Virtue, Economy and the Self: 5 Links

My thoughts for this post came about in the most immediate sense from Will Wilkinson: a post at his blog Will Wilkinson, entitled Now Let us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue, dated 20th November 2009. Wilkinson is an economics and public policy commentator, with a background in philosophy. He is responding to an blog post where the George Mason economist Tyler Cowen praises one of his colleagues, Robin Hanson, who responds in his own blog by arguing for the importance of praising consequences of individual actions, rather than the individual concerned. Links to all of that in Wilkinson’s post. What Wilkinson gives in reaction to all that is a beautiful little essay on character, virtue, and advantages to the economy. As he explains, ‘virtue’ as an idea in ethical though refers to the character traits which the good individual forms and which benefit society. What Wilkinson emphasises is the collective economic benefits of individuals in the society with virtue.

Since for non-philosophers ‘virtue’ amy seem like something to do with abstract moralising, it is worth explaining that ‘virtue ethics’ refer mores to a cultivation of individual excellence which serves the ‘virtuous’ individuals and society as a whole. Virtue on this account is really more to do with strength and constancy of character, rather than giving priority to the demands of external moral obligations. The Antique tradition of virtue was taken up in Medieval Christian philosophy, most notably in the thought of Thomas Aquinas; and at that point it maybe acquires a sense of moral imposition, though that is something of a brutal generalisation. That antique sense of virtue has been increasingly discussed in philosophy since the 1950s, along with an increasing recognition that it was still very present in 18th and 19th Century philosophy.

For a very handy summary of Aristotle’s ethics by a leading commentator, Roger Crisp, go this podcast posted at the Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University. For an equally admirable summary of some later developments in Antique ethics, around Seneca and Stoicism, click here for a link to a recent podcast of am interview of Rick Benitez conducted by Alan Saunders for his PhilosophyZone radio show.

The virtue ethics tradition, as mediated by the Antique Stoics, was a major influence on Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, as well as in his ethical treatise, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments. For a great discussion of this click here for a pdf of Deirdre McCloskey’s paper ‘Adam Smith, the Last of the Former Virtue Ethicists’. McCloskey is a professor of economics, history, English and communications at the University of Illinois, Chicago, which gives an idea of the way that she integrates different areas of the humanities and social sciences. McCloskey points out that Smith’s philosophy and economic thought are shaped by Stoicism and theories of the virtues, and not just the virtue of prudence. She also has a very good sketch of how economists, and the culture in general, lost sight of this kind of integration until philosophers revived Antique virtue theory.

One possible fault with McCloskey’s analysis is in the title, in its suggestion that Smith was the last of the virtue theorists. This has some justification if we think of how Smith’s thought is distinguished from what was then the emergent moral school of Utilitarianism which very definitely looks at ethics from the point of view of the consequences of actions, and not quality of character. However, there is at least one major candidate amongst late 19th Century philosophers for the label of virtue ethicist, Friedrich Nietzsche. We can see his philosophy as a return from theories of external moral excellence to a theories of individual excellence. That’s a rather large question I can’t deal with here, but an excellent brief summary of why Nietzsche might be considered a virtue theorist can be found in Lester Hunt’s paper ‘The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche’s Theory of Virtue’, click for the pdf.

I expect to return to these issues very soon in relation to Benedict de Spinoza and Michel Foucault.

Link of the Day: Economy of Neurodiversity

Primary version of this post at Barry Stocker's Weblog, with visual content!

Tyler Cowen discusses his book Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in an Disordered World with Will Wilkinson on bloggingheads.tv.

Cowen (an academic economist and blogger at Marginal Revolution) and Wikinson (think tank commentator and has a blog listed on my Favourite Sites) both have psychological/cognitive conditions known as disorders. Wilkinson, the clearer case, has been diagnosed with ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder); Cowen has not been diagnosed as anything, but he considers himself to have areas of cognitive functioning in common with autistics.

Wilkinson does not consider his condition a disorder, it gives him the qualities which make him suitable for what he does as a communicator. Cowen considers his autistic cognitive functioning to be an advantage as it enables him to take in information very quickly. Cowen explains that autism also has very positive cognitive results, in making people suspicious of framing and more concentrated on facts. Non-autistics are vert susceptible to narrative as a frame for communicating, and storing information, which has some advantages, but also introduces strong bias. Cowen’s point is not that everyone should be autistic, but that is it wrong to assume that autism is a disorder in all cases, and that autistic intelligence adds to social knowledge. A kind of social knowledge which is made more widespread by the net as absorbing information in an ‘autistic’ way, that is at high speed and with great concentration, has become more widespread through people getting information online.

Cowen also argues that the net does not isolate people and produce social alienation. Social networks, like Facebook and Twitter, enable us to have more contact with the most important people in our lives, and to stay in contact with less important people we might lose all contact with over time. Cowen also suggests that following Facebook and Twitter is not just a waste of time, as the mini-narratives of our friends and contacts are valuable, and are as aesthetically distinguished as minor literature. I’m not sure the comparison is a great one but I think Cowen has a point about seeing aesthetic value as dispersed through different kinds of experience. This goes back to autism, as Cowen refers to the beauty autistics see in life, more constantly and intensely than non-autistics.

Cowen argues that the diversity of human cognitive functioning can better recognised with the growth of the division of labour, As work becomes more and more specialised, the usefulness of different kinds of cognitive functioning for different kinds of jobs becomes more apparent. The chances of any individual finding work particularly well suited to their character and cognitive functioning is increasing as a result. Entrepreneurs have always been a niche of that kind. There are a high proportion of dyslexics who are business people, one reason is that they are good at delegating because they can grasp the global picture with relative ease. That’s the point of the title, we all have an increasing chance to have our own economy in the sense that we have an increasing chance of finding an economic niche that is a particularly good fit with our psychology and cognitive processes.

I would add that the point is not that everyone is in a perfect job fitting their individuality, but that there are good reasons to think an increasing proportion of people have that kind of job. Modern economies do have a growing proportion of jobs that use personal and cognitive skills, rather than repetitive routine jobs, Those people in the not so great jobs benefit, if less people are competing for those jobs, because the market value of their kind of labour increases as it becomes more scarce.

Link of the Day: Wilkinson on Measuring Inequality

Primary version of this post at Barry Stocker's Weblog, with picture of Will Wilkinson, not just the link!

Image is of Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinon has recently published a paper on inequality which looks at the difficulties of working out how much inequality there is and how much it changes over time. It’s produced a lot of online reaction, and Wilkinson is getting ready for a comprehensive series of replies on his blog.

How does inequality in income relate to inequality in consumption of goods and services?

How do changing prices in different kinds of goods and services at different price levels affect inequality over time?

How much advantage is there in having the most expensive car or refrigerator compared with having a cheap one which coves the basic functions just as well?

How does economic inequality relate to inequality in person welfare or well-being or happiness?

How much inequality comes from immigrants who accept low paid employment because it makes them better of than working in their country of origin?

What effects does economic inequality have on equal justice, equality before the law and equality in the political process.

Should we worry about inequality if the poorest are better off compared with the poorest in the recent past?

The other thing to add is that Wilkinson writes from a free market libertarian position, and not surprisingly his answers minimise the negative effects of inequality. His position is that economic inequality is very high in America, but this is not a bad thing because it does not effect happiness equality of justice equality. He posted the paper at the Cato Institute where he is a fellow and which is a libertarian free-market foundation, where he is a fellow. I don’t think that makes his paper less interesting for the left inclined, or only if they are unable to deal with reading anything where they might find areas of disagreement. Wilkinson is a moderate libertarian, who thinks the state should be involved in delivering public goods and reducing poverty. Like egalitarian or left liberals, such as the political philosopher John Rawls about whom I have posted several times, he thinks protecting a minimum level for the poorest in society is an important political goal. Even those who do not find this convincing from a left point of view would benefit from reading the paper and thinking about what it is they accept and don’t accept and why. Certainly his discussion of how to define inequality should of interest to anyone who is interested in inequality and equality.

Here’s few points Wilkinson did not cover with regard to defining inequality, but which seem to me to be very much in the spirit of what he writes

The impact of changing incomes and investment values over time. The rich are the mostly likely to suffer a very big drop in either or both, when the economy declines. If we look at economic inequality over time, it is likely to be reduced by this consideration. A relatively free market economy, like that in America may be more prone to such fluctuations.

How much do higher income people consume instead of investing? This sort of comes into what Wilkinson says about the difference about income and consumption, but is not completely explicit.

How much is income inequality exaggerated by the low income university students have before getting well paid jobs? Similar concerns apply to the unemployed who may be between quite well paid jobs.

How much is consumption inequality affected by immigrant sending money to family members in home countries, which spreads income from rich to poor countries?