Professor Hausman has written an interesting and instructive book. Though I am by no means favourably disposed to methodology for economists,, I found reading Hausman enjoyable and I came away having learned things worth learning. But not all is well, largely because Hausman is a philosopher first and an economist a poor second. There are also important questions where one would have expected philosophic help which are not asked at all.

The connection between economics and ethics is as old as economics itself, and central to both disciplines. It is an issue that has recently attracted much interest from economists and philosophers. The connection is, in part, a result of the desire of economists to make policy prescriptions, which clearly require some normative criteria. More deeply, much economic theory is founded on the assumption of utility maximization, thereby creating an immediate connection between the foundations of economics and the philosophical literature on (...) utilitarianism and reasons for action. In fact, some influential contemporary approaches to ethics advocate decision-theoretic or game-theoretic foundations of some sort for moral principles, while several economic theorists are now prepared to take into account the ethical dimensions of rational decisions. As a result, it appears that economics and ethics are somehow inextricably linked through theories of rational decision-making. Most of us would probably find it disturbing to concede that there are contradictions between the prescriptions of rationality and the requirements of moral `rightness'. The essays included in the present volume provide a detailed analysis of the connections between ethics and economics as viewed from several different - sometimes conflicting - perspectives. This book, the outcome of a joint meeting of philosophers and economists, has three main themes: the validity of utilitarianism much used by economists, the notion of fairness and equity, and the coherence of the rationality postulate of economics. The book does not reach any final conclusions, but it greatly illuminates the exact areas of possible disagreement and indeed the open-ended nature of ethical reasoning. There is much that economists, and especially welfare economists, can learn from these papers - not least circumspection. (shrink)

The main response to the multiple crises besetting Western societis in the past decades has been the attempt of the academic and scientific as well as political circles to gain a sense of orientation—and of social cohesion—by two main modes of thinking: identity politics and evidence-based knowlegde. Regarding the latter, I argue that if scientific knowledge is reduced to facts, data and numbers, as the basis for political decisions without any alternatives, it would become a dogma propagating the truth—that is, (...) a new religion. Politicians will no longer have to struggle with other perspectives, once there is a consensus about following the line that “the numbers or the facts speak for themselves.” While many people would perhaps find in this new religion a guarantee of security in an insecure world, this sense would be illusionary. I argue that the role intellectuals should play in a spiritual crisis of this kind is paradoxically to cultivate a sense of more security by strengthening a culture of “insecureness” or docta ignorantia against the dogmas within science and religion. To create and encourage a new art of questioning and listening, and of learning to appreciate non-knowledge as the basis of coming together. This notion is found in the Greek and Christian as well as the Jewish tradition of European thought, and it continues in the works of modern thinkers such as Paul Ricoeur, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Hartmut Rosa, and of philosophers who focus on the question of the ineffable. My aim is to present this quality of certainty within uncertainty by examples from different fields, including philosophy, art and psychotherapy, and to elaborate on the paradoxical question: does a troubled Geist need more trouble in order to help us find a sense of orientation through disorientation? (shrink)

In this essay I reflect on fear and cultural exhaustion and their effect on our language, as possible causes, among many others, of the rise of nationalist and chauvinist feeling across Europe today. By fear I mean the fear of not understanding and of not being understood by the other, which may affect us in various ways; by exhaustion I refer to our modern work life with its permanent accessibility and the uncontrolled flood of pictures and information we are exposed (...) to by digitization, as well as to the more general cultural exhaustion when it comes to discussing “values” or “ideas,” which more and more people see as empty words. This pervasive sense of fear and exhaustion has a substantial effect on our language, for the use of readymade phrases, as in the German “Phrasendreschen”, tends to see them as identity markers and thus to induce resentment against those who do not belong to the same in-group. But language, once it is reduced to a mere instrument for transmitting information, generates the sense that everything has already been said, and in feeding our cultural exhaustion and boredom, leads us to abandon the notions of utopia, irony and poetry, all of which thrive on the creative inexhaustibility of language. Fear and exhaustion ultimately lead us to abandon any dialogue with others. What we need is a new way of listening, “new ears” with which to listen to what we initially perceive as “unheard” words, for without the ability to listen to “strange” words, the words of the “stranger,” no society can survive for long. (shrink)