Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:09:29.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ADAM SMITH AND THE MODERN SCIENCE OF ETHICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2012

James Konow
James Konow*
Affiliation:
Kiel University and Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Germany and Loyola Marymount University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Third-party decision-makers, or spectators, have emerged as a useful empirical tool in modern social science research on moral motivation. Spectators of a sort also serve a central role in Adam Smith's moral theory. This paper compares these two types of spectatorship with respect to their goals, methodologies, visions of human nature and emphasis on moral rules. I find important similarities and differences and conclude that this comparison suggests significant opportunities for philosophical ethics to inform empirical and theoretical research on moral preferences and vice versa.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 333 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguiar, F., Becker, A. and Miller, L. 2010. Whose impartiality? An experimental study of veiled stakeholders, impartial spectators and ideal observers. Jena Economic Research Papers #2010–040.Google Scholar
Amiel, Y., Cowell, F.A. and Gaertner, W. 2009. To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi's utilitarian ethics. Social Choice and Welfare 32: 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. and Loewenstein, G. 2005. Adam Smith, behavioral economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 131–145.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. and Loewenstein, G. 1997. Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 109–126.Google Scholar
Becchetti, L., Degli Antoni, G., Ottone, S. and Solferino, N. 2012. Whose impartiality? An experimental study of veiled stakeholders, impartial spectators and ideal observers. Jena Economic Research Papers #2010–040.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. and Ockenfels, A. 2000. ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review 90: 166–193.Google Scholar
Broadie, A. 2006. Sympathy and the impartial spectator. In The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, ed. Haakonssen, K., 158–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V. 1994. Adam Smith's Discourse: Canonicity, Commerce and Conscience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, V. 2009. Agency and discourse: revisiting the Adam Smith problem. In Elgar Companion to Adam Smith, ed. Young, J.T., 52–72. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Campbell, T.D. 1971. Adam Smith's Science of Morals. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A., Luttens, R., Sørensen, E. and Tungodden, B. 2011. Fairness in bankruptcy situations: an experimental study. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, mimeo.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A., Konow, J., Sørensen, E. and Tungodden, B.. Forthcoming. Just luck: an experimental study of fairness and risk taking. American Economic Review.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–869.Google Scholar
Charness, G., Cobo-Reyes, R. and Jiménez, N. 2008. An investment game with third-party intervention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68: 18–28.Google Scholar
Chavanne, D., McCabe, K. and Paganelli, M.P. 2010 a. Redistributive justice – entitlements and inequality in a third-party dictator game. SSRN eLibrary URL=<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1534934>..>Google Scholar
Chavanne, D., McCabe, K. and Paganelli, M.P. 2010 b. Shared experience and third-party decisions: a laboratory result. SSRN eLibrary URL=<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1534942>..>Google Scholar
Clarke, P. 2007. Adam Smith, religion and the Scottish Enlightenment. In New Perspectives on Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Cockfield, G., Firth, A. and Laurent, J., 47–65. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cockfield, G., Firth, A. and Laurent, J., eds. 2007. New Perspectives on Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Coffman, L.C. 2011. Intermediation reduces punishment (and reward). American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 3: 77–106.Google Scholar
Croson, R. and Konow, J. 2009. Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69: 201–212.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D.L. and Tiefenthaler, J. 2002. What is fair? Experimental evidence. Southern Economic Journal 69: 414–428.Google Scholar
Di Tella, R. and Pérez-Truglia, R. 2010. Conveniently upset: avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others. NBER Working Paper URL=<http://www.nber.org/papers/w16645>..>Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G. 2004. A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 47: 268–298.Google Scholar
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J.A. and Holzberg, A.D. 1989. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 1082–1090.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engelmann, D. and Strobel, M. 2004. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review 94: 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U. 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54: 293–315.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. 2004 a. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 1364–1366.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. 2004 b. Third party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 25: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–868.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A. 2007. Adam Smith's moral philosophy as ethical self-formation. In New Perspectives on Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Cockfield, G., Firth, A. and Laurent, J., 106–123. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fleischacker, S. 1991. Philosophy in moral practice: Kant and Adam Smith. Kant Studien 82: 249–269.Google Scholar
Fleischacker, S. 1999. A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischacker, S. 2005. Smith und der Kulturrelativismus. In Adam Smith als Moralphilosoph, ed. Fricke, C. and Schütt, H.-P., 100–127. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischacker, S. 2011. True to ourselves? – Adam Smith on self-deceit. Adam Smith Review 6: 75–92.Google Scholar
Forman-Barzalai, F. 2005. Sympathy in space(s). Political Theory 33: 189–217.Google Scholar
Fricke, C. (2011). Adam Smith and ‘the most sacred rules of justice’. Adam Smith Review 6: 46–74.Google Scholar
Fricke, C. and Schütt, H.-P. 2005. Adam Smith als Moralphilosoph. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. 2006. A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review 96: 1449–1476.Google Scholar
Gächter, S. and Riedl, A. 2006. Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims. Social Choice and Welfare 27: 571–594.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W., Jungeilges, J. and Neck, R. 2001. Cross-cultural equity evaluations: a questionnaire-experimental approach. European Economic Review 45: 953–963.Google Scholar
Gill, M.B. and Nichols, S. 2008. Sentimentalist pluralism: moral psychology and philosophical ethics. Philosophical Issues 18: 143–163.Google Scholar
Göçmen, D. 2007. The Adam Smith Problem: Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. London: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar
Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M. and Cohen, J.D. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–2108.Google Scholar
Griswold, C.L. 1999. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griswold, C.L. 2006. Imagination: morals, science, and arts. In The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, ed. Haakonssen, K., 22–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haakonssen, K. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1990 [1983]. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanley, R.P. 2008. Enlightened nation building; the ‘science of the legislator’ in Adam Smith and Rousseau. American Journal of Political Science 52: 219–234.Google Scholar
Harbaugh, W.T., Mayr, U. and Burghart, D.R. 2007. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316: 1622–1625.Google Scholar
Hausman, D.M. and McPherson, M.S. 1993. Taking ethics seriously: economics and contemporary moral philosophy. Journal of Economic Literature 31: 671–731.Google Scholar
Herne, K. and Mård, T. 2008. Three versions of impartiality: an experimental investigation. Homo Oeconomicus 25: 27–53.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis, H. 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, L. 2001. The hidden theology of Adam Smith. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 8: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huesch, M. and Brady, R. 2010. Allowing repeat winners. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 374–379.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business 59: S285–S300.Google Scholar
Konow, J. 2000. Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review 90: 1072–92.Google Scholar
Konow, J. 2003. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 41: 1186–1237.Google Scholar
Konow, J. 2009 a. Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice. Social Choice and Welfare 33: 101–127.Google Scholar
Konow, J. 2009 b. The moral high ground: an experimental study of spectator impartiality. EconPapers. Available at <http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:18558>..>Google Scholar
Konow, J. 2010. Mixed feelings: theories of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public Economics 94: 279–297.Google Scholar
Konow, J., Saijo, T. and Akai, K. 2009. Morals versus mores: experimental evidence on equity and equality. EconPapers. Available at <http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cla:levarc:122247000000002055>..>Google Scholar
Levine, D.K. 1998. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics 1: 593–622.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M.C. 1990. Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M.C. and Sen, A., eds. 1993. The Quality of Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otteson, J.R. 2002. Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parrish, J. 2007. Paradoxes of Political Ethics: From Dirty Hands to the Invisible Hand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raphael, D.D. 2007. The Impartial Spectator. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, D.C. 2006. Does ‘bettering our condition’ really make us better off? Adam Smith on progress and happiness. American Political Science Review 100: 309–318.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, D.C. 2008. Whose impartiality? Which self-interest? Adam Smith on utility, happiness and cultural relativism. The Adam Smith Review 4: 247–253.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2000. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Redman, D.A. 1993. Adam Smith and Isaac Newton. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 40: 210–230.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schram, A. and Charness, G. 2011. Social and moral norms in the laboratory. UCSB manuscript.Google Scholar
Schokkaert, E., Capeau, B. and Devooght, K. 2003. Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures. Social Choice and Welfare 21: 207–242.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. 2008. The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review 117: 245–273.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1976 [1759]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Raphael, D.D. and Macfie, A.L.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2002. Beyond sympathy and empathy: Adam Smith's concept of fellow-feeling. Economics and Philosophy 18: 63–87.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. and Shefrin, H.M. 1981. An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy 89: 392–406.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. and Loewenstein, G. 1992. Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51: 176–197.Google Scholar
Traub, S., Seidl, C., Schmidt, U. and Levati, M.V. 2005. Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 283–309.Google Scholar
Turillo, C.J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J.J., Umphress, E.E. and Gee, J.O. 2002. Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 839–865.Google Scholar
Utikal, V. and Fischbacher, U.. 2010. On the attribution of externalities.TWI Research Paper Series.Google Scholar
Verburg, R. 2000. Adam Smith's growing concern on the issue of distributive justice. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 7: 23–44.Google Scholar
Weinstein, J.R. 2006. Sympathy, difference, and education: social unity in the work of Adam Smith. Economics and Philosophy 22: 79–111.Google Scholar
Weinstein, J.R. 2007. Adam Smith's philosophy of education. The Adam Smith Review 3: 51–74.Google Scholar
Witztum, A. 1997. Distributive considerations in Smith's conception of economic justice. Economics and Philosophy 13: 241–259.Google Scholar
Young, J.T. 1992. Natural morality and the ideal impartial spectator in Adam Smith. International Journal of Social Economics 19: 71–82.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2004. Divine Motivation Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar