Replying to Medaille, McCloskey writes:

>
> Yes: we all need the virtues, beyond Prudence Only.  So I have 
> recently come to realize, as for example in The Bourgeois Virtues: 
> Ethics for an Age of Commerce (2006).  Economists by instinct, and 
> after Bentham, try always to get along on Prudence Only.  Smith would 
> not have approved!


We do? Preachers need virtues, I suppose. Preachers preach virtues, by 
definition. But wouldn't most economists like to be defined differently?

Religion seems as unique to humans as trade on credit is, with money 
trade a quantum jump beyond simple trade. So both religion and trade on 
credit are unique, for whatever that is worth.

The fascinating issue here, as I see it, is not what is unique to humans 
but the relationship between religion (a.k.a. virtues) and the 
development of capitalism, which is a theme taken up by Deepak Lal in a 
paper that I just today reread in part.

Lal, Deepak. (2000) "Institutional Development and Economic Growth." In 
M.S. Oosterbaan, R. Van Steveninck, N. van der Windt (eds): The 
Determinants of Economic Growth. Kluwer: Boston: 165- 98.

This paper used to be on line but it seems to have disappeared from the web.

Here's an excerpt from the web version that, in Lal's opinion, helps 
explain the rise of Western individualism (which, in turn, helps explain 
the rise of capitalism).:

"Pope Gregory I [6th century]...overturned the traditional Mediterranean 
and Middle Eastern patterns of legal and customary practices in the 
domestic domain. The traditional system was concerned with the provision 
of a heir to inherit family property and allowed marriage to close kin, 
marriages to close affines or widows of close kin, the transfer of 
children by adoption, and finally concubinage, which is a form of 
secondary union. Gregory amazingly banned all four practices."  He 
thereby put the catholic church in line to receive the inheritances of 
single widows. This was the start, Lal suggests, of the evolution of the 
philosophy, or ideology, of individualism.

Lal presents a complex chain of reasoning that is beyond the scope of a 
brief note. I would recommend reading it, especially to those who 
advocate that economists need virtues. My cynical guess (and that of 
Lal, I believe) is that the roots of today's virtues owe a lot less to 
other animals than to the politics and self interest of earlier humans, 
although not being an historian I cannot vouch for Lal's specific 
interpretation.

With respect,

Pat Gunning