Mises
Institute notes that,
Henry Hazlitt considered The Foundations of Morality to be his most important work. The following two reviews of that book were found in one of the many boxes of papers generously given to the Mises Institute by Bettina Bien Greaves. Bettina wrote in a letter to Hazlitt "It seems to me this is your very best book and one that will live through the centuries." Unfortunately, The Foundations of Morality never received the audience recognition he would have liked, but as Bettina said, it is a book for the ages. Bettina was right because it remains immensely important today.
Codes to Live By
Rosalie Gordon writing in America's
Future (April 1973):
It is particularly fitting that there now be
re-issued (it was first published in 1964) this seminal work by one of
America's most distinguished journalists, economists and philosophers. Henry
Hazlitt is as far as one can get from that breed of "instant" analyzers
and accepters of current modes, which is merely another way of saying he thinks
— thinks things through.
And in these times, when at long last great numbers of our people are beginning
to question the so-called "new morality" (which is neither new nor
moral), his book could provide a needed buttress for that questioning. Besides,
it will outlast by many decades the screeds of the "instant
thinkers."
As an economist, Mr. Hazlitt is a practical man. As
a moral philosopher, he understands the need for a rational basis for an
ethical way of life. Contrary to modern "new morality" preachings,
civilized man must have codes to live by; otherwise all is chaos and barbarism.
Mr. Hazlitt traces most interestingly man's search for such codes throughout
history, down to the present day. And between the Scylla of complete
self-interest and the Charybdis of complete altruism, he reaches what he calls
cooperatism — not the misnamed "social cooperation" of the
socialist-communist state which imposes its dictators' brand of thinking on the
people, but the sort of cooperation which flows naturally from men and women
(as nearly as can be expected of fallible human beings) living by an individual
ethical code which, being best for them, in the end is best for the whole
society.
He puts it this way:
... social cooperation is the essence of morality. And morality, as we should constantly remind ourselves, is a daily affair, even an hourly affair, not just something we need to think about only in a few high and heroic moments. The moral code by which we live is shown every day, not necessarily in great acts of denunciation, but in refraining from little slights and meannesses, and in practicing little courtesies and kindnesses. Few of us are capable of rising to the Christian commandment to "love one another," but most of us can at least learn to be kind to one another — and for most earthly purposes this will do almost as well.
We found especially discerning Mr. Hazlitt's
analysis of the moral or ethical bases of capitalism and socialism. He sees
clearly that because capitalism promotes freedom, justice and productivity it
has far more right to be called "social" (or "moral") than
socialism which in its despotism actually promotes a code of immorality.
He cites, among other disciples of socialism,
Lenin, who declared: "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit,
law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a
language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like
toward those who disagree with us."
We cannot begin to indicate the wide scope of this
study, save to say that the author delves deeply into the relationship of
ethics or morality to law, economics, equality and inequality, freedom, rights
and even (bless him — could anything be more necessary these days?) to good
manners!
The Foundations of Morality
Bettina Bien Greaves writing in The Freeman (June 1973):
The many contradictions among different
philosophical theories have caused much confusion over the years. Unfortunately,
too few teachers and textbooks explain the basic principles that could help
students discriminate intelligently among them and understand the ethical code
which fosters freedom, morality and social cooperation. Thus, Henry Hazlitt
deserves special credit for bringing logic and clarity to the subject. His
book, The Foundations of Morality, was first published in 1964.
After having been out of print for several years, it is again available thanks
to Nash and the Institute for Humane Studies.
The author is primarily an economist, a student of
human action. As a result, he is a strong advocate of individual freedom and
responsibility. He has long been a close personal friend and associate of
Professor Ludwig von Mises, the "dean" of free market economics, to whom
he acknowledges a great intellectual indebtedness. With this background, he is
well qualified to discuss the ethics of social cooperation. His many years of
"apprenticeship" as essayist, book reviewer and columnist (New
York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The
Freeman, National Review and many others) prepared him
well for explaining complex matters simply. The reader may wish to pause,
ponder and reflect from time to time on the ideas and concepts presented, but
the author's reasoning is clear, his prose unambiguous and most chapters
delightfully short.
Mr. Hazlitt's position is that "the interests
of the individual and the interests of society," when "rightly
understood" are in harmony, not conflict. His goal in writing this book
was "to present a 'unified theory' of law, morals and manners" which
could be logically explained and defended in the light of modern economics and
the principles of jurisprudence. This reviewer believes most readers will agree
that Mr. Hazlitt succeeded. He has marshalled the ideas of many philosophers
and analyzed them with careful logic. He has explained many of the
contradictions among them, thus disposing of much confusion. He has formulated
a consistent moral philosophy based on an understanding of ethical principles,
so frequently ignored in today's "permissive" climate, which promote
peaceful social cooperation and free enterprise production.
Mr. Hazlitt points out that our complex market
economy requires peaceful and voluntary social cooperation. The preservation of
the market is essential for large scale production and thus for the very
survival of most of us. Therefore, social cooperation is the very most
important means available to individuals for attaining their various personal
ends. This means that social cooperation is also at the same
time a well worthwhile goal. Let Mr. Hazlitt speak for himself.
For each of us social cooperation is of course not
the ultimate end but a means. ... But it is a means so central, so universal,
so indispensable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that
there is little harm in regarding it as an end-in-itself, and even in treating
it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely
because none of us knows exactly what would give most
satisfaction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of
action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best
enables each of us to pursue his own ends.
Without social cooperation modern man could not
achieve the barest fraction of the ends and satisfactions that he has achieved
with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it.
The system of philosophy outlined in the book is a
form of utilitarianism, "insofar as it holds that actions or rules of
action are to be judged by their consequences and their tendency to promote
human happiness." However, Mr. Hazlitt prefers a shorter term,
"utilism," or perhaps "rule utilism" to stress the
importance of adhering consistently to general rules. He suggests also two
other possible names — "mutualism" or "cooperatism" — which
he thinks more adequately reflect the central role of social cooperation in the
ethical system described.
The criterion for judging the consistency or
inconsistency of a specific rule or action with this ethical system is always
whether or not it promotes social cooperation. Mr. Hazlitt reasons from the
thesis that social cooperation is of benefit to everyone. Even those who might
at times like to lie, cheat, rob or kill for personal short-run gain can usually
be persuaded of the longer-run advantages of social cooperation, i.e., of
refraining from lying, cheating, robbing or stealing.
Even the most self-centered individual, in fact,
needing not only to be protected against the aggression of others, but wanting
the active cooperation of others, finds it to his interest to defend and uphold
a set of moral (as well as legal) rules that forbid breaking promises,
cheating, stealing, assault, and murder, and in addition a set of moral rules
that enjoin cooperation, helpfulness, and kindness. ...
The predominant moral code in a society is compared
with language or "common law." Society does not impose a moral code
on the individual. It is a set of rules, hammered out bit by bit over many
centuries:
[O]ur moral rules are continuously framed and
modified. They are not framed by some abstract and disembodied collectivity
called "society" and then imposed on an "individual" who is
in some way separate from society. We impose them (by praise and censure,
approbation and disapprobation, promise and warning, reward and punishment) on
each other, and most of us consciously or unconsciously accept them for
ourselves. ...
This moral code grew up spontaneously, like
language, religion, manners, law. It is the product of the experience of
immemorial generations, of the interrelations of millions of people and the
interplay of millions of minds. The morality of common sense is a sort of
common law, with an indefinitely wider jurisdiction than ordinary common law,
and based on a practically infinite number of particular cases. ... [T]he
traditional moral rules ... crystallize the experience and moral wisdom of the
race.
But what about religion, you say? Doesn't a moral
code have to rest on a religious bases? The fundamental thesis of this book as
noted, is that reason and logic are sufficient to explain and defend the code
of ethics which fosters and preserves social cooperation. Yet, the author does
not ignore religion. He calls attention to similarities among the world's great
religions and the contradictions in some of them. Religion and morality
reinforce one another very often, he says, although not always and not
necessarily. Here is his description of their relationship:
In human history religion and morality are like two streams that sometimes run parallel, sometimes merge, sometimes separate, sometimes seem independent and sometimes interdependent. But morality is older than any living religion and probably older than all religion. ... [W]hile religious faith is not indispensable [to the moral code] ... , it must be recognized in the present state of civilization as a powerful force in securing the observance that exists. ...
The most powerful religious belief supporting morality, however, seems to me ... the belief in a God who sees and knows our every action, our every impulse and over every thought, who judges us with exact justice, and who whether or not He rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us for our evil ones, approves of our good deeds and disapproves of our evil ones. ...
Yet it is not the function of the moral philosopher, as such, to proclaim the truth of this religious faith or to try to maintain it. His function is, rather, to insist on the rational basis of all morality, to point out that it does not need any supernatural assumptions, and to show that the rules of morality are or ought to be those rules of conduct that tend most to increase human cooperation, happiness and well-being in this our present life.
Mr. Hazlitt discusses many perplexing ideas and
concepts such as natural rights, natural law, justice, selfishness, altruism,
right, wrong, truth, honesty, duty, moral obligation, free will vs.
determinism, politeness, "white lies." Anyone who has speculated on
these problems without reaching satisfactory conclusions, as has this reviewer,
will no doubt find his analyses and comments both stimulating and enlightening.
The book contains numerous quotations from the
works of early and recent philosophers, which the author always analyzes for
their consistency with social cooperation. Except for a few technical
philosophical terms — such as tautology (repetition of the
same idea in different words), eudaemonism (the doctrine that
happiness is the final goal of all human action) and teleotic (an
adjective derived from the Greek meaning end, design, purpose or final cause) —
readers should not find anything in the book really difficult to understand. As
they follow the author's line of thought, they will discover that reason and
logic come to the defense of morality; order and a common sense ethical code
evolve from philosophical chaos.
Mr. Hazlitt has long been a noted free market
economist — one of the very best. His introductory Economics In One Lesson is
a long-time best seller. The Failure of the New Economics, a
careful critique of Keynes, is a real contribution to economic theory. With the
publication of The Foundations of Morality in
1964, he added another very important feather to his cap as a moral philosopher.
It is good to have it in print again.
To summarize, the author explains again and again, in the course of the book under review, that the rules of ethics are neither arbitrary nor illogical. They are not mere matters of opinion. They are workable, acceptable, moral rules developed over long periods of time. They must be adhered to consistently and may not be willfully violated without detriment to social cooperation. In this age of permissiveness, when everyone is encouraged "to do his own thing" and few see any urgency in respecting the rights of others, it is a rare philosopher who recognizes that the consistent adherence to a set of ethical rules promotes social cooperation and benefits everyone in society. Perhaps a free market economist, whose very field of study encompasses the role of social cooperation, is the most appropriate person to explain the logic of this position. This book should live through the centuries.
The above
originally appeared online at Mises.org.
