----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
T R ("Bob") Malthus in the first essay remarks that mixed in with Smith's inquiry in the
wealth of nations there is another, more interesting, inquiry, that of the happiness of
nations, i.e., the well-being of the majority.
 
A paper of mine a few years ago in EJHET sweated the details, arguing that Smith is what
one might call a "robust utilitarian," someone interested in the well-being of the median.
Hollander's "Malthus" independently reads Malthus as using the majority's well-being as
norm.
 
I think the problem comes up because we read back post-Edgeworth results -- the "greatest
happiness for/of the greatest number" is incoherent -- and not worry too much about what
folks like Smith and Paley might have made of Hutchison's slogan. Are we to maximize the
mean or maximize the median? Smith is a clear as a bell that the distribution of income is
skewed so this won't be the same problem.
 
David Levy 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]