One of the most authoritative theories about the constitution of society in the modern world is that economics and economic relationships define the fundamental structure of all social relationships, indeed of society itself. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, in their very different ways, either asserted or implied the primacy of economics and economic relationships as fundamental to the existence and evolution of nations and to the creation of wealth. But these views displaced an older conception of society which considered ethics and ethical codes as the fundamental bedrock of societies. In that older view, the success of a society was judged by its adherence to the ‘good’ rather than to its store of accumulated wealth. Ethical codes may have had a religious dimension, but it was the way conduct and behavior were regulated by or referred to ethical judgement that allowed for the stability, maintenance, and success of social relationships and, hence, of society as a whole.
2007-12-02 15:13:15 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
this came from an essay topic for the 2007/2008 national Humanitaries essay competition at UBC...
2007-12-02 15:14:09 · update #1
Coming from a guy who is devoting his career to the study and application of economics, all I can say on ethics and economics is that econ is a GREAT way to maximize profits, but it's not a good way to live your life.
2007-12-02 15:20:24 · answer #1 · answered by Trouser 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ethics of a society arise from the interaction between the biological imperatives for self and species preservation and the economic system that governs how material goods are produced and distributed. Successful societies from the theocracy of ancient Egypt to modern industrial democracies succeeded because the ethical code supported the economic system so cooperative efforts could be sustained without expending a wasteful amount of effort on enforcement of rules. The ethics must fit with the economic system. The ethical code of Rome would be a disaster if held by people in the US today, but it made Rome very successful.
2007-12-02 17:49:50 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this question could be dealt with somethin referred to as the best area of each and every thing and a bad area of each and every thing....Bio Piracy and Animal sorting out and Globalisation has condemned to be proper yet there are ethics allowed too, If Wal-mart supplies away a million jobs its a great sight to the chinese language financial device (because of the fact they're keen to artwork on the fees under the reforms) and for the ILO its unethical, WOM and Viral advertising and marketing however they arrive very uncommon in Economics is unethical in some components and its greater advantageous in many components....Dumping and circulate pricing are ethical and ethical yet they have a distinctive area too, If invoice Gates and Warren buffet are confident wealthy yet they're additionally wrapping it up by social accountability in direction of the society, genuine there are inequalities and financial ethics has been an oxymoron because of the fact the dogs AND CATS OF the wealthy have greater nutrition and comforts than the unfavorable, for this reason ethics and economics do not circulate nicely bcos there'll besides be loop holes of the regulation...the wealthy are wealthy and the unfavorable are unfavorable
2016-10-10 03:06:34 · answer #3 · answered by fomby 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it takes about, but ultimately with out ethics, there would be no stable economy
2007-12-02 15:24:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it does
2007-12-02 15:20:10 · answer #5 · answered by investing1987 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋