IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v18y2002i02p329-349_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why did the economist cross the road? The hierarchical logic of ethical and economic reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • Yuengert, Andrew

Abstract

The debate over whether or not economics is value-free has focused on the fact-value distinction: “is†does not imply “ought.†This paper approaches the role of ethics in economics from a Thomistic perspective, focusing not on the content of economic analysis, but on the actions taken by economic researchers. Positive economics, when it satisfies Aristotle's definition of technique, enjoys a certain autonomy from ethics, an autonomy limited by a technique's dependence for guidance and justification on ethical reflection. The modern isolation of technique from ultimate ends entails the risk of mistaking the proximate ends of economics for ultimate ends, especially when applying economic methods in new ways or to new social phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuengert, Andrew, 2002. "Why did the economist cross the road? The hierarchical logic of ethical and economic reasoning," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 329-349, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:18:y:2002:i:02:p:329-349_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267102002080/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vranceanu, Radu, 2005. "The Ethical Dimension of Economic Choices," ESSEC Working Papers DR 05001, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    2. Andrew Abela & Ryan Shea, 2015. "Avoiding the Separation Thesis While Maintaining a Positive/Normative Distinction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 31-41, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:18:y:2002:i:02:p:329-349_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.