Journal of Business Ethics 45 (4):387 - 401 (2003)
|Abstract||When we think of theories that attempt to root capitalism in nature, the one that comes most readily to mind is Social Darwinism. In this theory, nature - driven by Darwinian natural selection (the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest) - is interpreted to imply, when applied to human activities, that extreme competition will allow the most "fit" competitors to rise to the top and to survive in this "struggle for existence," and this process of dog-eat-dog competition leads to both material and social progress. Not only has this theory been shown to be seriously flawed, the putative social implications of Darwinian natural selection do not accord with the findings of contemporary neoDarwinists who maintain, for example, that the behavior of monkeys and apes reveals a blend of competition and cooperation and, generally, a close connection to human moral behavior. Adam Smith provides a more helpful view of the connection between nature and capitalism. He maintains that nature's wisdom, as seen in its harmony and balance, is displayed in economics and human nature. Competitive free enterprise, as a vehicle for exchange, functions within a cooperative context and exhibits virtues and values such as mutual help and benefit, trust, harmony, and friendship. I shall show that neoDarwinists agree with Smith's view that nature supports a connection between competition and cooperation, and they maintain that moral activity, rather than destructive dog-eat-dog competition, is necessary to achieve the goals of natural selection.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thomas Wells & Johan Graafland (2012). Adam Smith's Bourgeois Virtues in Competition. Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (2):319-350.
Larry Arnhart (1998). Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature. State University of New York Press.
Rolston (1981). Values in Nature. Environmental Ethics 3 (2):113-128.
Iii Holmes Rolston (1981). Values in Nature. Environmental Ethics 3 (2):113-128.
Stephen S. Hanson (2009). Pt. 4. The Challenge of Deriving an Ought From an Is. Can Moral Norms Be Derived From Nature? The Incompatibility of Natural Scientific Investigation and Moral Norm Generation / Ian Nyberg ; Moral Acquaintances and Natural Facts in the Darwinian Age. [REVIEW] In Mark J. Cherry (ed.), The Normativity of the Natural: Human Goods, Human Virtues, and Human Flourishing. Springer.
Mikael Stenmark (2009). Three Theories of Human Nature. Zygon 44 (4):894-920.
Kari Väyrynen (2001). Virtue Ethics and the Material Values of Nature. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 8 (2):137-148.
Alex Rosenberg (2013). How Jerry Fodor Slid Down the Slippery Slope to Anti-Darwinism, and How We Can Avoid the Same Fate. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1):1-17.
Richard Kraut (2007). Nature in Aristotle's Ethics and Politics. Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (2):199-219.
Nathan Kowalsky (2006). Following Human Nature. Environmental Ethics 28 (2):165-183.
Jack Green Musselman (2009). Pt. 1. Thomistic Foundations : Natural Law Theory, Synderesis and Practical Reason. Human Nature and its Limits / Christopher Tollefsen ; Synderesis, Law, and Virtue / Angela McKay ; Human Nature and Moral Goodness / Patrick Lee ; Natural Law for Teaching Ethics : An Essential Tool and Not a Seamless Web. [REVIEW] In Mark J. Cherry (ed.), The Normativity of the Natural: Human Goods, Human Virtues, and Human Flourishing. Springer.
Theodore R. Schatzki (2000). The Social Bearing of Nature. Inquiry 43 (1):21 – 37.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads10 ( #107,683 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?