Economic Christian Humanism Gordon Menzies and Donald Hay

Economic (Christian) Humanism Gordon Menzies and Donald Hay

Are Christian Conceptions of the Person a Relic of a Bygone Era? • For most people at this ASSA, what we do is a relic of a bygone era too • But this depends on the truth of Christianity

If there is conflict, what then? “Many people, including many religious believers, seem to be unaware that an intellectual battle is raging – a battle whose implications for the Christian faith are so enormous that these earlier controversies [i. e. about evolution] almost seem incidental and peripheral. … the current battle is the latest engagement in a very long war – the struggle over the nature of man” C Stephen Evans

One answer is to have a close encounter with our discipline (rational choice theory) Knowledgeable and informed critique, becoming (Evans): A Christian Humanizer of Science (rejects Unity of Science Thesis) There is only one true scientific method … The Divided/chaotic Self (Doctrine of Fall/Redemption) appends to RCT A Christian Limiter of Science (rejects Scientism) … giving us the whole truth about everything Affect/Love/Desire (Worship in Doctrine of Creation) points away from ‘calculating machine’ of RCT

RCT is not one-to-one with Christian Theology 1. Creation: relational, shaping and stewarding world, capacity for moral choices and worship Limiter of science 2. Fall: Costly autonomy is possible, damage in relationships with God, people and creation 3. Redemption: formation of ‘in Christ’ body of people alongside ‘in Adam’ people. But even those in Christ have divided selves in their Humanizer of science struggle with evil

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves, desires

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves, desires

Cardinal Utility is a simple account U=U(Apples, Leisure) 1. Apples and leisure commensurable in happiness 2. Undivided self (no conflict or chaos) can balance happiness

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves, desires

Ordinal Utility has somewhat behaviourist anthropology P=P(Apples, Leisure) 1. Very close mathematically to U but max P treated as an ‘as if’ assumption ‘I am giving a definition of altruism that is relevant to behavior – to consumption and production choices – rather than giving a philosophical discussion of what ‘really’ motivates people. ’ Becker Treatise on Family

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves, desires

The Divided Self is in the Scriptures • Romans 7: 15 ff In practice, what happens? My own behaviour baffles me. For I find myself not doing what I really want to do but doing what I really loathe. Yet surely if I do things that I really don’t want to do, I am admitting that I really agree with the Law. But it cannot be said that “I” am doing them at all—it must be sin that has made its home in my nature.

The Divided Self is in the Journals • ‘Some people hate themselves. But if I say, “I hate myself, ” who is this “I” that stands apart from “myself”? And notice how in the expression “I am not myself today, ” the “I” and “myself” change places. Now it is “myself” who is the authentic, the authoritative, the judgmental “I, ” and it is “I” who is the self that is judged and found wanting. Some people talk to themselves; when they do, who is speaking and who is listening? ’ Richard Posner

We give a recognizably Christian account of the struggle agents have to give Bottom Quintile (least religious) Top Quintile (most religious) Volunteering 40% approx. 60% approx. Financial giving 2% income 6% income (in last 12 months) Civic engagement x 2 approx. Putnam and Campbell, American Grace

Divided self has mixed motives Mixed Motive Valuation = mmv(self, neighbours) 1. The arguments now express spiritual struggle (so ‘self’ is not legitimate self care) 2. The agent is divided in a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde way, finding giving to self and others ‘fulfilling’ (fulfilment being the maximand)

Menzies, G. D. & Hay, D. (2012). Self and Neighbours. The Economic Record •

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves, desires

Gift need not be Exchange 1. the proclivity to give is mechanical and not strategic, thus gifts are not exchange 2. The exogenizing of what could be endogenous (giving when given to) is a way of modelling deontology 3. For another way of modelling deontology see Menzies, Simpson, Hay and Vines (2018) Restoring Trust in Finance: From Principal-Agent to Principled Agent, UTS working paper 48

Some Other Implications 1. Change the definition of money 2. A means of exchange and gift; a unit of account; a store of value 3. Adds a positive narrative of money for Christians circumscribed by caution Menzies, G. D. & Hay, D. (2008). Economics and the Marriage Wars. Faith and economics mmv=mmv(Becker U(. ), covenant)

A Close Encounter with RCT 1. Humanizing RCT 1. 2. 3. 4. Act 1: cardinal Act 2: ordinal Act 3: Mixed Motive Valuation Gifts, Exchanges and Money 2. Limiting RCT 1. Loves and desires

RCT is not one-to-one with Christian Theology 1. Creation: relational, shaping and stewarding world, capacity for moral choices and worship 2. Fall: Costly autonomy is possible, damage in relationships with God, people and creation 3. Redemption: formation of ‘in Christ’ body of people alongside ‘in Adam’ people. But even those in Christ have divided selves in their struggle with evil

Worship is Heart as Well as Head • RCT envisages people as ‘calculating machines’ • Many Christians think this is inadequate – Scriptural phrases like ‘moved with compassion’ offer different implicit accounts of motivation – Money is said to be ‘loved’ or ‘served’ by Jesus, i. e. worshiped, transcending a definition based on calculated benefits • Augustine has a whole theological account of ‘ordered loves’ and desires – ‘loves’ and ‘desires’ carry the implication of heart as well as head • Many psychological/philosophical theories of action are based on desires

Conclusion 1. ‘Double listening’ Stott to word and world – Takes theology seriously – Gives some credit to existing economics 2. It is a hard discipline to try and speak theology in modelling language, but if you don’t ‘ships pass in the night’ – Exogenizing parameters for deontology – gift vs exchange => expand definition of money 3. But the limiting of RCT is a Christian option too – Money definition expanded further as idol to be sinfully ‘loved’

SPARES

Spectulations

Is Ordinal Utility a live option for a Christian theorist? • The conception of ethics used by economists (like Sen) borrows from Kant – Only acts done from duty have moral worth • C 20 th Christian reactions against this is seen in: – C S Lewis’s ‘weight of Glory’ – Developed by popular Christian authors like John Piper (under the title of Christian hedonism) – Basic idea: some pleasures are integral to moral acts and being thus motivated has moral worth – Conceivably, a theory of ordinal utility could be Christianized, provided that the pleasures were appropriately paired with the relevant actions, and correctly ‘ordered’

Is Love just one virtue or an integrative entity? – Maybe fulfilled love is a common currency over which comparisons can be made of acts or goods – Col 3: 14 love is ‘over’ all the virtues and ‘binds them together’

What Magritte teach Economists? Cehas n'est pas unetofonction d'utilité The Treachery of Images, Rene Magritte 1929

Becker • Since an altruist maximizes his own utility. . . he might be called selfish, not altruistic, in terms of utility. . . I am giving a definition of altruism that is relevant to behavior – to consumption and production choices – rather than giving a philosophical discussion of what ‘really’ motivates people.

Economic (Christian) Humanism • ‘Humanism’ full notion of human persons • ‘(Christian)’ avoids confusion with secular humanists • The bit of our science we should closely encounter is Rational Choice Theory

What is Rational Choice Theory (RCT)? Decision makers: • accumulate an optimal amount of information in a variety of markets • form a stable set of preferences; and • maximise their ‘utility’, where this really means satisfies preferences (since Hicks/Allen/Samuelson) Depending on interpretation of ‘accumulate’ ‘form’ and ‘maximise’ this is already a Humanizer of Science position, because these are not terms in, say, Chemistry

What are the Methodological Options? 1. Hay (1989): build Derivative Social Principles (DSPs) from theology and use these as the basis for theorizing 2. Humanizer of existing RCT (this paper): append a scriptural ‘person’ idea directly into RCT, without DSPs 3. Limiter of RCT (flagged in this paper): confine RCT to some domain, and build a new theory outside that domain, possibly using DSPs