to have human groups of social and cultural actors. These features raise the question of their quality The Frankfurt School (Adorno and Habermas) defined scientific knowledge as a powerful poison as a mere quantification directed towards exploitation, devoid of reflection and liberating capacities. This criticism, however, was rather addressed to the pseudo-scientific culture and its claim to be considered the only form of scientific thought.

This blunder was caused by the disregard that science exists only thanks to the huge base of thought

non-scientific that precedes it and the first principles that underpin all rationality, logic and knowledge (metaphysics, philosophy, epistemology, etc..). Since science is an intermediate knowledge, it is not entitled to have the first nor the last alternative, so it remains subject to all sorts of interference and conditioning that makes it: a) a partial and provisional view of the world; b) a set of elements (languages, theories, models, terms) relating to, ‘analogic’, symbolic and metaphorical, varying according to time, disciplines and interpretations. With its founding principles it cannot justify nor even herself.

This problematic multiplies also the ethical and moral problems that always challenge man on the meaning, purpose and values, strengthening the need for further reflection: anthropological and metaphysical. However, the sheer ‘problematics raises concerns and

anxiety. The public criticism of the dangers to the survival of the environment,

man and species. Scientists suffer from the inadequacy of science and the negative consequences of their paradigms of simplification and reductive, powerless in the face to the problems of complexity and hyper-systemic complexity. Epistemologists and historians of science complain about the lack of new prospects and shortcomings of the current techno-scientific thinking. The philosophers emphasize the inability to obtain reliable visions of reality purposes, meanings and values from scientific data always conjectural, partial and provisional.

These awareness cause significant 'modes of action', such as: people should be

the end and the central subject of techno-scientific projects. Institutions should encourage the positive interactions, human solidarity and prevent or control the negative consequences of techno-scientific activity; operators should develop scenarios of reality and instruments appropriate to the complexity and the centrality of the subjects.

Yes. Normative economics is as important as positive economics. Consider Kenneth E. Bouldings argument that economics is a "Moral Science" and Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments (Note how economics has its beginnings in moral philosophy). Together with E. F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful and Amartya Sen's corpus on economic ethics.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811088