Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homo Economicus on Trial: Plato, Schopenhauer and the Virtual Jury

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of Homo economicus, one of the major foundations of neoclassical economics and a subset of the ideology of laisser-faire capitalism. was recently charged and tried in the island high court. Using the island’s virtual jury system for the first time, the accused was tried before a jury of three — Plato, Schopenhauer and feminist economists — chosen by him while under a veil of ignorance of the charge. All three returned guilty verdicts. Plato’s was prescriptive: ‘One ought not to be like Homo economicus’. Schopenhauer’s verdict was descriptive: ‘Human nature is not Homo economicus’. The feminist verdict was both. Following the trial — described as a thought experiment — the island’s resident philosopher put forward two claims: (a) Neoclassical economists base their theories on a deficient depiction of humankind (descriptive misconception) a claim supported by a witness expert in experimental economics; (b) The depiction holds a dominant but unjustified position in various discourses such as welfare state debates because it is promoted by a small but highly influential group of economically privileged, universityeducated whites, namely graduates of economics, a claim supported by the sociology expert witness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Plato Der Staat Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 1993 pp 147 ff

  2. Schopenhauer, A Preisschrift über das Fundament der Moral Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 1979 (first published 1840) p 143; Hume, D. Brief eines Edelmanns an seinen Freund, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg. 1980 p 119

  3. Daly, H. (1995) The Irrationality of Homo Economicus, on the Internet: http://iisd1.iisd.ca/didigest/special /daly.htm, 22/05/97

  4. Hickey, T ‘They are not Tigers — Myth and Myopia in the Quest for a Liberal Economic Order’ in: Brecher, B and Fleischmann, O (eds) Liberalism and the New Europe Avebury, Aldershot 1993 pp 59–88 (quotation p 76)

  5. Baumol, J W and Blackman, S A B Perfect Markets and Easy Virtue — Business Ethics and the Invisible Hand Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1991 p 13

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lohmann, K R ‘Was ist eigentlich Wirtschaftsethik? Eine systematische Einführung’, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 16.05.97, No.B21/97, 1997 pp31-38 (quotation p 33)

  7. Ash, T G We The People — The Revolution of ’89 witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin & Prague Granta Books, Cambridge 1990 p 132

    Google Scholar 

  8. Plato The Republic. Plato’s evidence draws on pp 63–4, 71, 213, 129, 156, 166, 369, 171, 368, 339,325, 150, 337.

  9. Schopenhauer, A Preisschrift über das Fundament der Moral, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 1979 (first published 1840). Schopenhauer’s evidence draws on pp 41, 54, 143, 166–9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Digel, W et al Meyers grosses Taschenlexikon Vol 1–24 B I -Taschenbuchverlag, Mannheim 1987 See Vol 10 p 215

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barry, N On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism Macmillan Press, London 1986 p 4

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cramp, T ‘Pleasures, Prices and Principles’ in: Meeks, G (ed) Thoughtful Economic Man — Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991 pp 50–73 (quotation p 53)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bell, D The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism Heinemann Educational Books, London 1976 p 16

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pascall, G Social Policy — A Feminist Analysis Tavistock Publications, London 1986 p 7

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sevenhuijsen, S Citizenship and the Ethics of Care, Routledge, London 1998 p 28

    Google Scholar 

  16. Midgley, M and Hughes, J Women’s Choices — Philosophical Problems Facing Feminism, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1983 p 11

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harding, S ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is “Strong Objectivity”?’ in: Alcoff L and Potter E (eds) Feminist Epistemologies Routledge, New York 1993 pp 49–82 (quotation p 55)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Midgley and Hughes op cit p 222

  19. England, P ‘The Separative Self: Androcentric Bias in Neoclassical Assumptions’ in: Ferber, M A and Nelson, J A (eds) Beyond Economic Man — Feminist Theory and Economics The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993 pp. 37–53 (quotation p 45)

    Google Scholar 

  20. bid

  21. Harding 1993 op cit p 55

  22. Collard, D ‘Love is not enough’ in: Meeks, G (ed) Thoughtful Economic Man — Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991 pp 17–28 (quotation p 17)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cramp 1991 loc cit p 59

  24. Hahn, F ‘Benevolence’ in: Meeks, G (ed) Thoughtful Economic Man — Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991 pp 7–11 (quotation p 9)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hahn loc cit 1991 p 9

  26. Named benevolence implies that the beneficiary is known to the benefactor, hence ‘named’. General deeds of benevolence like donating money to a children’s charity are not covered by named benevolence.

  27. England loc it 1993 p 48

  28. A cross-examination of this claim was not suggested during the trial. One might want to argue that people’s personalities can be divided along with their roles. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, for instance, wrote that ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ might have been able to apply Christian and enlightenment empathy in their private lives but not in the concentration camps (1996: 457). Daniel Jonah Goldhagen Hitler’s Willing Executioners — Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust Little, Brown and Company, London 1996 p 457

    Google Scholar 

  29. Most of the introduction and Professor Fehr’s ‘statement’ is taken from Uchatius, W ‘Der Mensch, kein Egoist’ in: Die Zeit Vol 55 No 23 p 31 31.5.00

  30. Uchatius loc cit p 31

  31. Goudzwaard, B and de Lange, H Beyond Poverty and Affluence — Toward an Economy of Care Eerdmans Publishing, Michigan 1995 p 120

    Google Scholar 

  32. ibid

  33. Dr Marwell’s statement was compiled by using Marwell, G and Ames, R ‘Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods, IV’, in Journal of Public Economics Vol 15 1981 pp 295–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marwell and Ames 1981 p 296

  35. ibid

  36. Ames loc cit p 307

  37. Ames loc cit pp 306–9

  38. ibid

  39. Waring, M If Women Counted — A New Feminist Economics HarperCollins, San Francisco 1990 p 45

    Google Scholar 

  40. Benn, P Ethics University College London Press, London 1998

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University, Lancaster, USA

    Doris Schroeder (Lecturer in Philosophy, Honorary Research Fellow)

  2. Centre for Bioethics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Doris Schroeder (Lecturer in Philosophy, Honorary Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Doris Schroeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I would like to acknowledge support from the British Academy for this paper and thank Gideon Calder, Garrath Williams, Armin Schmidt and the participants of the Bolton Institute Philosophy Seminar for their comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schroeder, D. Homo Economicus on Trial: Plato, Schopenhauer and the Virtual Jury. Philos. of Manag. 1, 65–74 (2001). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011215

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011215

Keywords

Search

Navigation