Ethics and spontaneous order, the principle of amorality to immorality of the intervention
By
Nicolas Madelenat di Florio
From Company Literary History of France.
Research Associate
Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,
Université Paul Cézanne.
To my friend and mentor in things economic, Jean-Yves Naudet.
A C., who I hope will find here material to (re) thinking about the humanities Rights.
Although germination of oak gives less immediate results, will be more but wait, a hundred years later, several centuries later, about the freshness of the weary pilgrims, lovers, a favorable shade, among which birds sing, which will be designed by performing the gesture seriously, who, many years below, the pad will be hidden in the soil.
Robert de Montesquiou, Major and Minor , Precursors and behind.
Above all it should be noted that cuts across the notion of spontaneous order. Because it has already been given in the past, many definitions of ethics, from Aristotle to the more contemporary, offered in an article written by me From Ethics and moral, ending the confusion of the senses . Mix these concepts, confused, or even admit that they blend one into another, is a serious error, although recurrent. For the discerning, it is clear from relativity, ie changes over time, concepts. Ethics is from everlasting, timeless, the compass that should guide the intellectual, the Sage, if you want to echo thinking of cynical philosophers, largely inspired by Socrates. Respect for life, to take a concrete example, belongs to ethics, that spark of humanity that should prevent us from expectations. Why? Because life can not be created, man has no control over it. A doctor, even the greatest, is just the guardians of life, not its creator. He can surround the patient good care, he can give it back if she leaves. The moral, in turn, form a set of rules for living together. Catallactic interacting directly with the company, they adapt and contribute to its evolution, it changes, even the appearance of new uses, new manners. The term spontaneous, meanwhile, is that one makes oneself, without being pushed by outside influence ( Nouveau Petit Larousse illustrated , 1934). The spontaneous order is the order in which members of the society of men without putting any pressure to guide them. This approach has been theorized by Friedrich August von Hayek, among others.
But then, what about this spontaneous order? For if one refers to the previous article mentioned, act ethically, or moral necessity conscious action, preceded by a decision process. This idea was already present in the thought of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in the fourth century AD, when he wrote " But nobody is doing much against his will, although he does is good " (Saint Augustine, Confessions , Book I, Chapter XII). There is therefore a reflection prior to the act which allows or not, hitting the bucket ethical or moral. The spontaneous order can not be ethical or moral is enshrined in humanity, and that this was no exception to the mandatory condition that the external force away from it (dictatorship statism, or interventionism, namely a complex form of dictatorship disguised) or prevents it. The market, since it refers to him in any intellectual habit that is poured into the economy or business policies, this term is neither ethical nor moral, it can not be neither an individual endowed with reason - a human being or an organization- composed of individuals acting for each other (within the meaning of a college thinking together). The market is just one illustration of the intellectual encounter multiple factors, both offers, as applications, subject to external requirements (sometimes here, morality is involved, so it is preferred in general by consumer products "clean", ie environmentally friendly and those who make them). This is not the market that decides, since its total absence of mind there is an absence of will, and therefore, accountability. That amount that the market caused the seizures, or pollution tantamount to accusing an illustration intellectual wishes to wear it may have in the real world. The only people responsible are the men, producers, and consumers. If tomorrow, the consumer continues to buy cheap goods made by children with poor-quality raw material plants close. The market is there for nothing. It is neither more nor less, than a way to represent the needs and desires. It is distorted by advertising is undeniable. Nobody, really need a phone laptop or the latest garments in the same tissue a hypothetical Russian astronaut sixties. Yet, advertisers tend to make people believe. It is no longer matter, then, but consumption of consumerism. Consumerism is it moral? From a personal point of view, so clean, with material things with marked disdain, I am inclined to say no. But that is irrelevant.
The market is therefore an emanation of natural rights, namely the order in which it takes place when no external stress never diverts. Added to this precision, fundamental to the nature of the ethical or moral act, namely the reflection. The spontaneous nature of this kind therefore rejects any intellectual dimension, it is merely a matter naturally. We can not, except for socialist thinkers (but the logic is often overlooked in their contradictory systems, as well as the natural respect due to the individual and his dignity), talking about ethics in the market. Especially the consumption of commodities is not moral, it is necessary for survival. If I refuse to eat, I die, it is necessary that I find my food just disappear. There is no choice, only a vital necessity. As for other needs, simply refer to the paragraph above and see how society, the groups of individuals, can influence them. And this observation to add that influence the market by acting on the stress (official: interventionism; hidden: advertising), men instill the beginning of corruption. The market can not be moral or ethical, but it may be corrupted. Critics of this idea see a contradiction in my thinking. It would be a mistake. Why? For every action in the flow of information, even in the natural functioning of the market is a constraint, limiting the freedom of everyone. This act is immoral because it disrupts spontaneous structure, inherently amoral, specific purpose (to earn more money, the future development of prices, production ...). This is not the market that we should try to modify, regulate or supervise, you must train those who are the actors. On the education of people, producers and consumers, then change their habits by choice of conscience. Give the keys of thinking, explain the economy and its functioning, its rules, its structures, codes also do not supervise and constrain, but simply provide the materials needed to build a system of individual thought. At the base of the ethical act, or moral, there is the individual and the individual alone is the thinking man who behaves well, or not. He alone must bear the consequences. We must therefore cease to enter the market mechanism, which is the natural shape of our relationship to another. Men do not love and goodness there is competition between individuals, not economic structures, just as there is violence in the relationship to another. Stop believing that a State elected or structure on the basis of concession for partisan purposes, will change the very nature of man. By voting, do we give to our representatives the right to force us, or healthier, than we can live well together?
0 comments:
Post a Comment