ECONOMICS AND ETHICS.* Ma. MAartroTr has written what he describes
as a " text-book," containing " an exposition as simple as he can make it of the leading principles of Economic Theory, as understood and expounded by the Classical Economists." Simple and clear the exposition certainly is, and it is perhaps because it differs from other text-books " in its abundance of concrete illustrations, and by occasional excursions into the domain of Economic history," that the field ranged over appears to be very wide and the treatment of some of the topics some- what superficial.
But Economics and Ethics, as an up-to-date statement of the views of orthodox modem economists, is a useful and eminently readable book. There remains its title, however, and the fact that its primary object is to afford some solution of their difficulties to the many " who are sorely perplexed in mind, and gravely disturbed in conscience, by the apparent contradiction between the precepts of Ethics and the laws of Economics." With the purpose of supplying consolation as well as a text-book, Mr. Marriott at the outset asks these questions : " Is it possible to be a good Christian and an orthodox economist ? Are Polities and Economics compatible with Ethics ? Is the pursuit of wealth consistent with the service of God ? " But it is difficult to believe that the answer he supplies to these questions will soothe the perplexed mind or satisfy the disturbed conscience. The questions are not even very clear or consistent. " The pursuit of wealth " an 1 " orthodox economies " are totally different things, while
he word " Politics " apparently slipped in per inturiant ; for no discussion follows as to the relation of politics and ethics ; and, in any case, does anyone seriously doubt that the organiza- tion and conduct of human society (which is what politics is concerned with) is, to say the least of it, quite compatible with ethics ?
However, it very soon appears that Mr. Marriott need not have called his book Economics and Ethics at all, because by the end of the second chapter, " The Scope and Method of Political Economy," he has decided that ethics deals with the things of the spirit, and economics with those of the flesh ; that in its own department economics " must be supreme " ; that " it can admit no rival, still less a superior," which means, presumably, that there is no relation between ethics and economics, and that, like knowledge and faith in one of Newman's University Sermons, they occupy different planes, and can never come into contact. In short, the title, Economics and Ethics, is apparently on a par with that of " Snakes in Ireland." The book is, thus, in reality, as Mr. Marriott calls it, " a text-book," and the title, with its promise of a discussion of a fascinatingand neglected topic, is mere academic " window-dressing."
But whether political economy is " the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life," as Marshall defined it, or, in Adam Smith's words, " is an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations," its relations with ethics cannot be so lightly dismissed as non-existent. Ant in fact, it is not maintainable that there is no relation between " moral law " and " economic law " ; for in that case the most efficient methods of producing, exchanging, distributing and consuming wealth, upon the discovery and application of which man's material progress depends, would have no relation to those principles of personal conduct upon the application of which his spiritual progress depends ; and, if economics can be as unethical as it likes, and ethics can be as uneconomic as it likes, the collision between them, which Mr. Marriott seems to think impossible, becomes inevit- able. But, in fact, of course, the influence of ethics upon economics is enormous : indeed it is not too much to say that many of the most remarkable advances in economic science have resulted from the application of ethical principles. Thus it was ethical considerations which forbade slavery amongst civilized nations, reduced the hours of labour and insisted on its adequate remuneration. Yet efficiency of labour is an obvious factor in the production of wealth, and all orthodox economists are now agreed that free labour is more efficient than slave, and that good wages and reasonable hours increase
• Ecanornter and Ethics : a l'reatiee of IVeaJ1/1 and Life. By J. A. a. Marriott. London: Methuen. [10s. MA
production. But it was the moralist's action, not the econo- mist's thought, that brought about this economic advance. In each case the " orthodox economist " of the period was dragged, protesting, at the heels of the moralist, and far from economics admitting " no rival in its own sphere," ethics turned out to know more about economies than economics did itself I Is it not the case, indeed, that instead of there being no relations between ethics and economics, good ethics are in- variably good economics, and that the principles of economics are constantly being readjusted to suit changes in economic practice upon which ethics has insisted ? To Mr. Marriott's question : " How far should the moral law govern the organiza- tion of industry and control the mechanism of trade ? " the present writer has no hesitation in answering : "The more the moral law governs and controls, the more successful from an economic point of view the industry and trade will be."
If this be true, then there can be no more interesting or important inquiry than one into the moral foundations of the present economic system. Of that system, private property is the basis, and the real question which is "perplexing many minds " is whether private property itself has a moral basis. Is it right or is it wrong ? The orthodox economist rests his whole economic structure upon it and obviously regards the economic soundness of private property as axiomatic. What does the moralist say ? If he were to decide it is wrong, and the proposition here suggested is correct, that what is ethically unsound cannot be economically sound, then private property should be replaced by something ethically sounder. This is clear, at any rate, that " the social conscience " of to-day will not allow the retention of private property on economic grounds unless it is satisfied that it has an ethical basis also.
It would have thus been natural that in a work on economics and ethics there should be a discussion on the ethics of private property. But Mr. Marriott declares that " State Socialism is no more immoral than individualism or syndicalism." Is there any foundation for that statement ? Is it not the fact that between the possession of private property and the development of human character there is the closest possible link, and that if you destroy private property the chances of the individual for ethical development arc reduced ?
The sooner, therefore, that the orthodox economists abandon the view that there is no relation between their subject and ethics, and undertake the study of the moral bases of the economic system which they approve, the more useful will they be. Moreover, it is only when they have satisfied them- selves that private property has a moral basis, and serves an ethical end, that they will fully understand that the next step in economic development is to promote the extension of private property, so that as many men and women as possible may share in the moral and economic stimulus it provides.
NOEL SKELTON.
Previous page
