Feature

Economics And Moral Philosophy

Professor Mustafa Kamaluddin

Is there anything ethical in economics? Is there any relation between contemporary economics and moral philosophy? Does any such thing as 'welfare economics' exist? Many such questions bugged my mind for a long time. Economics was not my field of study. But economics as we all know affect everyone in his or her personal life more so in the national life of a country. These questions grew more and became expanded as I read Amartya Sen's book called 'Ethics and Economics'. He has asserted with examples how the mainstream of economics could be affected by self-interested behaviour and its misbehaviour. The book is truly human and calls for acclamation as a social and philosophical insight into economics.

One who enters the domain of economics bears in mind, according to Dante, 'Abandon all friendliness, you who enter!' This economic model, however, provides room for human motivations in its narrowest terms. Good intensions and moral sentiments are kept out of doors. I agree with Sen when he says that economics is supposed to be concerned with real people who live. Considerations for human behaviour and their achievements come into question. Economics without ethics should therefore undoubtedly fail. It has, at least, done so far. Consider the famines and deaths from starvation that have occured in various developing countries of the world. Contemporary economics in the present day suffers because of the distance, and a serious one for that matter, that has developed between economics and ethics. It is, therefore, wise to remember that economics will thrive and be useful to mankind if it is ethical in character.

The character of modern economics is uncommendably and largely 'un-ethical'. This is in contrast with the fact that modern economics has evolved as a branch or off-shoot of ethics. In the early 30's of the last century economists found it 'logically impossible' to relate economics with ethics. Almost a century after it has now become a fashion to logically disassociate ethics from economics.

Human society exists on interdependence in various patterns. Social interdependence forms a major aspect in economics. Any imbalance caused therein results in crisis and disaster. Hunger and famine in the modern world are mainly due to some loopholes in interdependence and the absence of moral philosophy in economics. It is surprising to note that famines can occur even when the availability of food is high and it turns out that such famines have very little to do with food supply.

There has been much debate as to the productivity of economics with logic-based origin and ethic-based origin. It has been argued that logic based economics prove very productive. This is true and acceptable. The point to remember, here, again reverting to the former question as to for whom is economics, is that economics can be made more productive by taking into consideration the ethical and moral values which mainly characterize human behaviour.

The role of 'profit motive' in economics has long been a subject of study. The issue has been related to famine and starvation. Profit motive among traders is held responsible for causing famines. The idea of profit incurs directly or indirectly a lack of moral values or ethics. It is, however, argued that though traders have been accused of causing famines, in fact, famines follow a scarcity. Very often, again, this scarcity is from unethical process and not from a real scarcity as a result of decrease in production or non-availability.

In the modern world, modern economics is essential for survival. Economics should now adhere to moral values that must prevail and shape economics towards welfare economics. Like all branches of knowledge economics, too, ought to be anointed with ethical sentiments and moral philosophy. Only then, hopefully, we can expect poverty, famine and mortality to decrease from the world.

Professor Mustafa Kamaluddin
Professor & Chairman
Department of English
Bangladesh University