市场经济的道德价值何以可能?——斯密悖论新解
|
摘要
在西方道德哲学有关利己与利他二元对立架构的影响下,斯密自觉地主张经济人只有利己动机、没有利他动机,提出了利己经济人的基本预设,结果落入了把市场经济与道德价值割裂开来的悖论。其实,他自己在某些经典论述中已经自发地承认,市场交易的行为主体内在地兼有利己和利他的动机,并会在两者发生冲突的情况下做出不同的选择,从而决定了市场经济活动如同其他人际行为一样,具有复杂纠结的道德属性。所以,我们既没有理由断言市场经济活动是无关于道德的,也没有理由一概指认它们都是道德的或是不道德的,而应当依据人们广泛认同。斯密也很强调不可害人的正义底线,围绕经济人如何处理利己与利他冲突的内在机制,展开正面或负面的具体价值评判。
In his classic discussion on the essence of commercial transaction in the market economy,Adam Smith consciously advocated that the both sides of the transaction have only selfish motives but no altruistic motives. It is from this discussion that the two ideas of "selfish economic man" and "invisible hand" as well as the so-called "Smith paradox(or Smith problem)" have further derived. Through a close reading of this discussion,however,we would find that it actually reveals a fact that the economic man has both selfish and altruistic motives in transactional acts,which could deny or solute these famous ideas or paradoxes that have had a profound impact on the development of modern economics.The crux of the matter is that the former half of the sentence by which Smith described the essence of commercial transaction,"Give me that which I want",indeed clearly means that the economic man has a selfish motive:I am willing to get the good thing that you have and I want.In this context,yet,we have to admit that the latter half of the sentence,"and you shall have this which you want",clearly means that the economic man has also an altruistic motive at the same time:I am willing to give you what I have and you want. When Smith repeatedly said that "We address ourselves,not to their humanity but to their self-love,and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages",and "mutual good offices which we stand in need of",what he actually suggested is still that the two sides have both the selfish and the altruistic motives in an intrinsically inseparable way,so that they can eventually complete the not unilaterally but mutually beneficial transaction. In this regard,moreover,the essence of commercial transaction implies such basic characteristics of normal trading acts as fairness,equality,honesty,and freedom:the two sides try to get the good things they want by fairly providing the good things their counterparts want through exchange,so that they take the other party as a trader with equal status,keep the promises of giving the good things that they have to each other,and finally let themselves freely achieve their aims respectively. By contrast,if they have only selfish motives and no altruistic motives,treating the other party in a selfish way that "you give me what I want,but I don't give you what you want",they could not take any normal trading acts,with the result that the market economy loses its inherent characteristics of "freedom".According to this re-interpretation of Smith's classic discussion,then,the basic presupposition of the selfish economic man would be denied first:if an economic man has no altruistic motives,he will be unable to engage in normal trading action and thus unqualified to be an economic man. Secondly,the hand that Smith defined as "invisible" would become visible:since the economic man has both selfish and altruistic motives,he will naturally promotes the interests of others and society when he tries to promote his interests through trading acts. Finally,"Smith paradox" would also be resolved:because of having both selfish and altruistic motives,and necessarily involving interpersonal relationships in trading acts,the economic man would inevitably become a moral person with a positive or negative attribute.Furthermore,the main reason for Smith's self-defeating discussion is that due to the distorted influence of the dichotomy between the "selfish" and the "altruistic" in Western moral philosophy,he put these two motives in absolute opposition when discussing the essence of commercial transaction. Then,he did not realize that they are able to be compatible with each other in the "self-interested" will of the economic man to pursue good and avoid evil,and can urge them to engage in mutually beneficial trading action.
In his classic discussion on the essence of commercial transaction in the market economy,Adam Smith consciously advocated that the both sides of the transaction have only selfish motives but no altruistic motives. It is from this discussion that the two ideas of "selfish economic man" and "invisible hand" as well as the so-called "Smith paradox(or Smith problem)" have further derived. Through a close reading of this discussion,however,we would find that it actually reveals a fact that the economic man has both selfish and altruistic motives in transactional acts,which could deny or solute these famous ideas or paradoxes that have had a profound impact on the development of modern economics.The crux of the matter is that the former half of the sentence by which Smith described the essence of commercial transaction,"Give me that which I want",indeed clearly means that the economic man has a selfish motive:I am willing to get the good thing that you have and I want.In this context,yet,we have to admit that the latter half of the sentence,"and you shall have this which you want",clearly means that the economic man has also an altruistic motive at the same time:I am willing to give you what I have and you want. When Smith repeatedly said that "We address ourselves,not to their humanity but to their self-love,and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages",and "mutual good offices which we stand in need of",what he actually suggested is still that the two sides have both the selfish and the altruistic motives in an intrinsically inseparable way,so that they can eventually complete the not unilaterally but mutually beneficial transaction. In this regard,moreover,the essence of commercial transaction implies such basic characteristics of normal trading acts as fairness,equality,honesty,and freedom:the two sides try to get the good things they want by fairly providing the good things their counterparts want through exchange,so that they take the other party as a trader with equal status,keep the promises of giving the good things that they have to each other,and finally let themselves freely achieve their aims respectively. By contrast,if they have only selfish motives and no altruistic motives,treating the other party in a selfish way that "you give me what I want,but I don't give you what you want",they could not take any normal trading acts,with the result that the market economy loses its inherent characteristics of "freedom".According to this re-interpretation of Smith's classic discussion,then,the basic presupposition of the selfish economic man would be denied first:if an economic man has no altruistic motives,he will be unable to engage in normal trading action and thus unqualified to be an economic man. Secondly,the hand that Smith defined as "invisible" would become visible:since the economic man has both selfish and altruistic motives,he will naturally promotes the interests of others and society when he tries to promote his interests through trading acts. Finally,"Smith paradox" would also be resolved:because of having both selfish and altruistic motives,and necessarily involving interpersonal relationships in trading acts,the economic man would inevitably become a moral person with a positive or negative attribute.Furthermore,the main reason for Smith's self-defeating discussion is that due to the distorted influence of the dichotomy between the "selfish" and the "altruistic" in Western moral philosophy,he put these two motives in absolute opposition when discussing the essence of commercial transaction. Then,he did not realize that they are able to be compatible with each other in the "self-interested" will of the economic man to pursue good and avoid evil,and can urge them to engage in mutually beneficial trading action.
引文
[1][印度]阿马蒂亚·森.伦理学与经济学[M].王宇,王文玉译.北京:商务印书馆,2014.
[2]陈琳.当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话[J].上海财经大学学报,2017,(5).
[3]霍布斯·利维坦[M].黎思复,黎廷弼译.北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[4]康德.道德形而上学原理[M].苗力田译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[5]刘清平.试析诸善冲突的根源和意义[J].浙江工商大学学报,2013,(6).
[6]刘清平.怎样界定“政治”概念?——从“正义”到“政治”[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(5).
[7]刘清平.自由意志能够随机偶然地行善作恶吗?——析趋善避恶的人性逻辑[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2017,(5).
[8][美]曼昆.经济学原理——微观经济学分册[M].梁小民,梁砾译.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[9][美]米尔顿·弗里德曼.弗里德曼文萃[M].高榕,范恒山译.北京:北京经济学院出版社,1991.
[10]王国乡,李高阳.“斯密问题”的终结——兼论“茅于轼问题”的破解[J].社会科学战线,2015,(4).
[11]王曙光.论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀——亚当·斯密《道德情操论》和“斯密悖论”[J].学术月刊,2004,(11).
[12]徐向东.自我、他人与道德——道德哲学导论(上册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[13][英]亚当·斯密.道德情操论[M].蒋自强,钦北愚,朱钟棣,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[14][英]亚当·斯密.国富论(上卷)[M].郭大力,王亚南译.北京:商务印书馆,2014.
[15][美]约瑟夫·E.斯蒂格利茨,卡尔·E.沃尔什.经济学[M].黄险峰,张帆译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[16]朱富强.“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础[J].上海财经大学学报,2015,(3).
[17]Montes L. Das Adam smith problem:Its origins,the stages of the current debate,and one implication for our understanding of sympathy[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,2003,25(1):63–90.
[18]Paganelli M P. The adam smith problem in reverse:Self-interest in the wealth of nations and the theory of moral sentiments[J]. History of Political Economy,2008,40(2):365–382.
[19]Smith A. The theory of moral sentiments[M]. Raphael D D,Macfie A L. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976.
(1)参见D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,“Introduction”,in Adam Smith,The Theory of Moral Sentiments,eds.D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976:20-25;L.Montes,“Das Adam Smith Problem:Its Origins,the Stages of the Current Debate,and One Implication for Our Understanding of Sympathy,”Journal of the History of Economic Thought,25:1(2003);M.P.Paganelli,“The Adam Smith Problem in Reverse:Self-Interest in The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments,”History of Political Economy,40:2(2008);蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋:“译者序言”,[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第1-2、12-20页;王曙光:《论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀--亚当·斯密〈道德情操论〉和“斯密悖论”》,《学术月刊》2004年第11期;朱富强:《“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础》,《上海财经大学学报》2015年第3期;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期;陈琳:《当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话》,《上海财经大学学报》2017年第5期。
(1)参见D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,“Introduction”,in Adam Smith,The Theory of Moral Sentiments,eds.D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976:20-25;蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋:“译者序言”,[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第1-2、12-20页;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期,第41-45页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第229-230页。出于行文统一的考虑,本文在引用西方论著的中译文时会依据英文本或英译本略有改动,以下不再一一注明。
(3)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(下卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第28-30页。
(1)(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第5、96-108、395-420页。
(1)参见朱富强:《“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础》,《上海财经大学学报》2015年第3期;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期,第46-47页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第76、164-165页。
(3)参见王曙光:《论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀--亚当·斯密〈道德情操论〉和“斯密悖论”》,《学术月刊》2004年第11期;陈琳:《当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话》,《上海财经大学学报》2017年第5期。
(4)[美]米尔顿·弗里德曼:《弗里德曼文萃》,高榕、范恒山译,北京经济学院出版社1991年版,第2页。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第12页。
(1)[美]约瑟夫·E.斯蒂格利茨、卡尔·E.沃尔什:《经济学》上册,黄险峰、张帆译,中国人民大学出版社2010年版,第11页。
(2)参见[印度]阿马蒂亚·森:《伦理学与经济学》,王宇、王文玉译,商务印书馆2014年版,第27-32页。
(3)参见徐向东:《自我、他人与道德--道德哲学导论》(上册),商务印书馆2007年版,第87-113页。
(1)参见刘清平:《“自由意志”能够随机偶然地行善作恶吗?--析“趋善避恶”的人性逻辑》,《浙江大学学报》2017年第5期。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第11-13页。
(2)[美]曼昆:《经济学原理--微观经济学分册》(第5版),梁小民、梁砾译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第9-12、502页。
(1)[英]霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷弼译,商务印书馆1985年版,第93页。
(2)参见刘清平:《试析诸善冲突的根源和意义》,《浙江工商大学学报》2013年第6期。
(3)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第52、100-108页。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第238页。
(1)[德]康德:《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海人民出版社2002年版,第12-13页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》上卷,郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第55-342页;下卷,第45-215页。
(1)参见刘清平:《怎样界定“政治”概念--从“正义”到“政治”》,《同济大学学报》2016年第5期。
(1)值得一提的是,博弈论中讨论的“合作博弈”和“非合作博弈”似乎是分别与“自由交易”和“自由竞争”相互对应的:在市场经济氛围下,交易各方主要基于互利动机、信息互通和签订契约,努力在具有合作博弈性质的市场交易中达成彼此增进收益的共赢结果;相比之下,竞争各方则主要基于利己动机、行为预测和策略优化,努力在具有非合作博弈性质的市场竞争中实现自己成功获益的单胜结果。因此,从这个新视角入手将博弈论进一步运用于经济学研究(而不是只偏重于从非合作博弈的视角考察市场经济),或许会有助于我们全面深入地了解市场经济的整体机制和复杂面目。
[2]陈琳.当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话[J].上海财经大学学报,2017,(5).
[3]霍布斯·利维坦[M].黎思复,黎廷弼译.北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[4]康德.道德形而上学原理[M].苗力田译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[5]刘清平.试析诸善冲突的根源和意义[J].浙江工商大学学报,2013,(6).
[6]刘清平.怎样界定“政治”概念?——从“正义”到“政治”[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(5).
[7]刘清平.自由意志能够随机偶然地行善作恶吗?——析趋善避恶的人性逻辑[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2017,(5).
[8][美]曼昆.经济学原理——微观经济学分册[M].梁小民,梁砾译.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[9][美]米尔顿·弗里德曼.弗里德曼文萃[M].高榕,范恒山译.北京:北京经济学院出版社,1991.
[10]王国乡,李高阳.“斯密问题”的终结——兼论“茅于轼问题”的破解[J].社会科学战线,2015,(4).
[11]王曙光.论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀——亚当·斯密《道德情操论》和“斯密悖论”[J].学术月刊,2004,(11).
[12]徐向东.自我、他人与道德——道德哲学导论(上册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[13][英]亚当·斯密.道德情操论[M].蒋自强,钦北愚,朱钟棣,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[14][英]亚当·斯密.国富论(上卷)[M].郭大力,王亚南译.北京:商务印书馆,2014.
[15][美]约瑟夫·E.斯蒂格利茨,卡尔·E.沃尔什.经济学[M].黄险峰,张帆译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[16]朱富强.“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础[J].上海财经大学学报,2015,(3).
[17]Montes L. Das Adam smith problem:Its origins,the stages of the current debate,and one implication for our understanding of sympathy[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,2003,25(1):63–90.
[18]Paganelli M P. The adam smith problem in reverse:Self-interest in the wealth of nations and the theory of moral sentiments[J]. History of Political Economy,2008,40(2):365–382.
[19]Smith A. The theory of moral sentiments[M]. Raphael D D,Macfie A L. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976.
(1)参见D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,“Introduction”,in Adam Smith,The Theory of Moral Sentiments,eds.D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976:20-25;L.Montes,“Das Adam Smith Problem:Its Origins,the Stages of the Current Debate,and One Implication for Our Understanding of Sympathy,”Journal of the History of Economic Thought,25:1(2003);M.P.Paganelli,“The Adam Smith Problem in Reverse:Self-Interest in The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments,”History of Political Economy,40:2(2008);蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋:“译者序言”,[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第1-2、12-20页;王曙光:《论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀--亚当·斯密〈道德情操论〉和“斯密悖论”》,《学术月刊》2004年第11期;朱富强:《“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础》,《上海财经大学学报》2015年第3期;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期;陈琳:《当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话》,《上海财经大学学报》2017年第5期。
(1)参见D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,“Introduction”,in Adam Smith,The Theory of Moral Sentiments,eds.D.D.Raphael and A.L.Macfie,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1976:20-25;蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋:“译者序言”,[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第1-2、12-20页;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期,第41-45页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第229-230页。出于行文统一的考虑,本文在引用西方论著的中译文时会依据英文本或英译本略有改动,以下不再一一注明。
(3)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(下卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第28-30页。
(1)(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第5、96-108、395-420页。
(1)参见朱富强:《“为己利他”行为机理与道德原则的确立:论社会道德的微观行为基础》,《上海财经大学学报》2015年第3期;王国乡、李高阳:《“亚当·斯密问题”的终结》,《社会科学战线》2015年第4期,第46-47页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第76、164-165页。
(3)参见王曙光:《论经济学的道德中性与经济学家的道德关怀--亚当·斯密〈道德情操论〉和“斯密悖论”》,《学术月刊》2004年第11期;陈琳:《当代中国经济治理视阈中的经济学和伦理学:疏离与对话》,《上海财经大学学报》2017年第5期。
(4)[美]米尔顿·弗里德曼:《弗里德曼文萃》,高榕、范恒山译,北京经济学院出版社1991年版,第2页。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第12页。
(1)[美]约瑟夫·E.斯蒂格利茨、卡尔·E.沃尔什:《经济学》上册,黄险峰、张帆译,中国人民大学出版社2010年版,第11页。
(2)参见[印度]阿马蒂亚·森:《伦理学与经济学》,王宇、王文玉译,商务印书馆2014年版,第27-32页。
(3)参见徐向东:《自我、他人与道德--道德哲学导论》(上册),商务印书馆2007年版,第87-113页。
(1)参见刘清平:《“自由意志”能够随机偶然地行善作恶吗?--析“趋善避恶”的人性逻辑》,《浙江大学学报》2017年第5期。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第11-13页。
(2)[美]曼昆:《经济学原理--微观经济学分册》(第5版),梁小民、梁砾译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第9-12、502页。
(1)[英]霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷弼译,商务印书馆1985年版,第93页。
(2)参见刘清平:《试析诸善冲突的根源和意义》,《浙江工商大学学报》2013年第6期。
(3)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第52、100-108页。
(1)[英]亚当·斯密:《道德情操论》,蒋自强、钦北愚、朱钟棣、沈凯璋译,商务印书馆1997年版,第238页。
(1)[德]康德:《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海人民出版社2002年版,第12-13页。
(2)[英]亚当·斯密:《国富论》上卷,郭大力、王亚南译,商务印书馆2014年版,第55-342页;下卷,第45-215页。
(1)参见刘清平:《怎样界定“政治”概念--从“正义”到“政治”》,《同济大学学报》2016年第5期。
(1)值得一提的是,博弈论中讨论的“合作博弈”和“非合作博弈”似乎是分别与“自由交易”和“自由竞争”相互对应的:在市场经济氛围下,交易各方主要基于互利动机、信息互通和签订契约,努力在具有合作博弈性质的市场交易中达成彼此增进收益的共赢结果;相比之下,竞争各方则主要基于利己动机、行为预测和策略优化,努力在具有非合作博弈性质的市场竞争中实现自己成功获益的单胜结果。因此,从这个新视角入手将博弈论进一步运用于经济学研究(而不是只偏重于从非合作博弈的视角考察市场经济),或许会有助于我们全面深入地了解市场经济的整体机制和复杂面目。