Dear all:

When I see this almost "canonical" quote of Mr. Keynes, that he "repudiated all versions of the doctrine of original sin," he was not saying anything new, but ascribed himself to a very well know doctrine in the British tradition of Bernard Mandeville (1714), who claimed in his satirist contribution: "Private Vices, Public Benefits." Based on that, David Hume (1739) in his Treatise of Human Nature (THN, 3.II.6) wrote something very similar, and he also influenced scholars at the stature of Adam Smith, which he befriended (Montes, 2004). Perhaps Mr. Keynes, the same as other British scholars, had strong, but very strong reasons to ascribe to a such (non-institutional) belief. The last reference just seems to blend in a Machiavelic inheritance, because of the saying that "foul is useful," where "Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" is part of the same thing. 

When Bernard Mandeville wrote his poem The Fable of the Bees, he found also opposition to his ideas in the context of an institutionalized religion. He might wanted to free philosophers from the chains of the Church, but he might not think that (literally) 300 years later, a similar (academic) institution will be established, where dogmas and axioms are the basis of present economic knowledge. Nevertheless, I think this list is different in the sense that we want to challenge the present views with openness of criteria.

This Leeson - Isaac talk, where one "kindly" offers the other a good treatment (an "offer," is said) if and only if the other agrees to "share" a common view on the matter (in my words, that guile can be deceit, but that deceit might not be ethically wrong, because one dangerously joins the concept with dishonesty, which has strong connotations in our present academic environment), remembers me the beginning of the Calvin and Servetus conflict, when the former disagreed with the later because of a doctrinal discord. Thankfully, today there is no institution that can be burned us at the stake, at least literally (yet perhaps academically?).

I might not know which is Leeson's point of view, but I think that guile is deceit, and deceit, in the context given, is not just morally or ethically wrong, but plainly wrong. About "fouling," perhaps a deep-rooted custom, I do not know anyone that wants to be "fouled."

Regards,

David.


-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan G Isaac
Sent: sábado, 07 de junio de 2014 08:35 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Keynes and Honesty

Rob,

I will make one more attempt to right this, and then let it go.
Here is the 1938 quote, where Keynes is bemoaning earlier naivete:

"We repudiated all versions of the doctrine of original sin, of there being insane and irrational springs of wickedness in most men.  We were not aware that civilization was a thin and precarious crust erected by the personality and the will of a very few, and only maintained by rules and conventions skilfully put across and guilefully preserved.  We had no respect for traditional wisdom or the restraints of custom.  We lacked reverence, as Lawrence observed and as Ludwig with justice also used to say -- for everything and everyone."

Your latest post backs off a little bit.  You now say, "Keynes endorsed guile which is by definition “deceit” (OED).
To that extent Keynes promoted dishonesty".  We can of course rhetorically use "to that extent" to propose almost any misleading interpretation.  E.g., you are not making any effort to elucidate the quote, and to that extent you are "promoting" misinterpretation, and to *that* extent you are "promoting" dishonesty. Is this accurate?
You can see such contortions buy you nothing of use.

Try the following exercise.
1. Tell us if you want civilization to be maintained.
(I will presume an answer of yes.)
2. Now assume Keynes's analysis  is correct: civilization is "only maintained by rules and conventions skilfully put across and guilefully preserved".  Really believe it for a moment.
It is not after all just a stupid idea.
3. Do you still want civilization to be maintained?  If so, should I describe you as "promoting dishonesty"?  Does that seem a helpful description of what is going on?

As an associated exercise, you might say something about why Keynes came to believe 2. above.

Here is what Keynes is actually promoting in the above quote:
"civilization" and the "rules and conventions" that maintain it.
A better word for his attitude toward any necessary involvement of "guile" in this maintenance would be "accepting".  If you were to rephrase that JMK had an accepting attitude toward guile when it is necessary to prevent social collapse, then I'd stop objecting  -- especially if you add as context that of course any rational person (yourself included) would also be accepting, if they truly believed it was necessary.  In fact, in this case, I'd even give you this supportive quote:

"For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."

But if you persist in your misleading characterization of what is going on, then I withdraw my offer.

Alan