| Digital List Price: | $21.99 |
| Print List Price: | $22.50 |
| Kindle Price: | $15.99 Save $6.51 (29%) |
| Sold by: | Amazon.com Services LLC |
Your Memberships & Subscriptions
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce 1st Edition, Kindle Edition
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $34.75 | — |
McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.
High Noon, Kant, Bill Murray, the modern novel, van Gogh, and of course economics and the economy all come into play in a book that can only be described as a monumental project and a life’s work. The Bourgeois Virtues is nothing less than a dazzling reinterpretation of Western intellectual history, a dead-serious reply to the critics of capitalism—and a surprising page-turner.
- ISBN-13978-0226556642
- Edition1st
- PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
- Publication dateMarch 15, 2010
- LanguageEnglish
- File size4307 KB
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the WorldDeirdre Nansen McCloskeyKindle Edition
Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern WorldDeirdre Nansen McCloskeyKindle Edition
Leave Me Alone and I'll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the WorldDeirdre Nansen McCloskeyKindle Edition
Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for AllDeirdre Nansen McCloskeyKindle Edition
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Marguerite Gavin is a seasoned theater veteran, a five-time nominee for the prestigious Audie Award, and the winner of numerous AudioFile Earphones and Publishers Weekly awards. She has been an actor, director, and audiobook narrator for her entire professional career. With over four hundred titles to her credit, her narration spans nearly every genre, from nonfiction to mystery, science fiction, fantasy, romance, and children's fiction. AudioFile magazine says, "Marguerite Gavin...has a sonorous voice, rich and full of emotion."
--This text refers to the audioCD edition.From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.
Review
“An impressive collection of intellectual riches.”
-- Alan Ryan ― New York Review of Books"The Bourgeois Virtues is the most comprehensive attempt yet published to show that Sunday and Monday virtues are compatible and complementary. Deirdre McCloskey's grasp of history, philosophy, the social sciences and non-Christian religions makes the treatment of the classical virtues rich and deep."—James Halteman, Christian Century -- James Halteman ― Christian Century
"A significant contribution to the study of the moral basis of economic life and thought. McCloskey has woven many sources and a number of traditions together to provide the beginnings of an argument and discussion of the role of virtues in economic life. Her approach intersects with, but also challenges, ongoing steams of research in the areas of behavioral economics and social, cultural, and institutional economics, and her vision is original." -- Jonathan S. Feinstein ― Journal of Economic Literature
"This book is unfair in many ways. For all the seriousness of the content, it is written in such a beguiling manner that the reader is seduced into reading for sheer enjoyment rather than dutifully putting together wisdom and enlightenment." -- Paul B. Trescott ― Magill's Literary Annual
"This is an admirable start to a bold project. Readers will find the extensive citations from literature, art, and history entertaining and informative, and the scope of the study should provide food for thought on a wide range of topics.. Most importantly . . . it illuminates the question at the heart of current debates over the marklet system and how it affects people." -- John D. Larrivee ― Journal of Markets & Morality --This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.
Product details
- ASIN : B003QHYIXY
- Publisher : University of Chicago Press; 1st edition (March 15, 2010)
- Publication date : March 15, 2010
- Language : English
- File size : 4307 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
- Print length : 636 pages
- Page numbers source ISBN : 0226556646
- Best Sellers Rank: #554,358 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- #97 in Free Enterprise
- #316 in Free Enterprise & Capitalism
- #367 in Economic History (Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
"I claim that the modern world was made by a new, faithful dignity accorded to the bourgeois - in assuming its proper place -and by a new, hopeful liberty - in venturing forth. To assume one's place and to venture: dignity and liberty. "
Dignity and liberty work. By now we should have ceased being shocked by their efficacy. The special development zone of Shenzen, a suburb of Hong Kong went from being a small fishing village to an 8 million soul metropolis in two decades. True, it didn't happen without some nasty rent-seeking by party officials and their friends. But out of such creative destruction are average incomes dramatically raised. Such a feat required a shift in rhetoric: stop jailing millionaires and start admiring them; stop resisting creative destruction and start speaking well of innovation; stop over-regulating markets and start letting people make deals, corrupt or not.
THE OLD VIEW OF THE BOURGEOISIE
Until the view of the bourgeoisie suddenly changed in academic circles in Spain, then in commercial and (some) political circles in Holland and then in Britain and the United States, dignity and liberty for the bougeoisie was viewed as an outrageous absurdity. Of course, the bourgeoisie was contemptible!! In Confucianism the 4th and lowest of the social classes is the merchant, only just on a par with the carriers of night-soil; or in Christianity, the camel having a better chance of passing through the eye of the needle than a rich man entering heaven.
'
Around 1700, for the first time ever, deals to buy spices (or steam engines) low and sell them high were admired. The admiration overturned various anti-bourgeois stereotypes which had so long prevailed ....that deals are dirty and unholy, that the dealers are dangerous and disreputable, and that men of honor - such as the gentry or the priests or the mandarins or the SEC or the FDA - should of course keep them in their place.
Before Britain and Holland, the world had never seen whole-country examples of success from leaving the bourgeoisie free and respected. People looked to apparently successful Venice and took the lesson that the way to wealth was colonies and mercantilist trade. Those who can see order only when there is a conscious ordering mind - socialists, totalitarians...and the like - feared the consequences of giving dignity and freedom to greedy merchants looking only self-interest.
The change in attitude was slow in changing the popular image; in fact, it never did, completely. Nothing different today.
ECONOMICS IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN PEOPLE'S EARS
It was a long and complicated cultural task to change perceptions of the merchant, to create what Schumpeter called a "business-respecting civilization. Before 1600, the transcendent (great) man had been limited to the brave hero or saint, or the courtly, imperious nobleman. Shakespeare, writing around 1600 populated his plays with: honorable aristocrats, comical peasants or sweet peasants. The only bourgeois character is the unsavory Shylock in the "Merchant of Venice." The elite in Britain took a century or more after Shakespeare to just begin thinking of commercial activity as OK.
McCloskey is well read and learned and has a deep academic understanding of ethics and virtues. I tend to support her outlook. My dissatisfaction with the book is due to her writing style. The Wall Street Journal’s review says McCloskey’s, “… style is conversational and lively, sometimes even cheeky, so that even the toughest concepts seem palatable." I found the style to be excessively wordy, which often made reading tedious. It is like trying to have a conversation with a person who will not stop talking (or take a breath). Frequently, she would give a laundry list of people who supported her point or whose reasoning she disputed. This comes across as her being a hammer and the reader being the nail.
I think she errs by identifying certain academics as feminist. However, I understand this due to her background. Ethics and virtues apply to all people regardless of gender, and the validity of any underlying evaluation should not be a function of the evaluator’s gender. This type of identification only adds to the Balkanization of society.
This book is, simply put, a mess. Ostensibly an apologia for capitalism, organized around various traditional (and not so traditional) moral "virtues," in the tradition of Adam Smith's "The Theory of the Moral Sentiments," McCloskey's book is, in fact, a rambling, confused (or, at least, confusing), idiosyncratic, grandiose and self-serving diary of personal experiences and beliefs, complete with lengthy disquisitions on books, articles, films, poetry and music she either adores or detests. Her erudition is as impressive as it is obvious; she rather hits the reader over the head with it. She can cite more works from different disciplines -- both low-brow and high-brow -- on a single page, than most authors can manage in an entire chapter. At first, the reader is awe-struck by the vastness of her knowledge. Soon, however, the reader's head starts spinning from all the sharp turns and digressions, and fatigue sets in. For a while, one presses on, fighting the fatigue in the vain hope of a pay-off that never comes. Perhaps it will come in book 4 of the series. Now, I don't have a particular short time horizon (or high discount rate), but I'm not waiting until book 4 to find out where all of McCloskey's ruminations lead us.
Surprisingly, the author pays scant attention to economics throughout the book; and when she does mention the subject of her real expertise, the analysis is somewhere between skimpy and non-existent. She identifies herself as a Chicago-school economist, and to prove her bona fides she suggests in the book's executive summary that there is no such thing as a public good (citing as support only Coase's justly famous article about lighthouses in England, despite subsequent work by van Zandt showing that Coase's lighthouses were all heavily subsidized from public coffers). And in strong contrast to Adam Smith, who believed in publicly owned (or crown-owned) parks for purposes of public recreation (as opposed to lands privately-owned for economic production), McCloskey identifies herself as a "free-market environmentalist," who promotes priviatization of our national parks. Admittedly, these concerns reflect my interests as a scholar who works in the area of environmental law and economics. Nevertheless, McCloskey has a great deal of work left to do to explain to the readers why, in her ethical framework, all environmental goods should be private owned (as if they could be) and left exclusively to the work of market forces.
I may be missing something here. Perhaps this really is the most important book since "The Theory of the Moral Sentiments," and I just don't get it. Or, maybe I do get it and this is simply a bad book.
Top reviews from other countries
Mais à part les toutes premières pages, et les toutes dernières, il n'est en réalité que très peu questions de bourgeois et de capitalisme. De la page 91 à la page 407, c'est à dire le cœur du livre, nous avons en fait à faire à un traité (assez désordonné) de philosophie éthique, défendant l'éthique de la vertu contre ses concurrentes académiques, à savoir, l'utilitarisme et le kantisme.
Je ne suis pas suffisamment expert en philosophie de l'éthique pour pouvoir juger de la pertinence de cette défense, bien que j'ai l'impression que McCloskey combat tout au long de son livre des hommes de paille. La principale critique que j'adresserais à ce livre est qu'il n'était annoncé nulle part que ce serait ça le sujet principal !
Par ailleurs, l'impression que McCloskey combat des hommes de paille me semble renforcer par le traitement qu'elle fait, à plusieurs reprises, des positions de Steven Pinker et de la psychologie évolutionniste. Sur ces points particuliers, qui ne sont pas essentiels, mais qui sont les seuls points sur lesquels je suis à peu près aptes à juger, j'ai l'impression qu'elle caricature et mésinterprète complètement le projet de la psychologie évolutionniste. J'ai l'impression par exemple qu'elle ignore d'une part la distinction entre explication ultime et explication proximale d'un comportement, et qu'elle flirte donc avec le degré zéro de la critique que l'on fait à la psychologie évolutionniste, à savoir de prétendre qu'elle affirme que l'on est altruiste dans la vie dans le seul souci de pouvoir transmettre nos gènes. D'autre part, elle semble également ignorer la nature descriptive et explicative du projet évolutionniste en lui attribuant une nature normative qu'elle n'a pas. Steven Pinker a toujours dit que, si une connaissance de la nature humaine pouvait être utile afin d'avoir un regard éclairé sur les décisions politiques et éthiques, en aucun cas l'évolution ne prescrivait une éthique. Il a fait remarqué par exemple que d'un point de vue purement évolutionnaire, lui-même, qui n'a pas d'enfant biologique, était un complet raté, mais que ceci n'avait jamais eu aucune incidence sur son choix de vie.
Une dernière critique que je ferais est que McCloskey utilise tout au long de ce livre un vocabulaire inutilement religieux. Tout au long du livre, elle argumente en long, en large et en travers sur un point qui me semble pourtant évident, à savoir que certaines choses sont désirées pour elles-mêmes, comme fin, et non pas parce qu'elles sont utiles, comme moyen. Cet enfonçage de portes ouvertes sert à McCloskey à établir une distinction entre ce qui relève du profane (en gros, ce qui est utile) et ce qui relève selon elle du sacré (ce qui est une fin en soi). Elle semble attribuer à l'utilitarisme l'idée selon laquelle il n'y aurait que des choses utiles, et aucune fin en soi, mais je n'avais personnellement jamais compris ça quand j'ai étudié l'utilitarisme. McCloskey se dit chrétienne, et elle le fait bien comprendre.
Peut-être que je suis injuste et que je combats moi-même un homme de paille dans ces critiques. Dans ce cas, je revendique le fait de ne pas être le seul responsable car McCloskey n'est souvent pas très claire dans ce qu'elle veut démontrer. Très souvent dans le livre je me suis dit : "quel est le propos, où veut-elle en venir ?". Et effectivement, on ne trouve dans ce livre que très peu de développements argumentatifs analytiques ou de données empiriques à l'appuie de propositions que l'on voudrait démontrer. On a, à la place, des anecdotes, des récits de livre et de films, qui sont censés soutenir des propositions qu'on ne discerne pas toujours très nettement.
Bien que je me suis énormément ennuyé, j'ai tout de même tenu à finir le livre. Certains passages au début et à la fin du livre, quand on parle un peu d'économie, sont intéressants, mais pas suffisamment argumentés de mon point de vue. Bien que le contenu des tomes suivants me semble un peu plus intéressant, je n'ai pas le courage, après avoir lu ce tome, de lire la suite.

