Amartya Sen and Robert H. Frank both evoked themes from our
previous readings and also shed further light on previous works. In particular, Sen’s exploration of the false
dichotomy between “egoism” and “utilitarianism” seemed to directly relate to
Jean Hampton’s discussion of the need for both Kantian and Hobbesian
contractarianism in relationships (Sen 19).
Sen explored contractarianism by discussing group actions. Sen explains, “action based on group loyalty
may involve, in some respects, a sacrifice of purely personal interests, just
as they can facilitate, in other respects, a greater fulfillment of personal
interests. The relative balance of the two may vary” (Sen 20). Thus, Sen verifies that when we are tied to a
group—when we contract ourselves to others—self-interest must not solely guide
us, yet it must play a role in our group dynamics. Connecting us to Hampton’s work, Sen goes
even further. In terms of family
obligations, Sen concurs, “the extent of sacrifice could indeed by very large,”
and he explains that family dynamics call for “asymmetric sacrifices”
manifesting from “bias” and misperception (Sen 20). While Hampton discusses this relationship
between selfishness and selflessness in terms of the quality of interpersonal
relationships, Sen considers the topic in a different light. Economically, we are joined together in a
relationship with each other, as a group, nation, and world. Theories can either dictate that we spend our
money in a completely self-interested way or in an absolutely selfless way.
Yet, in reality, selflessness and selfishness in both interpersonal relationships
and economics are not mutually exclusive.
Presenting a choice between benefitting ourselves or benefitting others
is, as Sen points out, a false dichotomy.
In both interpersonal relationships and in economic relationships, we
not only can be both self-interested in some ways and selfless in others, but
we ought to incorporate these elements of both self-interest and selflessness
into these relationships.
Ellen,
ReplyDeleteI think the dichotomy you are pointing out is actually exactly the critique Sen was trying to make of traditional models of rationality. In discussing the two definitions of rationality, internal consistency and self-interests, he critiques both, and when addressing the notion of making self-interest the basis of rational behavior I think he calls for the kind of balance between selfishness and selflessness you call for. He notes that it is "patently absurd" to call "universal selfishness" a "requirement for rationality" (16). He goes on to to further critique models that believe constant self-interested actions is an accurate representation of not only rational action, but also an accurate representation of actual behavior: "Does the so called 'economic-man,' pursuing his own interests, provide the best approximation to the behavior of human beings, at least in economic matters?" (16). Sen even agrees with you that a mixture of both self-interest and extra-personal-interest are needed, using the example of trade unions and economic pressure groups as an exmaple: "The mixture of selfish and selfless behavior is one of the most important characteristics of group loyalty, and the mixture can be seen in a wide variety of group associations" (20). So as I said, it seems to me that Sen is arguing for the type of balance between selfishness and selflessness you call for in our economic relationships.
Hi Campbell,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, and actually your point is exactly what I was trying to convey with my post. I am sorry if I was unclear. I entirely agree that Sen is most definitely making fun of this false dichotomy. He points out that we most definitely need a mixture of both selfishness and selflessness in economic relationships, and I was hoping to demonstrate that just like Hampton shows that we need both selfishness and selflessness in our interpersonal relationships, we also need both selfishness and selflessness in our economic relationships. I believe that we are on the same page, but does that seem right to you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete" Thus, Sen verifies that when we are tied to a group—when we contract ourselves to others—self-interest must not solely guide us, yet it must play a role in our group dynamics."
ReplyDelete"Theories can either dictate that we spend our money in a completely self-interested way or in an absolutely selfless way."
"He points out that we most definitely need a mixture of both selfishness and selflessness in economic relationships, and I was hoping to demonstrate that just like Hampton shows that we need both selfishness and selflessness in our interpersonal relationships, we also need both selfishness and selflessness in our economic relationships."
I'm sort of confused on these sentences because I think Sen is using these observations to a different end that your posts imply. Sen is critiquing theories that use this false dichotomy to model human behavior. So when he is arguing that selflessness is also part of our behavior, he isn't necessarily making a moral imperative, he is making a factual statement that undermines models widely used in the engineering approach to economic theory.
So while Hampton was arguing that we need both selfishness and selflessness to have moral relationships, Sen is arguing that for models to accurately reflect relationships, they should include this ethical component. He would probably agree that being selfless is at times the moral act (so he would agree with you). It seems small, but I guess I'm posting because the reason that he is making this distinction matters. It is one thing to say that our economic relationships need selfishness and selflessness to be moral, and a different thing to say our economic relationships reflect our moral understandings and therefore our study of economics must as well. One suggestions a nice but nebulous moral principle, and the other knocks down a powerful line of thought in economics.
Hi Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI think you are definitely right that Sen argues that we need these components of selfishness and selflessness to model actual human behavior. However, I also do think that he makes a second point about the success and rationality of acting simply selfishly or simply selflessly. Sen explains that there are two issues at stake; he first discusses whether people actually act in a solely self-interested way, and he second discusses whether acting solely selfishly would result in success. He is not simply discussing the morality of these actions, but he does explore the success and rationality of these actions. In this way, I think that Sen does more than just explores models to accurately reflect relationships.