Sergio Volodia Marcello Cremaschi

I reconstruct the background of ideas, concerns and intentions out of which Moore’s early essays, the preliminary version, and then the final version of Principia Ethica originated. I stress the role of religious concerns, as well as that of the Idealist legacy. I argue that PE is more a patchwork of rather diverging contributions than a unitary work, not to say the paradigm of a new school in Ethics. I add a comparison with Rashdall’s almost contemporary ethical work, suggesting that the latter defends the same general claims in a different way, one that manages to pave decisive objections in a more plausible way. I end by suggesting that the emergence of Analytic Ethics was a more ambiguous phenomenon than the received view would make us believe, and that the wheat (or some other gluten-free grain) of this tradition, that is, what logic can do for philosophy, has to be separated from the chaff, that is, the confused and mutually incompatible legacies of Utilitarianism and Idealism.

I discuss the origins of the idea of a political “Left”. I trace them back to historical circumstances of the French Revolution and, behind them, to ways of symbolical representation to be located within the framework of symbolic spatial organization of the social space. “Left” is, more than a concept, a symbol or a metaphor. That Left is connected in its very roots with the idea of equality. The very idea of democracy is connected in a similar way both to the ideal of Equality and to the idea of a Left. Besides, the universally shared normative ideal of democracy and the (to a point) universally shared normative ideal of equality are carried as a matter of course by the very framework of democracy as a set of institutions.

We reply to Philippe Depoortère’s paper “On Ricardo’s method: The Unitarian influence examined. Some comments on Cremaschi and Dascal’s article ‘Malthus and Ricardo on Economic Methodology’”. Depoortère asks two questions: (1) was Ricardo’s ‘conversion’ to Unitarianism sincere? (2) did Ricardo follow the methodologies of Priestley and Belsham? His answers are that he was a ‘religious skeptic’ and he was not an ‘empiricist’ like Priestley and Belsham. We reply that the sincerity of Ricardo’s religious beliefs is irrelevant since we start with the evidence that he was exposed for a long time to the intellectual influence of Belsham, primarily in matters of philosophy, and to deny this would imply a negative answer to a different question, namely, did Ricardo attend Unitarian meetings for 15 years? Then we reply that Ricardo inherited Belsham’s version of Newtonian methodology which omitted the fourth rule, that is the most anti-Cartesian and anti-systematic rule, and this has little to do with empiricism but instead with apriorism.

Recent contributions by Kuhn, Wartofsky, and Granger, converge in the direction of an extended view of models, one that acknowledges a metaphorical dimension in the language of science. Such a view is in some respects the opposite of the views of both Bachelard and the Logical Empiricists. A number of familiar puzzles of the philosophy of science, such as the problem of reference, the opposition of realism and instrumentalism, that between explanation and understanding, and the status of scientific objectivity, may receive a new solution in the light of the Kuhn/Wartofsky/Granger view of scientific metaphors.

: The theory of objective value is the central feature in the paradigm of political economy. The Newtonian heritage plays a major role in giving political economy the status of a self-standing empirical science, and a reconstruction of this heritage casts fresh light on the idea of value and its role in the definition of the subject matter of political economy. Cognitive progress carried by classical political economy turns out to be related with the dilemmas of Newtonian epistemology and the alternative between essentialist realism and instrumental conventionalism.

The relationship between Adam Smith's official methodology and his own actual theoretical practice as a social scientist may be grasped only against the background of the Humean project of Moral Newtonianism. The main features in Smith's methodology are (i) the provisional character of explanatory principles, (ii) 'internal' criteria of truth, (iii) the acknowledgement of an imaginative aspect in principles, with the related problem of the relationship between internal truth and external truth understood as mirroring 'real' causes. Smith's Newtonian (as opposed to Cartesian) methodology makes room for progress in social theorizing as it allows for a decentralization of the various fields of Moral Science, contributing to the shaping of political economy. On the other hand, the Cartesian legacy in Smith's Newtonian methodology makes the relationship problematic between phenomena and principles.

I discuss how criticism of social sciences taken up in Sartre's ‘Critique of Dialectical Reason’ is conditioned by Sartre’s own assumptions concerning nature, the mind-matter relationship, human beings’ bodily dimension. Although he looked at Husserl’s ‘Crisis of the European Sciences’ as a model for his own criticism of the social sciences, he didn't consider the criticism of the concept of nature undertaken by Husserl himself. Such criticism eventually leads to overcome Cartesian dualism. Sartre, on the contrary, superposes phenomenological ways of thinking to an unavowed Cartesian ontology which he never challenged. The consequence is that he looks at the subject and the object, or mind and matter, as radically opposite. Sartre's own vindication of methodological dualism between natural and social sciences – closely following Lukacs – is flawed by heavily relying on an uncritically presupposed ontological dualism.

I discuss the third of Anscombe’s theses from “Modern Moral Philosophy”, namely that post-Sidgwickian consequentialism makes the worst action acceptable. I scrutinize her comprehension of “consequentialism”, her reconstruction of Sidgwick’s view of intention, her defence of casuistry, her reformulation of the double-effect doctrine, and her view of morality as based on Divine commands. I argue that her characterization of consequentialism suffers from lack of understanding of the history of utilitarianism and its self-transformation through the Intuitionism-Utilitarianism controversy; that she uncritically accepted an impoverished image of Kantian ethics and intuitionism, which was, ironically, an unaware bequest from her consequentialist opponents; that her action theory, yet, is a decisive contribution that may prove useful in formulating answers to questions that have been left open in both utilitarian and Kantian or intuitionist theories; that, to make the best of her actions theory, it is as well to drop her divine law view of ethics, which is incompatible with the former; and that the rather obscure traditional theological doctrine of absolute prohibitions is unnecessary to her project that could fare well with the more sober distinction between perfect and imperfect duties.

The chapter reconstructs the eighteenth-century discussion on commerce and virtue in the light of Hirschman's, Pocock's, Polanyi's, and Viner's interpretations of that discussion. The claims put forth are: the history of the emerging of modern market society has been heavily conditioned by a teleological and deterministic interpretation of history; the eighteenth-century discussion cannot be read neither in terms of ideologies nor in terms of the history of economic analysis; a 'strategic' reading is fruitful in so far as it allows two-ways interactions between discourse and social facts.