You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Utilitarianism - a logic based morality
Smith was wrote the Wealth of Nations as a criticism of Mercantilism...his economic experience consisted of a brief stint as a customs official. He wrote Moral Sentiments much earlier (1752 I believe) and I believe it to be a moral blueprint to support his system of economics. As for Harrington's perspective on Hobbes, here's another view on the formation of the state and obligation of citizens.
: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938736
Olson is a remarkable guy, I saw him present this at the APSA conference in '93 when I was there presenting a paper on NAFTA...I think you'll enjoy his perspective.
here isthat file on pdf
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf
The JSTOR setup is a pin in thekeister, especially sine i don'thave theschool login anymore ;)
"The Grasping Hand"...perfect!
Thought you'd like it...that was supposed to be the pdf file I posted...I always said I'm no techie! lol
I'll add it to my Zotero library...I' about 4 months behind on it's maintenance anyway ;>
In my view, classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick/ Smart) shatters on the realization of what Adam Smith called the "vicarious affects" (e.g., sympathy). While the moral calculus of classical utilitarianism requires that "each is to count for one; no one for more than one," ordinary interpersonal bonds lead naturally to differential treatment. It is not only understandable but also morally right that a mother should give far greater weight to the interests of her child than the interests of a perfect stranger. But the moral calculus of Bentham only works if the parties involved are essentially interchangeable. We cannot with moral propriety ask that a person value the welfare or happiness of all fellow humans equally.