The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics
Open accessAbstract
Virtue ethics is an important strand of moral philosophy, and a significant body of philosophical work in virtue ethics is associated with a radical critique of the market economy and of economics. Expressed crudely, the charge sheet is this: The market depends on instrumental rationality and extrinsic motivation; market interactions therefore fail to respect the internal value of human practices and the intrinsic motivations of human actors; by using market exchange as its central model, economics normalizes extrinsic motivation, not only in markets but also in social life more generally; therefore economics is complicit in an assault on virtue and on human flourishing. We will argue that this critique is flawed, both as a description of how markets actually work and as a representation of how classical and neoclassical economists have understood the market. We show how the market and economics can be defended against the critique from virtue ethics, and crucially, this defense is constructed using the language and logic of virtue ethics. Using the methods of virtue ethics and with reference to the writings of some major economists, we propose an understanding of the purpose (telos) of markets as cooperation for mutual benefit, and identify traits that thereby count as virtues for market participants. We conclude that the market need not be seen as a virtue-free zone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bruni and Sugden accept Smith's view that the specific goods generated for others by self-interested market activity are neither intended nor foreseen, but argue that the more general good of mutual benefit is intended and foreseen.
“While Bruni and Sugden accept Adam Smith's view that the specific goods generated for others by self- interested market activity are neither intended nor foreseen, their argument is that the more general good of mutual benefit is intended and foreseen.”
From Alasdair MacIntyre and Adam Smith on markets, virtues and ends in a capitalist economy (2023) · cites this paper as Bruni & Sugden,2013
In “The Telos of the Market,” Bruni and Sugden describe Smith’s account of socially beneficial consequences arising unintentionally from self-interested activity. Their introduction says a virtuous market participant intends transactions to be mutually beneficial. The copy does not establish the claim’s further distinction that specific goods generated for others are neither intended nor foreseen, or that mutual benefit is foreseen. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBruni and Sugden's novel contribution is viewing the market as practice-oriented to the good of mutual benefit.
“The novel element in their contribution is viewing the market as practice- oriented to the good of mutual benefit.”
From Alasdair MacIntyre and Adam Smith on markets, virtues and ends in a capitalist economy (2023) · cites this paper as Bruni & Sugden,2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 191
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.2307/1885099 · DOI · Paper page
- Arrow Kenneth J, 1972, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 343
- 10.1257/jel.51.2.478 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0266267100000122 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0266267108001661 · DOI
- 10.1257/jep.14.4.123 · DOI
- 10.1177/1043463194006003004 · DOI
- 10.1257/jep.25.4.191 · DOI
- 10.1086/468061 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.002 · DOI
- Hume David, 1985, Essays Moral, Political and Literary, by David Hume, 327
- 10.1006/jcec.1998.1520 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00355-003-0283-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11127-012-9983-3 · DOI
- 10.1080/00346760802431306 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruni, L., & Sugden, R.
- Affiliations
- Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta (IT)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2013-11-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 141-164
- ISSN
- 0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119745766
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 26.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Economic Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K002201/1, ES/H004831/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Society, Economy, and Ethics Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Historical Economic and Legal Thought
- Keywords
- virtue ethics, instrumental rationality, extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, eudaimonia, cooperation, neoclassical economics, classical economics, market exchange
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review