Customer Reviews

The Foundations of Morality

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Foundations of Morality could be seen as an additional chapter to Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises. Mises adopted a utilitarian stance on ethical issues, but Hazlitt wrote a detailed explanation of what Austrian economics implies about utilitarian ethics. Social cooperation under the division of labor is moral because it makes improvements in human welfare possible. Hazlitt ignored all of the false comparisons that mainstream economists of the mid 20th made between real imperfect markets and idealized views of government. Markets enable people to improve their lives, while never achieving perfection. The market process is progressive, and government regulation leads to stagnation and even decline. Moral rules work to minimize conflict and promote social cooperation. "The system of capitalism is a system of freedom, of justice, of productivity". Hazlitt understood Mises and knew how to bring his economics into discussions of natural rights, act utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism.

Hazlitt also brings the issue of time preference into the discussion of ethics. The idea that immorality derives from high discount rates is so simple that one has to wonder how nobody thought of it before Hazlitt (at least as far as I know). Yet this is a profound insight. Hazlitt is not remembered as a great scholar, but there are few scholars who can claim to have hit upon such an insight.

Whether you agree with Hazlitt or not, any reasonable person should admit that this is a well thought out book. This book is a must read for anyone interested in ethics and economics. Unfortunately, Hazlitt does not have enough of a reputation to get the attention he deserves. There is an abridged version for those who want to economize on their time, but either way, read this book!

Henry Hazlitt was the author of 17 books. He is best known in libertarian and conservative circles for his outstanding, ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. He also wrote a fascinating book on ethics entitles, THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY.

This is a comprehensive work on the foundations of ethics. According to Hazlitt, the foundation of morality is social cooperation and from this principle he develops a variation of rule utilitarianism. Drawing upon the free enterprise tradition in general and the economic theory of von Mises in particular, Hazlitt argues that actions are good that promote social happiness, and the best way to achieve this is through the free enterprise system. Hazlit therefore rejects other approaches to ethics, such as natural law or religious based morality.

The best portion of this work is how Hazlitt relates utilitarianism and self-interest. One argument against utilitarianism is that by making the social good the basis of morality, all self-interest and initiative is destroyed. But as Hazlitt shows, those acts that are in our own self-interest tend to increase the overall happiness of society. If all my acts had to motivated by a desire to save starving people in the four corners of the world, neither they nor I would be likely be any better off as a result.

After he describes the foundations of ethics, he takes up some practical issues. For example, there are two outstanding chapters which discuss the relative morality of capitalism and socialism.

This book contains a brief introduction by Prof. Leland Yeager, who has written a book on ethics from a similar perspective entitled, ETHICS AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE: THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL COOPERATION. For a different view on ethics from a libertarian perspective, check out Murray Rothbard's, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY.

A logical, rational, and refreshingly unpretentious explanation of morality that doesn't fall victim to crass oversimplification, mysticism, or myopia, and which incorporates many of the best insights of previous moral philosophers while successfully debunking so many of the accompanying myths that don't stand up to analysis. It is so refreshing to read a book on ethics that actually takes the principles and logic of economics into account.

Hazlitt takes what most of us already seem to intuitively understand about the utilitarian nature of morality (as revealed through our preferences and implicit in the way that we argue our moral views), and helps put these intuitions into a logical framework that brings impressive clarity and comprehension to the great moral mysteries. In so doing, we discover that the common man is often closer to understanding the truth than the moral philosophers who make it their business!

One of the great things about Hazlitt's perspective (and I am tempted to in fact call it the correct one) is that it presents an objective case for morality (explaining its _foundations_) without dismissing the realities of moral conflict and ambiguity. Hazlitt's special brand of rule-utilitarianism (or "Mutualism") still allows for much reasonable debate over what the precise rules are that will in fact be most socially (and thus individually) beneficial in the long run, although he certainly gives us some solid pointers to that end.

Hazlitt has some really brilliant sections in here, most notably his chapter on "The Moral Criterion" and the final chapter which, taken together, provide a succinct overview of his moral framework. The writing is generally clear and understandable for any reader. Hazlitt often repeats himself, but it's usually to good effect since many of the concepts need reinforcement and rephrasing before they really sink in. Occasionally this does become a bit cumbersome, however.

Hazlitt was one cool dude. If everyone would take the time to read this book, the world could be a better place. This guy gets mad props from me. This is the book that I would have tried to write if Hazlitt hadn't already done it for me. It's a shame that so few people know about this book!

Henry Hazlitt's "Foundations of Morality" is a book that presents a case for rule utilitarianism - the idea that the best way to judge whether an act is or is not moral is whether it follows a rule that, if followed by all, would lead to the greatest good for all. In other words, a rule utilitarian would judge whether or not it is good to pick up litter off the street, go over the speed limit, or loan money to friends, would be to ask whether, if everyone followed that rule, the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved.

Hazlitt contrasts this with act utilitarianism, which is the idea that each act should be judged separately for its capacity to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. What's the difference? Take our example about whether it is moral to go over the speed limit. The act utilitarian might say that it is moral to go over the speed limit in some instances because there may be a greater good involved (quickly getting to a friend in need maybe). The act utilitarian would suggest that it is not moral to go over the speed limit because were everyone to do it, driving would become less pleasant for everyone. Therefore, even if there are individual situations where a greater good is satisfied by speeding, the act is still immoral because the greatest good is achieved from everyone following the traffic rules.

This leads to perhaps Hazlitt's main thesis: individual self-interest and social good coincide more often than we may think (as long as we see self-interest as long- rather than short-term). Some may say that my self-interest is to speed. Hazlitt would point out that over the long-term, though, EVERYONE including myself would benefit from EVERYONE following the 'no speeding' laws. By way of another example, a company may see benefit to advertising falsely about their product in order to drum up more business. Of course, this flusters their long-term self-interest in two ways: (a) they will likely acquire a bad reputation and sacrifice their long term viability at the expense of short-term gains, and (b) by advertising falsely, the company is breaking a rule that, if broken consistently by others, leads to a world where no one wants to live.

I have mixed feelings about Hazlitt's thesis and his defense of it. The first big concern is that it is too easy to think of instances where the morality of x and the morality of a universal rule based on x are very different. An act of forgiveness may be judged as very moral and noble, but were everyone to forgive all wrongs like this, the likelihood is that such a rule would lead to more wrongs being done (as retribution would cease to be a deterrent). In fact, some acts - like charity toward others - acquire their moral status BECAUSE they are rare (and therefore unexpected acts of kindness rather than expected and unsurprising matters of course). The problem is that Hazlitt simply does not bring up or defend his view against any counterarguments or counterexamples. He articulates his position, but really doesn't defend it.

Another thing Hazlitt does not do, to his detriment, is bring up a problem similar to the "free-rider" problem. Hazlitt wants to judge an act's goodness by whether, if it were followed by all, the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved. But this judges the act's consequences only in a world that doesn't exist! Imagine Hazlitt saying it: "Act x is a moral act because it hypothetically would lead to the greatest good in a hypothetical world where everyone were to follow the rule Whether it actually leads to the greatest good in this isolated instance is beside the point. I can imagine a world where it would lead to the greatest good, and that trumps the real consequences at present." As wrong as they may be, the act utilitarians can at least be concerned with evaluating morality based on actual, rather than hypothetical, consequences.

And there is also the REAL 'free rider' problem to talk about. To return the example about speeding, how would Hazlitt try and convince me that not speeding is more moral than speeding (supposing that I have a very pressing concern that may tempt me to speed)? He would likely say something like: "Speeding now may be in your short-term self-interest but it would also induce others to speed, leading to a world where everyone will speed. It is in your long-term self-interest not to speed because it is best to live in a world where traffic can flow safely." But, per game theory, I would ask Hazlitt what possible reason I have to think that my not speeding will help foster a world where others don't speed? Hazlitt writes as if my restraint now is in my long-term self-interest, but my long-term self-interest (of living in a world where traffic is safe and no one speeds) is mostly contingent on whether others refrain from speeding, not whether I refrain form speeding. (Of course, I may feel better by not speeding when I would expect others not to speed, but the claim that my long-term interest will be met by me not speeding now is quite wrong.)

In the end, I simply think that while rule utilitarianism has its appeals, there are too many weaknesses in its case (which Hazlitt presents only decently) for it to be the whole truth. I believe that morality is much more complex than Hazlitt's book acknowledges, that contra Hazlitt's arguments, ultimate ends often do conflict (I am a moral pluralist), and that any talk of the "greatest good for the greatest number" begs more questions than it answers.

My conclusion: a decent book, but not a very deep discussion.