The following essay is a version of what I read in the “Virtue Palaver” hosted by Prof. Daniel Klein on his YouTube channel.
Aristotle says that virtue is knowledge of the soul. Knowledge of virtue is knowledge about your proper role in both the polis and the cosmos. Virtue, in that sense, is a knowledge that is intensely practical. The goodness of a virtue is a meaningful goal that is self-motivating. We don’t need something external to justify virtue. Justice is a virtue. A direct understanding of virtue connects good conduct to the good of the whole. The utilitarian vision has spent a lot of computer time describing the contours of the good of the whole, but none motivating or clarifying good conduct. The deontological vision has spent a lot of time laying out the standards of good conduct, with the contributions to the good of the whole playing second fiddle. Without a reason beyond the rules to conduct yourself well, the thorough instructions fall flat. A virtue, when apprehended, describes both what you are if you contribute to the good of the whole and gives practical instructions on the proper conduct towards that end. Holding that something is virtuous motivates the pursuit of said virtue.
Virtue ethics provide us with genuine knowledge, with something that is true in a practical sense. If ethics is practical knowledge, how can we afford ignoring it in economics, the science of practicality. In economic terms, knowledge of virtue is knowledge about the production function of you (which by construction you are trying to maximize). The knowledge that we’ve accumulated in economics itself might be thought of as a study in the virtue of prudence. When an economist aspires to positive over normative claims and to remain agnostic about morality, they usually are burying the lede, and covertly declare prudence the only meaningful moral lens.
In other spheres, we allow ourselves to declare chemical, biological, or psychological theories true as background to our economic models. Growth happened because scientists finally found the true theory that led to the steam engine and cotton gin. Again though I’ll say, if ethical knowledge is practical knowledge, why don’t we allow ourselves to presume ethical truths as a meaningful discovery of how to live better by our little men in the model? When Jim sympathizes with Mary, he discovers something real about the world that elevates his behavior. It changes the matrix in which his decisions are made. When a man discovers his place before God, how can that truth be less impactful than man’s discovery of the laws of mechanics? When we separate the positive from the normative we separate the common meaning between the true and the good. Pursuit of the true without attention to the good, or pursuit of the good without attention to the true, leaves us with neither Truth nor Goodness.
Mokyr (2016) holds that there are a number of theories one can hold about chemical or mechanical processes. They are theories about how we should interact with the physical environment. He also holds that a subset of these are true. He holds the institutional conditions in Europe, as well as some other factors that led us to holding the true theory. Consequently, there were more profound effects on the growth of industry in Britain and the Netherlands. Presumably, Mokyr believes that he agrees with his audience about which set of physical theories are true. With this shared agreement, his rhetoric proceeds reasonably.
McCloskey might be asking us to go a level deeper. McCloskey holds that there are a number of theories that one can hold about morality or ethics. They are theories about how we should approve and disapprove of one another’s conduct and how we should respond to each other’s behavior. She holds that a subset of these are true. She holds the institutional conditions in Europe, as well as some other factors that led us to holding the true theory. Consequently, there were more profound effects on the growth of industry in Britain and the Netherlands. McCloskey however has the added challenge that the truth of moral values might not be shared with the reader. The truth of these beliefs is not arbitrarily related to their practical import and conduct. I am not reducing the truth of the bourgeois virtues to their prudent consequences.
If ethics can’t help us explain the world, then the ethics we have is not useful for this world. I don’t know how to begin addressing this problem, but I suspect that the answer comes from dwelling in the great mind of Adam Smith as Dr. Klein has spent so much effort helping us to do so. A complete economics pays attention to more virtues than prudence, heals the positive/normative division, and binds back together the Theory of Moral Sentiments with the Wealth of Nations.