Ideas of hedonism and stoicism implemented in today’s world of economy

• Název v anglickém jazyce: Ideas of hedonism and stoicism implemented in today’s World of economy
• Klíčová slova: Hedonism, Consumerism, Individuals, Society, Hedonistic Paradox, Happiness
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Hedonism, Consumerism, Individuals, Society, Hedonistic Paradox, Happiness
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2010/2011
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: neurčeno (23-N)
• Vedoucí / školitel: Mgr. Bc. Tomáš Janotík
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 09.06.2011
• Datum zadání: 11.06.2011
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 14.09.2012 08:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: IPS, U Kříže 6 - 8, Praha 5 Jinonice
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 31.07.2012
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 14.09.2012
• Oponenti: prof. doc. Eva Eckertová, Ph.D.
• Konzultanti: Mgr. Bc. Tomáš Janotík

Seznam odborné literatury

Adam Smith, 1767, The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Vol. I, 9th Edition, London 1801, pp. 1, 2, 98-99,112;
Adam Smith, 1937, The Wealth of Nation, Modern Library edition, New York , p. 326, 385, 508, 594-595;
Amartya K. Sen and Bernard A.O. Williams, 1982, Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, pp.6, 54-60;
Albert O. Hirschman, 1998, The passions and the interests, Political arguments for Capitalism before its Triumph”, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, p. 8, 11, 20-25,43, 55, 77, 98;
Alexandre Matheron, 1969, Individu et communaute chez Spinoza, Paris, pp. 176-178
Allen W. Douglas, 2000, The Paradox of Choice: With an Application to Free Will Versus Predestination, Simon Fraser University, pp.1-9;
Antoinette Baujard, 2010, Collective interest versus individual interest in Bentham’s felicific calculus. Questioning welfarism and fairness, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, pp. 607-633l;
Ben Saunders, 2010, J. S. Mill’s Conception of Utility, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 22, No. 1;
Blanchflower, D. and Oswald, A., 1999, ‘Well-being, insecurity and the decline of American job satisfaction’,Working Paper;
Brickman,P. and Campbell,D., 1971, Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press, pp. 288-301;
Bruell, 1999, On the Socratic Education: An Introduction to the Shorter Platonic Dialogues, New York University Press;
Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer, 2001, Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press;
Frederick,S.,& Loewenstein,G., 1999, Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 300-328;
Germán Scalzo, 2001, Inquires into the Genealogy of Self-interest in Adam Smith, University of Nevada,
Giambattista Vico,1853, Scienca Nuova, 6th edition, Milan, p. 131-133;
Guy Fletcher,2008, Mill, Moore, and Intrinsic Value, Published in Social Theory and Practice, pp. 517-525;
Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1867, Reflections, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 146;
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1991, The Noble Savage, London Edition by Allen Lane, pp. 1754–1762;
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1829, Faust, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pp.83-87;
John Stuart Mill, 1871, Utilitarianism, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p.117, 198;
John Stuart Mill, 1767, Inquiry into the principles of political oeconomy, Vol 1, pp. 278-281;
J. N. Sevenster, 1961, Paul and Seneca, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. p. 137;
Kate Soper, 2008, Alternative Hedonism, Cultural Theory and the Role of Aesthetic, Cultural Studies Vol. 22, No. 5; pp. 570-578;
Leo Strauss, 1997, Spinoza’s Critique of Religion, University of Chicago Press, p.277;
Luce J.V, 1992, An Introduction to Greek Philosophy, London: Thames and Hudson;
Lucas, J. R., 1970, The Freedom of the Will, Oxford: Clarendon Press;
Max Weber, 1958, The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism, New York, p.74;
Montesquieu de M., 1745, Esprit des lois XXII, chapter VI, PAR. 8, pp. 341-343;
Murray N. Rothbard, 1998, The ethics of liberty, by New York University Press, pp.29-155;
Nathan Rosenberg, 1965, Mandeville and Laissez-Faire, Journal of the History of Ideas 24 New York, pp. 183-196;
Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532, The Prince” (“Il Prince”), MetaLibri Digital Library , Chapter XV: Concerning Things For Which Men, And Especially Princes, Are Praised Or Blamed, p. 184;
Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch, and Oswald, A.J., 2002, The macroeconomics of happiness, Economic Research Papers Department, No. 615;
Rafael Di Tella,Robert MacCulloch. and Layard, R., 2002, Income, happiness and inequality as measures of welfare, Working Paper;
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L., 2000, On happiness and human potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic ann EudaimonicWell-Being, Deci Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester,Rochester, pp. 143-156;

Richard S. Peters, 1962, Body, Man, Citizen: Selection from Thomas Hobbes, New York: Collier, p. 86;
Robert E. Lane, 2001, The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies, Yale University Press;
Robert D. Putnam, 2000, Bowling Alone, New York: Simon and Schuster;
Robert M. Axelrod, 1984, The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books;
Stavros A. Drakopolus, 1990, Two Levels of Hedonistic Influence on Microeconomic Theory, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Val. 37, No. 4, pp. 360- 372;

Stavros A. Drakopolus, 1999, The Influence of Hedonism on the Formation of Economic Theory, University of Stirling, chapter III and IV, pp. 36-149;
Steve Keen, 2001, Debunking Economics, Pluto Press & Zed Books, Chapter Two: “The Calculus of Hedonism”;
Talcott Parsons , 1963, The political And Social Ideas of St. Augustine, Columbia University Press, pp. 52, 269;
Thorstein Veblen, 1899, Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, New York;
William Dyer Grampp, 1965, The Consequences of Stoicism , Economic Liberalism, vol. 1 The Beginnings, New York: Random House;

Others resources:
Amartya K. Sen, 2002, Development as freedom, Progress in Development Studies, 183-217,
Barry Schwartz, 2003, The tyranny of choice, Online publication, www.sciam.com;
Barry Schwartz, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonya Lyubomirsky, Katherine White and Darrin Lehman, 2002, Maximizing versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83;
Dale Dorsey, 2011, The Hedonist’s Dilemma, Journal of Moral Philosophy No.8, pp. 173- 176;
Frank, R.H., Gilovich, T. and Regan, 1996, Do economists make bad citizens?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, p.187-192
Jeffrey D. Sachs, 2011, The economics of Happiness, New York Press, Project Syndicate : A world of ideas;
James Konow, Joseph Earley, 2007, The Hedonistic Paradox: Is homo economicus happier?, Department of Economics, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, pp.1-9;
Michael Novak, 1978, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism Philosophical literature online;
Polly Toynbee, 2007, Money and Happiness, The Guardian Journal;
Robert Reiher and Daniel Acuff, 2005, Today’s World of Consumerism, PARENTGUIDE news;
Richard Layard, 2003, Rethinking Economic Policy, Online publication;
Scott D. Halpern, 2001, Moral values, social trust and inequality, British Journal of Criminology, pp.236-251.
Winkelman, L. and Winkelman, R, 1998, Why are the unemployed so unhappy, Panel data’, Economica, 65: 1-15;

Předběžná náplň práce

The main motivation for this work was to show that economy cannot be explained just by economy. Many other sciences are essential for understanding economic processes and models of behavior. This paper presents the proven relations between the philosophy, economics and psychology. The study of different economic concepts requires development of an extensive network of connections between humans on the one side, and their social needs and behavior on the other side. The starting point is the return in the time of Ancient Greeks, with whose theoretical approaches can be explained the majority of person’s actions. This paper uses theoretical analyses to assess the impact of the “passions and interests”, hedonic happiness and stoic self-interest on the economic policy and individuals. Through the gently presented forms of hedonism, this work deals with different theories such as theory of modern consumerism, marginal utilitarianism, preference theory, theory of rational allocation. The data gathered in the form of publication analysis, little psychological experiments and real life examples serve to test the hypothesis of the direct relationship between hedonistic impacts on economic theory. The two research questions are dealing with mastery of passions and interest in the economic behavior as well as with the difficulty of achieving overall satisfaction in the selfish, individualistic era. Results are showing that it is not possible to find happiness in material wealth; furthermore it is not possible to act like hedonist in market oriented economy. People are driven by their interests, which are prominent in relation to the passions. In the end, greed and competition for the material possessions make people unhappy and leads them to contradictory choices and non- rational behavior. The general conclusion of the thesis states that in spite of the contrary believes of many theorists hedonism still has a strong conceptual framework for the economic theory.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

It is clear that people are acting due their interests and preferences. Even old Greek’s philosophers have created picture of hedonistic and stoic behavior of people which is deeply implemented in capitalist model of behavior.
Even if the free market economy is based on greed and self-interest, that fuels its machine, it has been shown that it is not the best formula for happiness. Those interests of individual’s cause people to make transactions and trade. Further, trade is beneficial for economy, and it creates better living conditions for individuals in the economy. It also has been proven that happiness does not lay in material wealth.
Individuals who are oriented to pursue their wisdom and virtues have much more predispositions for achieving happiness than others whose main objective is the acquisition of the material wealth. We show that pure self-interest does not present the main ingredient for socio-economic success because it undermines the value system of individuals on which capitalism (according to Adam Smith) was built. The pure self-interest would work only in wealth societies where people happiness is not harmed by paradoxes in the sphere of consumerism choices and hedonic treadmill. By the contrary, market oriented economy should be driven by strong work ethic, passions and the hedonistic virtues of individuals. On the other side, passions received a new form of their primarily non-material, existence. In the capitalist system, passions were striving for either material wealth or public recognition. This causes people to forget that there are other things in life outside of the chaotic drive for more material wealth, power and fame. People forgot about their happiness and pure, inner satisfaction.
We should agree that society benefits from a strong moral and value system adopted by individuals within the society. These values are supremely important for the societal issues, even more then economy itself. At this point, we should mention satisfaction, or better to say, gratification, as one key value of capitalist society. For example, investors are investing money hoping that this act will bring them the gain in the future. The whole capitalist system lays down on this ideal. Michael Novak argues:
“Only a culture, in which a majority of citizens is capable of deferred gratification, of a sense of responsibility, and of a capacity for saving and wise investment, can support…a capitalist economic system. By concentrating upon fulfilling desires, democratic capitalism nourishes a hedonism which undermines the self-denying spirit.” (Novak, 1978)
Even capitalism, with its individualistic orientation, is not able to survive in the strict selfishness or an environment of extreme hedonism. Such capitalist society and the free market economy can harness an individual self-interest for social purposes. However, this situation keeps the system on an immoral level, where the selfishness of the individual is sublime. (Novak, 1978)
Not overused altruistic behavior with the virtues of generosity and benefaction could increase overall happiness and may also help the economy. If people are willing to provide help for those who are poorer than they are, it could have a positive impact on the status of less fortunate individuals. Great example for this is found through the education system, which is becoming more flexible for lower classes and it gives them opportunity of becoming more proficient and more involved in economic processes. Therefore, altruism is allowed because altruistic actions are undertaken in order to fulfill individual’s interests and they lead to the creation of altruistic own welfare, thanks to sympathy which is sub element of human interactions.
Hence, in order to avoid hedonistic paradox we should support democratic government, which will on the best way proclaim general interests and passions of the individuals. In such circumstances principle of individual liberty would be in compatibility with the liberty for others and everyone will be free and capable to make their own, optimum welfare. With moderate hedonism or not, each person should conduct their social and economic activities on the way to make a contribution to personal growth and progress of the society. Every person who is acting on rational way would be obliged to create own principle of happiness which will, if constructed in an adequate way, positively affect the concept of the whole society. The transformations of interests and preferences into something more useful would strengthen a progressive step of civilization in order to satisfy socialization of human beings. We argue that the state plays a role of the main social transformer in this process. Changing passions from their disturbed nature to something that can be constructive is one of the basics of the order and balance in market oriented economy. This dissertation presents the ways on which individual wishes could be effectively reshaped in order to contribute to social benefits. The best way for directing personal passions and interest to social framework is through the creation of appropriate institutions that will make balance and save morality in the society. In the end, individual utilities derived from individual preferences are the main principle of creating collective interest of the society.
We show that happiness, as hedonistic principle, could not be achieved through enlargement of material wealth. On the other side, we meet paradox which explains that love of money and power present the strongest guideline for individual actions today. Thus, game of trade, banking, commerce and industry take the most dominant place of power gaining in the socio-economic ladder. In individuals actions, the most valuable thing is to find equilibrium border between their marginal disutility and their marginal utility. In other words, they should follow Bentham’s principle of achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. On that way, even society can make progress in both, economic and social spheres. If people are not willing to respect that balance border of their economic behavior, then the whole system will break down because of their either extreme hedonistic or extreme altruistic way of acting.
If we look into the consumerism, we can conclude that hedonistic explosion in the sphere of choices and preferences plays an crucial role in reducing overall happiness of the society. People are facing enormous amount of different goods, which bring them confusion and dissatisfaction in terms of maximizing their own utility. For example, Montenegro is one small country which does not have developed production in many fields. For Montenegrin economy, the import presents salvation. Its economy is dependent on neighbors’ production and export. Unlike American society, here people are facing small amount of choices and they can easily create their optimum consumers “basket” of goods. This is a pure example that too many choices could waste too much time and consequently reduce efficiency of purchasing decisions.
However, happiness of the individuals, with respect for passions and interests, is calling for systemic change in economic and social structures. On the one side, the Universal government is promoting globalization and strengthens of corporate power and wealth. At the same time, all around the world people are trying to abolish these policies, demanding new regulation framework for trade and finance, in order to avoid paradoxes and causal failures in a capitalistic society. Future generations should abandon old institutions of power, and they should plant a new moral, social and economic seeds that will slowly growth in flowers of harmony, economic balance and happier future.