“Other” Ethics, Could Economics Need Different Ethics?

At the 26th UN Climate Change Conference, held in Glasgow, Scotland, countries recently

signed an agreement that includes measures against climate change. Thanks to this agreement,

coal, the most important of the fossil fuels, will be phased out. At the same time, rich

countries would provide financial support to countries that were in poor financial condition.

However, changing the wording in the draft texts on coal commitments also caused

controversy. Many states refused to limit coal consumption for their economic interests, even

though we live in the same world. Some items were left completely unclear. For example,

some countries talked about gradually reducing their fossil fuel consumption. However, they

declined to comment on how the stages might occur here (I openly call it Glomar Response).

According to Bhupender, India's Climate Minister, this situation seems very difficult for

countries with development and poverty. Because these countries, which already have

development and population problems, will have reduced their industries.

When I thought about this climate agreement crisis, I started to think that the disconnect

between economics and ethics was the real issue. I decided to trace ethics and economics

starting from ancient times. I have two main arguments. My first argument will be that the

economy in ancient times was not fully evaluated as an economy. While it is expressed with

the term Oikonomia, this understanding is much different from today's definition of

“economics”. In my second argument, I will talk about the foundations of Ferdinand Tönnies

and Otto von Gierke's sociological perspective on economics. I chose these two arguments to

show that the change in ethics is due to fundamental societal changes. In conclusion, my point

is that it is not possible to return to logos with traditional ethics. For this, we need to create a

new ethical understanding consciously.

First argument: According to the Oikonomia societies, goods in the world were plentiful,

and the surplus was used for the city's good (polis). In short, when there is a surplus of goods,

and extra income is obtained, it is used for social politics and philosophy.

Economics was the art of managing an Oikos like a farm (Leshem, 2016). The basic level of

agricultural and artisanal production took place at home, practiced by the Oikosun, and aimed

at meeting daily needs. Nevertheless, this would vary depending on the size and goals of the

Oikos. Especially the thought that systematically aiming at the production surplus in

agriculture and because of this, the thought that the products should be transformed and

evaluated made it necessary to control agriculture and animal products, which contributed to

the development of the economy.

In research from Leshem (2013), Oikos, a very comprehensive unit, was both a production

and consumption form and had a self-sufficient structure. The workforce provided this

structure, herds of animals, the construction material needed to build the structure, and the

clay from which the necessary ceramic pots were made. The most important shortcoming of

this self-sufficient structure was the inability to produce metal weapons and tools. Because the

mineral resources were insufficient, and the mineral needs were supplied from outside of

Oikos. The strangest thing about this simple economy is that it has the opposite ethical

relation to the modern economy. The modern economy is free from ethics, and economists

especially avoid talking about value and ethics (Robinson & Dow, 2021). Also, according to

our contemporary understanding of the economy, we live in a world where products (goods)

are scarce. Therefore, sharing is very important. However, when we examine the ancient
texts, the goods are sufficient for all of us, even abundant. There are also differences in the

concept of rationality, which economics frequently refers to.

Contrary to today's economic rationality, the aim in Oikonomia is to advance life “good”. This

can only be done by philosophizing (the good of society) and expressing oneself in the public

sphere, that is, by participating in politics. In Roman Law, there is a great illustration of this

issue. Plessis et al. (2020) argued that when consuls were elected (Cicero is a consul we know

well), he would spend all his fortune. As we see in ancient works, rhetoric, politics, and

philosophy are often done after a certain profit. (In Thrasymachus Republic, he does not want

to talk to Socrates. Thrasymachus asks how he will pay the money if Socrates is defeated)

In short, Oikonomia is so deeply entrenched in ethical judgments that it begs the issue of

whether and in what ways contemporary economics should be related with a deeper

evaluation of what makes a good life.

The second argument: The change in the definition of "good" in Oikonomia and Economics

is that social transformations trigger the change in ethical understanding. I will explain this

change by explaining Otto von Gierke's ideas about the transition from a status society to a

contract society, as well as Tönnies's Community and Society.

We see that although we have many productive ways today, the word efficiency does not

include our responsibility to the world. Our non-ethical responsibility to the world brings

problems such as the climate crisis. Where did the real break start?
In research from Riddle and Black (2016), people explain any event going on in the world

based on themselves. For example, seven planets are explained by seven points on the human

head. When we think about these funny-looking explanations from here, we can come to the

idea that the damage done to the world will return.

Nevertheless, the transition from status to contract society became possible. The concept of

the individual is one of the basic concepts of political systems. In particular, economic views

emerged that maximized the interests of individuals. Another point I would like to draw your

attention to here is that if you are not an “individual” you do not have a chance to make a

contract. The rationale is no longer the oikos itself but simply the individual. Going further

here, it can be said that Hobbes impacted England's industrial revolution. According to

Gierke, feudalism weakens the transition from status to contract society, and bourgeois

society rises (Gierke & Maitland, 2020).

In addition, Tönnies, based on the political and social thoughts of names such as Thomas

Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant, questions the change in economic

production forms. Congregational society, according to Tönnies, is similar to oikos and very

similar to Gierke's status society. In this form of society, the interests of the community, not

the interests of individuals, are important (Tönnies & Loomis, 2021). An important example

of this situation is the Oikonomia ethic, which requires working for the good of the city we

mentioned at the beginning.

As a result, we see that the change in ethical understanding is social change. However,

modern economists still think that philosophy deals with tradition and ethics are meaningless
for economics. They stay away from the subject of value as much as possible and display a

passive approach to subjects such as ideology and metaphysics (Robinson & Dow, 2021).

We are now at a point of no return, and it is not possible to restore our stance against logos on

issues such as the climate crisis. However, we are in the proper deadlock to create a new

ethic. We see that this deadlock is a situation that requires economists and philosophers to

work together. Now philosophers and economists alike must seek ways to create a new

foundation of logos at the same table. Economics needs new ethics; philosophy needs a new

economy.

References

Gierke, V. O., & Maitland, F. W. (2020). Political Theories of the Middle Age. Jazzybee

Verlag.

Leshem, D. (2013). Oikonomia in the age of empires. History of the Human Sciences, 26(1),

29–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695112471055

Leshem, D. (2016). Retrospectives: What Did the Ancient Greeks Mean by Oikonomia?

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(1), 225–238.

https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.1.225

Plessis, P. D. J., Ando, C., & Tuori, K. (2020). The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and

Society (Reprint ed.). Oxford University Press.

Riddle, J. M., & Black, W. (2016). A History of the Middle Ages, 300–1500 (Second ed.).

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Robinson, J., & Dow, S. (2021). Economic Philosophy (Routledge Classics) (1st ed.).

Routledge.

Tönnies, F., & Loomis, C. P. (2021). Community and Society. Mockingbird Press.