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 |
||
| 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: Those of us who were hardworking | 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. | 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 17:39, 4 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.
