IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v23y2007i03p359-364_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Response To Dasgupta1

Author

Listed:
  • PUTNAM, HILARY
  • WALSH, VIVIAN

Abstract

The present note will be concerned only with Sir Partha Dasgupta's recent article in this journal (Dasgupta 2005). What is more, it will concentrate on those parts of the article which contain a serious misreading of Hilary Putnam's position on the entanglement of facts, theories and values. These philosophical matters can perhaps be clarified for economist readers (they should require no clarification for philosophers) by considering, to begin with, Dasgupta's interpretation of the Bergson–Samuelson position. What (Bergson) Burk (1938) and Samuelson (1947) were doing, according to Dasgupta, was to establish ‘the ethical foundations of the subject. . .over five decades ago’ (Dasgupta 2005: 221–2).2 Thus a major theme of the article is heard at once: economics is supposedly based on sound ethical foundations, and these can be traced (it is supposed) to specific work written long ago, and hence needing no augmentation. These ethical foundations, it is claimed, ‘are now regarded to be a settled matter’ (2005: 222).

Suggested Citation

  • Putnam, Hilary & Walsh, Vivian, 2007. "A Response To Dasgupta1," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 359-364, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:23:y:2007:i:03:p:359-364_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S026626710700154X/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. Martins, Nuno Ornelas, 2021. "The economics of biodiversity: Accounting for human impact in the biosphere," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Julie A. Nelson, "undated". "Economic Writing on the Pressing Problems of the Day: The Roles of Moral Intuition and Methodological Confusion," GDAE Working Papers 09-03, GDAE, Tufts University.

    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:23:y:2007:i:03:p:359-364_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.