"Understood properly economics is an ethical science, an important branch of applied moral philosophy. For it concerns how to understand, manage and fulfil the heterogeneous and often conflicting values, interests, and capacities of large numbers of individuals operating within the constraints of limited resources in a particular community. That system-level attention to the key aspects of heterogeneity, conflict, and scarcity within a community should be a central concern of moral philosophy, but it generally isn’t (except for some political philosophers).
Most moral philosophy focuses instead on different kinds of question: meta-ethics concerns the ultimate nature and meaning of ethics; normative ethics is about articulating theories of the right and the good, like utilitarianism or deontology; and applied ethics is focused on the rights and wrongs of controversial issues, like abortion or animal testing. Society and its complications are generally absent. This lacuna frequently leads moral philosophers to wish away or parenthesise (idealise) those aspects of heterogeneity, conflict and scarcity unavoidable in a moral community.
Economists as social scientists have been working on this area for a very long time, and have much of importance to say about it".
Hello Davis, I agree with several of your statements. Certainly, in a time when resources are limited, ethics requires that we conserve and preserve and maximize the us of what we have - water, paper, time etc.
When we have conflicting factors, we may need wisdom and advice from friends and seniors. Even in research, it is good to have a mentor. And sometimes, when there is much competition, we may need to apply blue ocean strategy, that removes the competition, and often through innovative approaches. I see that as resources dwindle, we need ethics and innovation (for good or better alternatives). Have a good day, thanks.
Ethics isn't needed if there is no scarcity or no conflict at all. In heaven, all is... well... heavenly. You say ethics is often ignored "(except for some political philosophers)." Perhaps this is right, but I suspect some economists and political scientists also pay attention to it. At the end of the day, though, I suspect this is another reason why PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) programs are so valuable. We need the incites and work from all three groups if we are to make meaningful progress in determining how to improve society.
I have a paper addressing this. The Principle of Unnecessary Harm/Necessary Benefit at Academia.edu. This principle of unnecessary harm is universally applicable because it refers to needs, not rational necessity, but ontological necessity. The intent/act5/consequence must all benefit all innocent beings, not just human. It traces back to the command "Do no harm!" but is extended to ecosystems, animals, children, etc. and accordingly, is a firm ethical principle for civil laws and legal fictions such as corporations and governmental agencies. As an ethical principle, it is absolute in that it is grounded in needs, not rational necessity.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy