Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:33:12.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adam Smith and Three Theories of Altruism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Elias L. Khalil
Elias L. Khalil*
Affiliation:
American Institute for Economic Research, and Department of Economics, Vassar College
Get access

Summary

Smith advanced a particular view of altruism that should prove to be relevant to the modern literature on the subject. It provided the backbone of his critique of three different theories. These three theories have been reincarnated in three modern approaches : Robert Axelrod’s “egoistic”, Gary Becker’s “egocentric”, and George Herbert Mead and Robert Frank’s ”altercentric” views. Axelrod’s approach repeats the failing, which Smith found in Mandeville’s. Becker’s theory echoes the shortcoming, which Smith identified in Hobbes’. Mead/Frank’s view duplicates the fault, which Smith uncovered in the approach of Francis Hutcheson and other figures of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Résumé

Résumé

Smith a proposé une vision particulière de l’altruisme qui devrait être pertinente pour la recherche contemporaine sur le sujet. Celle-ci constitué le socle sur lequel repose sa critique de trois différentes théories. On retrouve ces théories dans trois approches modernes : l’approche « égoiste » de Robert Axelrod, « égocentrique » de Gary Becker et « altercentrique » de Robert Franck. L’approche de Axelrod reproduit l’erreur que Smith a décelée chez Mandeville, la théorie de Becker celle qu’il a identifiée chez Hobbes et la vision de Mead/Franck celle qu’il a mise en evidence dans l’approche de Francis Hutcheson ou d’autres figures du courant écossais des Lumières.

Keywords

egoistic theoryegocentric theoryaltercentric theoryB4D0???B4D0
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , 2001 , pp. 421 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2001 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Behavioral Sciences Research Council, a division of the American Institute for Economic Research, http://www.brc-aier.org, and Department of Economics, Vassar College, elkhalil@vassar.edu. A longer version benefited from the comments of Gary Becker, Ulrich Witt, Robert Goldfarb, Mark Wilhelm, Timothy Crippen, John Davis, Thomas Nitsch, Roger Masters, participants of sessions at the University of Freiburg, University of Chicago, and American Economic Association meeting, anonymous referees, and especially Robert Frank. This work was made possible by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

Aubrey, J. (1898), Brief Lives, chiefly of contemporaries, set down by John Aubrey, between the Years 1669 & 1696, vol. 1 (A-H), ed. Andrew Clark, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1976), “Altruism, Egoism, and Genetic Fitness : Economics and Sociobiology”, Journal of Economic Literature, 4, pp. 817–26. (Reprinted in Zamagni, , 1995.)Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1981), “Altruism in the Family and Selfishness in the Market Place”, Economica, 48, pp. 1–15. (Reprinted in Zamagni, , 1995.)Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T.C. (1995), “On the Evolution of Altruistic Ethical Rules for Siblings”, American Economic Review, 85, pp. 58–81.Google Scholar
Boyd, C.A.R. and Noble, D. (eds) (1993), The Logic of Life: The Challenge of Integrative Physiology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. (1985), “The Impartial Spectator Goes to Washington : Toward a Smithian Theory of Electoral Behavior”, Economics and Philosophy, 1, pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
Collard, D. (1978), Altruism and Economy : A Study in Non-Selfish Economics, Oxford, Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1986), “The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception”, Economics and Philosophy, 2, pp. 159–183.Google Scholar
Frank, R.H. (1988), Passions Within Reason : The Strategic Role of the Emotions, New York, W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H.M. (1971), “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Philosophical Review, 68, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
Getty, G. (1989), “The Hunt for r : One-Factor and Transfer Theories”, Social Science Information, 28, pp. 385–428.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (1980), “Making Moral Incentives Pay”, Policy Sciences, 12, pp. 131–145.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, K. (1981), The Science of a Legislator: The Natural Jurisprudence of David Human and Adam Smith, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W.D. (1964), “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior”, I, II, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, pp. 1–16, 17–52.Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. (1990), “Beyond Self-interest and Altruism: A Reconstruction of Adam Smith’s Theory of Human Conduct”, Economics and Philosophy, 6, pp. 255–273. (Reprinted in Zamagni, , 1995.)Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. (1996), “Respect, Admiration, Aggrandizement : Adam Smith as Economic Psychologist”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, pp. 555–577.Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. (1998), “Is Justice the Primary Feature of the State? Adam Smith’s Critique of Social Contract Theory”, European Journal of Law and Economics, 6, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. (1999), “Sentimental Fools : A Critique of Amartya Sen’s Notion of Commitment”, Journal of Economie Behavior and Organization, 40, pp. 373–386. (URL : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01672681)Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. (2000), “Beyond Natural Selection and Divine Intervention: The Lamarckian Implication of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, pp. 373–393.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. (1980), Hume’s Moral Theory, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Margolis, H. (1982), Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality : A Theory of Social Choice, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, edited by Morris, C.W. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, K.R. (1994), “A Fat Lady in A Corset : Altruism in Social Theory”, American Journal of Political Science, 38, pp. 861–893.Google Scholar
Monroe, K.R. (1996), The Heart of Altruism : Perceptions of a Common Humanity, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Postema, G.J. (1987), “Collective Evils, Harms, and the Law” Ethics, 97, pp. 414–440.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. (1991), Life Itself : A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. (1986), “Values and Preferences”, Ethics, 96, pp. 301–316.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1977), “Rational Fools : A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6, pp. 317–344.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1980/1981), “Plural Utility”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 80, pp. 193–215.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1985), “Goals, Commitment, and Identity”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1, pp. 341–355. (Reprinted in Zamagni, , 1995.)Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1990), “A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism”, Science, 250, pp. 1665–1668. (Reprinted in Zamagni, , 1995.)Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1976), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by Raphael, D.D. & Macfie, A.L. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice : A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. (1975), Sociobiology : The New Synthesis, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zamagni, S. (ed.) (1995), The Economics of Altruism, Aldershot, UK, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar