Robert E. Allinson

While theoretically, egoism may be considered one kind of ethics, generally speaking, egoism, defined as self-interest at the expense of others, is contrary to the central principles of ethics, which are, in the main, other-directed. While Adam Smith's economics is famously argued to serve both self and other, the core thesis of this chapter is that Adam Smith's position is seriously flawed. The chapter argues that self-interest economics is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced by an objective, value-based economics. It is shown that Adam Smith's notions of humans as simultaneously ethical beings and beings who pursue their self-interest are contradictory. Economics cannot exist for the sake of itself: it must exist for the sake of a higher end.

Confucius’ ideas on economics are few, but through his ethics one may attain an idea of what kind of economics he would have found acceptable. Confucius’ ethics are based upon the natural goodness of human nature. In his mind, human beings are naturally kind to one another. One does not really need the Christian concept of benevolence for Confucius, because benevolence implies that one is going a step beyond what one would ordinarily do. The meaning of benevolence is to be greater than oneself, greater than the normal. For Confucius, kindness is intrinsic to human nature. His is the idea of natural kindness.

This paper is devoted to showing that a safety priority should be accorded the highest priority in decision-making and that such a prioritisation is an ethical responsibility. The connection between a safety-first priority and ethics is that an ultimate concern for safety is an integral feature of respect for human life. This paper exposes the illogic behind the misleading phrase "risky technology" and the fallacies which underlie the seemingly morally neutral phrase "risk assessment". It is argued that human beings ultimately possess the responsibility of the choice to employ one technological system as over another and hence the decision to employ unsafe technology is a case of "risky assessment" rather than "risky technology". The phrase "risky technology" implies that the risk factor is inherent to the technology when the risk factor is inherent to the choice of which technology to employ. Risk assessment has been portrayed as amoral numerical calculation without clarifying the basis of the assessment. It is argued here that risk assessment must include the basis of its figures and that, to be epistemologically sound, the basis should be past engineering performance and not "subjective engineering judgement". To be ethically sound, risk assessment must take into account not only probabilities of occurrence but consequences of occurrence, such as life or death risks to risk takers and all those on whom the risk taken will ultimately make an impact. It is argued that risk takers possess a right to know of the specific risks to which they are exposing themselves and that risk makers possess the corresponding duty to inform risk takers. The Challenger case is utilised as a lesson in unsound and unethical risk assessment. It is also utilised as a case in which the right of the astronauts and civilian passengers to know of the risk they were taking was not respected and the ethical duty to inform the astronauts and civilian passengers of the risk they were taking was not observed. Distinctions are drawn between general and unknown risks of space travel and the specifically foreknown risks of a design deficient O-ring which malfunctioned below specific temperature readings. The belief that progress requires risk taking is exposed as an oversimplification since progress can be made as in the case of the development of commercial air travel without taking reckless risks. Passenger aircraft must meet certain criteria of safety to be operable but this is not an obstacle to progress. The observance of the right to know and the duty to inform is an asset to business. In the case of Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines, the decision to notify the public of bomb threats may have given business a boost since passengers have deduced in absence of such a threat that their flight was a safe one as they trusted these airlines.

When writing about Buddhism, much attention is paid to Buddha’s Four Noble Truths: Life is suffering; Suffering is caused by craving and attachment; Suffering can be overcome by achieving non-attachment; the means to achieving non-attachment is to follow the Eight-Fold Path. Herein, the focus is on the Fourth Noble Truth, the following of Buddha’s Eight-Fold Path, which is the means to achieve the penultimate goal of Buddhism, non-attachment. Non-attachment is primarily aimed at developing non-attachment to personal cravings, to egoistic desires. The purpose of the non-attachment is to free the self to experience the feeling of compassion for all sentient beings and to take action on that universal compassion to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings. In contemporary parlance, the phrase, all sentient beings can be taken to stand for our global environment, its inhabitants and future generations. Non-attachment thus is not equivalent to detachment.Hidden in the practice of the Eight-Fold Path is the key to Buddhist economics, the Eighth path, the path of Right livelihood. In order to fully implement compassion, the economic path must be rightly chosen. One cannot achieve the goal of universal compassion, that is, the relief of suffering throughout the world, without the proper economic path, designated by the term, Right livelihood. Right livelihood will be the subject of this chapter’s inquiry. In Mahayana Buddhism, one cannot achieve spiritual enlightenment until everyone in the world achieves spiritual enlightenment. When one takes Right livelihood into account, herein also referred to as Buddhist economics, one cannot achieve Right livelihood until everyone in the world achieves Right livelihood and the effects of Right livelihood, the elimination of suffering are universally distributed. The concept of Right livelihood is to be understood as the practice of economic activity that is directed to the elimination of suffering in its most urgent cases, that is, in the most indigent people and places in the world.

In this Editorial introduction to the 31st volume (2nd issue) of Dialogue and Universalism, Dr. Allinson (Guest Editor of the volume and President of the International Society for Universal Dialogue) begins with a brief discussion of the central themes of the Enlightenment—freedom of thought, reason over faith, science, and the idea of linear or uniform progress. The introduction proceeds to a synopsis of the essays in the volume, which are arranged as a thematic development of these central themes. Dr. Allinson outlines and comments on the essays, whose focus ranges from Locke and tolerance to an appraisal of Steven Pinker’s popular book Enlightenment Now: the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress. The introduction ends with remarks on the value of such discussions, which, it is hoped, will continue to nourish the great tree of democracy and remind us of the need to engage our minds with the quintessential values that make life meaningful.