Mitteilungen 49/2009 - Fachverband Philosophie e.v.

of regulating our society as well as philosophical misperceptions that cause all the
conflicts rather than the impact a small proportion of the world’s citizens has.
Before stating which conclusions we can draw from the crisis we first have to analyze
its causes deeply rooted in our philosophical perception of the world.
We should realize that our whole edifice of ideas that our so-called system is based
on – no matter whether our laws or the way we regulate trade, more abstract as
“exchange” amongst human beings is concerned – philosophical ideas which seem
to change more slowly than reality. I do not focus on the noumenal level, the
“things-in-themselves” (cf. Kant) but on the phenomenal reality. This distinction
suggested by Kant is essential for the understanding of economic and financial reality.
I define economy as an artificial product of man’s ideas based on the evaluation
of his surroundings. I do not refer to a noumenal nature of the market as some
economists do.
Is it not ridiculous that many people, even some managers who blame themselves
in talk shows and other public arenas for popular fighters now declare that greed is
the essential factor that led to the crisis although Adam Smith who can be considered
one of the thinkers that created the basis for market economy as it was perceived
for centuries defined greed as a natural property integrated in his system?
All people should strive for their greatest benefit, which would finally make the “invisible
hand” regulate everything dynamically. Thus Smith basically defined greed
as an anthropological feature that ought to be used instead of being rejected in all
systems. We cannot prove this premise and furthermore neuro-scientific results recently
claimed to have found a form of altruism inherent in the neurological structures.
But though not reflecting noumenal reality Smith’s thought was brilliant. Greed can
easily be defined as one of the most destructive properties a human being might
possess when interacting with other member of his species. The Roman-Catholic
church even defined greed as a deadly sin. But Smith amongst other liberal thinkers
– maybe unconsciously - constructed a system that was prepared for the worst
case – all people naturally strive for their greatest benefit independent from all other
members of their species. Whether greed as a means is intrinsically good or a sin is
unimportant. According to rule utilitarianism designed by Bentham the system explained
above is orientated at the purpose and end of maximizing human welfare
instead of concentrating on the action’s moral value.
For decades this pragmatic system was highly efficient concerning maximizing welfare
in the Western World whilst other systems failed or adapted to the Western
system to an extent that made them indistinguishable which led to the assumption
that the premises stated before were true, a natural property of human nature. Ideologies
such as Communism or Fascism that had intended to create a “better human-being”
through a systematical exercise of power failed whilst the system giving
each individual the greatest level of freedom in following his assumed natural impulses
possible was a story of success which furthermore coined our fundamental
understanding of human nature.
MITTEILUNGEN 49/2009
25