Peart & Levy: Vanity of the Philosopher: Difference between revisions
From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
New page: 1. Attempt to explain the transition from classical to postclassical economics. 2. Classical economics was based around the idea of hegemony, or equal compentence. - This assumed th... |
No edit summary |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
1. Attempt to explain the transition from classical to postclassical economics. | 1. Attempt to explain the transition from classical to postclassical economics. | ||
2. Classical economics was based around the idea of hegemony, or equal compentence. | 2. Classical economics was based around the idea of hegemony, or equal compentence. | ||
- This assumed that economic agents are all equipped with a capacity for language and trade, and that observed outcomes | - This assumed that economic agents are all equipped with a capacity for language and trade, and that observed outcomes | ||
are explained by incentives, luck, and history. | are explained by incentives, luck, and history. | ||
3. Eventually, ideas about superiority and inferiority emerged | 3. Eventually, ideas about superiority and inferiority emerged | ||
- Ex. Slaves, women, labouring classes, and the Irish | - Ex. Slaves, women, labouring classes, and the Irish | ||
4. Classical economists, of course, rejected the notions of race and hierarchy. | 4. Classical economists, of course, rejected the notions of race and hierarchy. | ||
- Their excuse to the observed heterogeneity was to appeal to the incentives associated with different institutions. For | - Their excuse to the observed heterogeneity was to appeal to the incentives associated with different institutions. For | ||
example, John Stuart Mill argued that the "Irish problem" was largley a matter of institutions rather than one of | example, John Stuart Mill argued that the "Irish problem" was largley a matter of institutions rather than one of | ||
inherenet indolence. | inherenet indolence. | ||
5. Once human hierarchy was recognized, people were seen as unequally deserving sympathy | |||
5. Once human hierarchy was recognized, people were seen as unequally deserving sympathy | |||
6. Peart and Levy's feeling was that an analytical system in which everyone counts equally and is presumed equally capable | - Those of us who were hardworking were seen as deserving more sympathy than those who were lazy. | ||
6. Peart and Levy's feeling was that an analytical system in which everyone counts equally and is presumed equally capable of making decisions is the only sysyem that seems morally defensible. | |||
- In all the instances in which a group has been treated as "different," difference has turned into hierarchy | |||
and hierarchy has sometimes led to terrible analytical and policy consequences. The inferior becomes any | |||
group who is presently out of favor with the analyst (the Vanity of the Philosopher) | |||
== How it relates to Thomas Cooper == | |||
1. Through the first few decades of Cooper's life, he was a radical classical economist. | |||
2. Cooper moves to America, teaches at Dickinson, and retains his egalitarian ideologies. | |||
3. However, after he moves to South Carolina his viewpoints change dramatically, although he retains certain elements of the classical model. | |||
4. It appears that he is a pro-slavery classical economist, which runs somewhat contrary to Peart & Levy's analysis. | |||
[[Thomas Cooper]] | |||
Latest revision as of 03:48, 5 December 2007
1. Attempt to explain the transition from classical to postclassical economics.
2. Classical economics was based around the idea of hegemony, or equal compentence.
- This assumed that economic agents are all equipped with a capacity for language and trade, and that observed outcomes
are explained by incentives, luck, and history.
3. Eventually, ideas about superiority and inferiority emerged
- Ex. Slaves, women, labouring classes, and the Irish
4. Classical economists, of course, rejected the notions of race and hierarchy.
- Their excuse to the observed heterogeneity was to appeal to the incentives associated with different institutions. For
example, John Stuart Mill argued that the "Irish problem" was largley a matter of institutions rather than one of
inherenet indolence.
5. Once human hierarchy was recognized, people were seen as unequally deserving sympathy
- Those of us who were hardworking were seen as deserving more sympathy than those who were lazy.
6. Peart and Levy's feeling was that an analytical system in which everyone counts equally and is presumed equally capable of making decisions is the only sysyem that seems morally defensible.
- In all the instances in which a group has been treated as "different," difference has turned into hierarchy
and hierarchy has sometimes led to terrible analytical and policy consequences. The inferior becomes any
group who is presently out of favor with the analyst (the Vanity of the Philosopher)
How it relates to Thomas Cooper
1. Through the first few decades of Cooper's life, he was a radical classical economist.
2. Cooper moves to America, teaches at Dickinson, and retains his egalitarian ideologies.
3. However, after he moves to South Carolina his viewpoints change dramatically, although he retains certain elements of the classical model.
4. It appears that he is a pro-slavery classical economist, which runs somewhat contrary to Peart & Levy's analysis.
