<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Revisiting the moral sentiments (updated)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/11/revisiting-the-moral-sentiments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/11/revisiting-the-moral-sentiments/</link>
	<description>On religion, governance and world development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:36:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: G Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/11/revisiting-the-moral-sentiments/comment-page-1/#comment-338</link>
		<dc:creator>G Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeunestreet.com/?p=586#comment-338</guid>
		<description>Thanks Ryan. Looks like your blog has lots of potential -- hope you&#039;re able to get it going again!

The main point above is that our social systems rely upon values to structure relationships between people. At the most basic level, consider the importance of trust. You couldn&#039;t use money without anticipating that the next person you give it to will honour its value for what it represents (rather than what it is). 

As Smith points out, the complexity of market economies and modern society requires people to act upon values in their dealings with strangers even. Interestingly, the assumptions of neoclassical economics -- that action is motivated by self-interest -- if they were to dominate human behaviour would annihilate the foundations of the market. This is essentially Polanyi&#039;s argument. Human prosperity relies upon not just freedom, but patterns of belief and behaviour. In the past these have come from religion and I propose that they will have to be renewed from the same source if basis for modern society is to be sustained.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Ryan. Looks like your blog has lots of potential &#8212; hope you&#8217;re able to get it going again!</p>
<p>The main point above is that our social systems rely upon values to structure relationships between people. At the most basic level, consider the importance of trust. You couldn&#8217;t use money without anticipating that the next person you give it to will honour its value for what it represents (rather than what it is). </p>
<p>As Smith points out, the complexity of market economies and modern society requires people to act upon values in their dealings with strangers even. Interestingly, the assumptions of neoclassical economics &#8212; that action is motivated by self-interest &#8212; if they were to dominate human behaviour would annihilate the foundations of the market. This is essentially Polanyi&#8217;s argument. Human prosperity relies upon not just freedom, but patterns of belief and behaviour. In the past these have come from religion and I propose that they will have to be renewed from the same source if basis for modern society is to be sustained.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/11/revisiting-the-moral-sentiments/comment-page-1/#comment-336</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jeunestreet.com/?p=586#comment-336</guid>
		<description>That is an interesting article by Sen. Thanks for posting this! This connects very much with issues around our conception of what it means to be human and how it is that we interact with the world and make decisions. Seen from a strictly economic-utilitarian (utilitarianism + selfish definition of welfare) moral perspective, there is nothing other than the profit/personal-utility motive. It is interesting to consider then, what effect theories of society may have on society itself. It may be something of a stretch to believe that economic theories, premised on selfish utilitarian conceptions of human existence, are fostering such conceptions among people. But it is difficult for me to think that it has simply no effect. This is related to issues brought up by Flyvbjerg when he discusses the concept of the double-hermeneutic. (For a summary of one of his books where he discusses this see http://rwsiegel.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/book-summary-making-social-science-matter/)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is an interesting article by Sen. Thanks for posting this! This connects very much with issues around our conception of what it means to be human and how it is that we interact with the world and make decisions. Seen from a strictly economic-utilitarian (utilitarianism + selfish definition of welfare) moral perspective, there is nothing other than the profit/personal-utility motive. It is interesting to consider then, what effect theories of society may have on society itself. It may be something of a stretch to believe that economic theories, premised on selfish utilitarian conceptions of human existence, are fostering such conceptions among people. But it is difficult for me to think that it has simply no effect. This is related to issues brought up by Flyvbjerg when he discusses the concept of the double-hermeneutic. (For a summary of one of his books where he discusses this see <a href="http://rwsiegel.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/book-summary-making-social-science-matter/)" rel="nofollow">http://rwsiegel.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/book-summary-making-social-science-matter/)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
