Does Humanomics Need a Moral Anchor?

 

This is a guest essay by Dr Edward W. Younkins, Professor of Accountancy and Business at Wheeling University, and Executive Director of its Institute for the Study of Capitalism and Morality. Ed is author of a trilogy of important books on freedom and flourishing: “Capitalism and Commerce”, “Champions of a Free Society”, and “Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society”. He also has numerous other publications, including several published on this site. (Please see them listed after the end of this essay.)  

 Modern economics, particularly in its dominant neoclassical form, is often characterized by models that treat human beings as Homo economicus—rational utility maximizers responding predictably to incentives and constraints. This idealized abstraction enables precise mathematical modeling but, as critics argue, collapses the rich complexities of human behavior into a narrow calculus of preferences and payoffs. Homo economicus assumes coherent pref­erences, consistent rationality, and a reduction of social life to instrumental choices. But this framework struggles to account for trust, social norms, feelings of fairness, moral judgment, learning, culture, and meaning—features of economic life that we observe every day. 

 

 Enter Humanomics, a burgeoning intellectual movement that seeks to re-ground economic inquiry in the realities of human experience. At its core, Humanomics aims to integrate moral and social dimensions into the scientific study of economic behavior, recapturing insights from Adam Smith that have been marginalized in mainstream economic theory. Rather than reducing humans to narrow maximizers of utility, Humanomics treats them as sentient, social, purposeful, learning agents whose actions are shaped by sentiments, norms, ethical commitments, and reflective judgment.

 

The longest part of this essay reviews the work on this growing movement conducted by Nobel laureate Vernon L. Smith and experimental economist Bart J. Wilson. That portion of the essay is followed by a discussion of distinguished interdisciplinary economic historian Deidre Nansen McCloskey’s alternative, bur compatible, vision of Humanomics. This is followed by a discussion of neo-Aristotelian philosopher Douglas B. Rasmussen’s proposal that the traditional concept of homo economicus be replaced by dual concepts pf homo agens (acting man) and homo moralis (moral man).  An argument is then made that the neo-Aristotelian framework developed by Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl called Individualistic Perfectionism may provide a philosophical grounding for Humanomics.

 

 Adam Smith’s Philosophical Vision

 

To understand Humanomics, we must revisit Adam Smith (1723–1790) not merely as the author of The Wealth of Nations (WN)—often oversimplified as the father of free market economics—but also (and arguably even more importantly) as the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS). Smith’s intellectual project embraced both economic systems and moral psychology. For Smith, markets emerge not in a vacuum but within networks of interpersonal relations guided by sympathy, propriety, and shared language. The often-quoted “invisible hand” metaphor in WN can only be read in full context when seen alongside his moral philosophy; humans are not egoistic automatons but social beings whose moral sentiments play a foundational role in shaping institutions and behavior.

 

Humanomics begins with this fuller Smithian anthropology: humans act purposefully, learn from experience, and are motivated by both self-interest and social sentiments like gratitude, resentment, trust, and fairness. Experimental evidence in economics, particularly from the works of Vernon L. Smith, shows that in simple game environments humans often behave cooperatively and reciprocally, even when self-interest alone would predict otherwise. These findings are hard to square with narrow neoclassical models but fit comfortably with a Smithian understanding of human nature as complex and multifaceted. 

 

Like Aristotle, Adam Smith focused on the cultivation of virtues and character building. Smith extended Aristotle’s ideas into modern commercial society. In turn, Humanomics builds on the connection between Aristotle’s eudaimonia and Smithian flourishing.

 

Humanomics as a Synthesis of Sentiments and Markets

 

In contemporary economic language, the dominant paradigm is sometimes referred to as Max-U: maximizing utility subject to constraints. Humanomics challenges this by asking a deeper question: What should the subject of economic theory be? If economics is a science of human wellbeing and prosperity, then it cannot abstract away the human condition; it must account for how people actually think, feel, communicate, and form norms.

 

In their 2019 book Humanomics: MoralSentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century, Smith and Wilson articulate a framework grounded in Adam Smith’s combined insights from TMS and WN. They argue that conventional economics has “lost sight of the full range of human feeling, thinking, and knowing in everyday life,” and that re-centering economics on sociality and sentiments enriches its explanatory power. Humanomics thus defines economics as a “science of human beings,” not simply a calculus of utility functions.

 

The core thesis of Humanomics is that economics must be re‑founded on a “model of sociality” that captures the full range of human feeling, thinking, and knowing. Smith and Wilson argue that the prevailing “maximize utility” (Max‑U) paradigm is inadequate because it reduces all action to outcome‑based preferences, ignoring the origins of action in moral sentiments and the context‑dependent rules that guide human conduct. In contrast, Smith’s model explains why people often act in ways that cannot be reduced to narrow self‑interest—for example, why subjects in anonymous laboratory games display high levels of trust and cooperation.

 Humanomics thus proposes a paradigm shift: from utility maximization to a “science of human beings” that integrates insights from TMS and WN into contemporary empirical analysis. This shift is not merely theoretical; it is driven by decades of experimental economics. Vernon Smith’s own Nobel‑winning work revealed that in market‑like settings, individuals often behave as narrowly self‑interested agents, while in personal social‑exchange games they exhibit strong other‑regarding tendencies. The Humanomics model reconciles these seemingly contradictory findings by appealing to Smith’s distinction between impersonal exchange (where anonymous rules of justice suffice) and personal social interaction (where fellow‑feeling and moral sentiments are paramount).

 Key to the Humanomics approach is its focus on rule‑following adaptation. Smith and Wilson emphasize that human beings are not merely preference‑satisfiers; they are rule‑followers who learn from social experience. We develop “rules of conduct” through observation, imitation, and the feedback of gratitude and resentment. These rules allow us to navigate both social and economic domains.

 

Extending Adam Smith’s Vision: Vernon  Smith and  Bart Wilson’s Contributions

 

Smith and Wilson extend several core ideas from TMS into contemporary economic analysis:

•  Fellow feeling (the capacity to enter into the emotions of others): Smith’s notion that we naturally project ourselves into the situations of others, sympathizing with their joys and sorrows, becomes a foundation for understanding cooperation and norm compliance in experiments;
•  Beneficence and justice: Smith calls beneficence (voluntarily doing good)  the “ornament” of society and justice its “main pillar”; Humanomics uses this to distinguish nonobligatory kindness from the strict norms whose violation calls for demands for redress; and
•  Impartial spectator (an imagined neutral observer): People internalize a standpoint from which they judge their own conduct. Humanomics treats this internalized judge as an explanatory mechanism for behavior that adheres to norms even when no external enforcement exists.

 

These themes allow Humanomics to construct non‑utilitarian models of choice in which rules, sentiments, and perceived propriety are primary, and utility is not reduced to felt pleasure or material payoff.

 Humanomics does not discard markets or rational choice altogether; it reinterprets them within a broader framework where market interactions are embedded in social relations. Markets are not mechanical devices for exchange but arenas where trust, reputation, norms, and sentiments actively shape outcomes. A simple market price is not just a number; it is a signal embedded in social practices and meanings. Similarly, cooperation in a trust game, or generosity in a dictator game, cannot be fully explained by narrow self-interest but makes sense when one accounts for gratitude, fairness, loyalty, and moral sentiment

 Smith and Wilson develop Adam Smith’s ideas in several crucial directions. First, they operationalize Smith’s moral psychology for experimental economics. They design games that test predictions derived from TMS, such as the role of gratitude and resentment in triggering reward and punishment. This provides empirical grounding for Smith’s often‑overlooked psychological insights.

 They develop a positive alternative to Max‑U. Instead of assuming that actions are driven solely by preferences for outcomes, Humanomics models action as rule‑governed and rooted in human relationships that involve what Smith called fellow‑feeling. This alternative framework not only explains anomalous experimental results but also offers predictive power about how people will behave in various social‑economic contexts.

 

In addition,  they re‑center economics on human flourishing. In their 2024 interview, Smith and Wilson connect Humanomics to the broader goal of human flourishing, which they describe as “discovery as a process that is adaptive and that anticipates new forms of knowing”. By restoring the moral‑social dimension to economic analysis, Humanomics seeks to inform policies and institutions that promote genuine human well‑being, not merely material efficiency.

 

A central insight of Humanomics is its emphasis on learning as a fundamental process. Unlike the static optimization models of neoclassical economics, Humanomics views human behavior as evolving through trial, error, reflection, and adaptation. Individuals do not come equipped with fully formed preference ordering; they learn who they are, what they value, and how their actions affect others. Experimental economics plays a crucial role here, providing empirical evidence about how people behave in controlled settings that approximate various institutional arrangements.

 

The result is a form of economics that is not just about equilibrium states but about processes of discovery. It recovers Smith’s method—humans are curious, puzzled by anomalies, and constantly refining their understanding. When models fail to predict observed behavior, Humanomics asks whether the underlying assumptions about human nature are the problem, not just whether the parameters are mis-estimated. 

 

Because Humanomics insists on incorporating social norms, sentiments, culture, and context, it naturally becomes interdisciplinary. It invites insights from psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and history into economic inquiry. This stands in contrast with an overly reductionist economics that isolates variables analytically while ignoring how human context shapes meaning and action. In real policy contexts—such as education, public health, public choice, or charity—Humanomic insights can lead to different conclusions than narrow cost-benefit analyses. Analysts must ask not merely whether a policy is efficient but whether it respects real human motivations, social norms, and institutional contexts. 

 Bart Wilson’s contributions to Humanomics focus on the moral ecology within which economic behavior takes place. Drawing on Smith, Wilson argues that human beings inhabit a world structured by rules — not only formal laws but informal norms of propriety, fairness, and respect. These rules are not arbitrary; they emerge from social interaction and are sustained by shared moral sentiments.

 Wilson’s concept of “moral ecology” refers to the environment of norms and expectations that make cooperative behavior possible. Just as biological organisms depend on ecological systems, human beings depend on moral systems that support trust and reciprocity. Markets, in this view, are not self‑sustaining mechanisms but institutions embedded in a moral ecology.

 Wilson also emphasizes the importance of language and grammar in shaping social rules. He argues that moral rules function like grammatical rules: they guide behavior without requiring explicit calculation. This analogy echoes Adam Smith’s observation that moral norms arise spontaneously from social interaction, much like language. Humanomics thus extends Smith’s insights into the contemporary study of rule‑governed behavior.

 

 Experimental Evidence and Field Applications

 

Humanomics has a strong empirical foundation in experimental economics. Laboratory games have repeatedly shown that people often act cooperatively and reciprocally in ways that standard Max-U models do not predict. In market experiments, trading behavior often approximates neoclassical predictions, but in social exchanges and repeated interactions, people reveal trust, fairness, and punishment behaviors inconsistent with narrow rational self-interest. Humanomics treats this not as noise to be explained away but as central phenomena that any reliable theory must account for.

 

Field applications extend this logic: for example, blood donation behavior and charitable giving often occur without direct material incentives but are driven by moral sentiments, social identity, and reciprocal expectations—patterns Humanomics explains in a unified framework rather than as anomalies. 

 

Vernon Smith’s experimental work especially provides empirical grounding for Humanomics. His experiments consistently show that individuals behave in ways that reflect moral sentiments rather than pure self‑interest. For example, in trust games, participants often send money to strangers even when there is no guarantee of return. In ultimatum games, individuals frequently reject unfair offers even at personal cost. These behaviors contradict the predictions of standard economic models but align closely with Adam Smith’s account of moral judgment.

 Vernon Smith interprets these findings through the lens of TMS, arguing that individuals care about fairness, propriety, and the approval of the impartial spectator. Humanomics thus bridges the gap between experimental results and classical moral philosophy. It shows that Adam Smith’s insights remain relevant for understanding real human behavior.

McCloskey’s Vision of Humanomics

 In Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science (2021), Deirdre Nansen McCloskey offers a spirited critique of the dominant currents in contemporary economics and proposes an alternative vision she also calls Humanomics.  McCloskey, a distinguished economic historian trained across economics, history, rhetoric, and the humanities, argues that modern economics has become overly narrow in its methods and impoverished in its understanding of human agency. Her work is rooted in the conviction that economics should advance as a science of human betterment that integrates quantitative analysis with a deep appreciation of human motives, language, ethics, history, and culture. 

 McCloskey’s project is both a critique of modern economics and a revival of an older, richer tradition that traces back to Adam Smith. Her Humanomics emphasizes humans as purposeful agents embedded in moral worlds of meaning, speech, and persuasion rather than merely isolated utility maximizers reacting to incentives. This perspective challenges what she sees as the prevailing behaviorist and neo-institutionalist frameworks that dominate economics. 

 In addition to drawing on Adam Smith, McCloskey acknowledges debt to work by experimental economists Smith and Wilson. However, while their approaches overlap in their broad aim to re-humanize economics, they differ in focus and methodological commitments.

 At the core of McCloskey’s Humanomics is the claim that economics should be a discipline that genuinely takes human action seriously. For McCloskey, this means moving beyond the narrow positivism and behaviorism that treat human beings as reactive entities whose behavior is only meaningful insofar as it can be observed and statistically quantified. Rather, she calls for a science that recognizes humans as speaking, thinking, persuading, valuing, and moral beings. Human action, in this view, cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the roles of language, narratives, ethics, and culture. 

 Her critique is directed both at neo-institutional economics (which stresses the role of rules and institutions but tends to treat individuals as passive units responding to institutional constraints) and behavioral economics (which often focuses on systematic deviations from rational choice without adequately theorizing autonomy, meaning, and moral agency). McCloskey contends that these frameworks, in privileging observation over interpretation, fail to capture the why behind human actions and preferences. 

 A central move in McCloskey’s project is to reclaim the tradition of Adam Smith  as a thinker deeply attuned to moral sentiments, rhetoric, and the narrative dimensions of human life. McCloskey argues that classical political economy—and especially Smith’s work—treated human beings as ethical and rhetorical creatures. In her view, this older tradition offers a template for a more holistic economics that respects human complexity. 

 McCloskey also situates her Humanomics within a broader narrative: the Great Enrichment of the last few centuries, during which material living standards rose dramatically across much of the world. For her, understanding this transformation requires a focus on ideas, language, and values—the very realm that conventional models tend to marginalize. Material incentives alone are insufficient explanatory tools; instead, human rhetoric, ethics, and innovation are central drivers of economic progress. 

 McCloskey’s Humanomics calls for an interdisciplinary methodology. She argues that economics should retain the tools of mathematical modeling and empirical analysis, but also incorporate insights from history, philosophy, literature, and rhetoric.

 At a broad level, McCloskey and Smith and Wilson share a commitment to re-humanizing economics by restoring attention to moral, social, and rhetorical dimensions of human life. All three thinkers draw inspiration from Adam Smith’s holistic perspective and reject the narrow positivist view of human action. They agree that humans cannot be understood merely as reactors to incentives or as mathematical objects in maximization problems. 

 Both approaches emphasize interdisciplinarity and contextual richness rather than strict behaviorist reductionism. McCloskey’s Humanomics is particularly expansive in its inclusion of the humanities—language, history, rhetoric, and ethics—alongside economics. Smith and Wilson Humanomics, while acknowledging moral sentiments and context, tends to stay closer to an economic framework that can be operationalized in experimental and theoretical work. 

 

Rasmussen’s neo-Aristotelian Contributions

 

While Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson ground Humanomics primarily in a reinterpretation of Adam Smith and empirical findings, Douglas B. Rasmussen brings a philosophical depth that complements and extends the project.

 

In his recent work (2024), Rasmussen proposes replacing the abstraction of Homo economicus with the paired concepts of Homo agens (acting man), and Homo moralis (moral man). In this view, human beings are purposeful actors (Homo agens) who choose means to achieve ends, and they are also moral agents (Homo moralis) who evaluate not only the effectiveness of their actions but whether the ends themselves and the means to attain them are good for a human life. Unlike Homo economicus, which reduces behavior to utility calculations, this dual conception captures the ethical and purposive dimensions of human action. 

 

Rasmussen’s homo agens comes from Austrian economics and Ludwig von Mises’s “action  axiom” especially as interpreted by Murray Rothbard which holds that human action is purposeful behavior involving the use of scarce means to attain ends. Homo moralis adds the further question of whether the ends chosen and means employed are genuinely good for a particular human being (i.e., tying economic agency to the ethics of individual human flourishing).

 

Rasmussen maintained that neo-classical economists’ grounding of economics in universal self-interest and revealed preference is arbitrary and tautological (i.e., any consistent pattern of behavior can be interpreted as ‘utility maximization”), Rothbard’s homo agens avoids this by characterizing human beings as agents who pursue ends through chosen means, the content of which can be altruistic, egoistic, and so on. This supports a version of Humanomics that does not need homo economicus as a foundational assumption yet preserves economic theorems such as diminishing marginal utility as implications of purposeful action rather than hedonistic psychology.

 

Rasmussen’s framing resonates with Humanomics by emphasizing the agent’s reflective choice, not just behavioral regularities. It anchors Humanomics in a philosophical anthropology that recognizes human beings as rational, moral, and teleological—that is, oriented toward ends that are remembered, evaluated, and integrated within a larger conception of the good life. This aligns with classical and neo-Aristotelian notions of human flourishing, where economics cannot be fully separated from ethics and politics. 

 

Rasmussen’s broader philosophical work on human flourishing situates economics within a normative framework: economics is not just a positive science predicting behavior but a moral inquiry into conditions that enable humans to live well. Drawing on Aristotelian and natural law traditions, Rasmussen argues that flourishing involves exercise of reason, moral judgment, and substantive choice—aspects that narrow economic models often neglect. These philosophical foundations enrich Humanomics by giving it a normative anchor: preferences and choices are not just given but evaluated in terms of their contribution to a fulfilling human life. 

 

Rasmussen’s contribution to Humanomics is best understood through his broader neo-Aristotelian framework of individualistic perfectionism and his sustained work on human flourishing, moral agency, and political philosophy. Rasmussen does not approach Humanomics primarily as an economist, but as a philosopher concerned with the nature of human action, practical reason, and the ethical conditions necessary for individuals to flourish. His work provides Humanomics with a deeper normative and anthropological grounding that complements the empirical and Smithian recovery undertaken by Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson.

 

Rasmussen’s individualistic perfectionism holds that there is an objective standard of human flourishing grounded in human nature, but that flourishing must be achieved through the self-directed activity of individuals rather than imposed collective ends (Den Uyl and Rasmussen [2016]). This view aligns closely with Humanomics’ insistence that economic behavior cannot be reduced to mechanical optimization. Preferences are not merely given; they are formed, revised, and evaluated through practical reasoning over time. Economic choice, on this account, is inseparable from ethical self-authorship.

Under this view, policies or institutions that optimize efficiency but undermine agency, community, or moral sentiments may be judged inadequate. Humanomics, when infused with Rasmussen’s perspective, becomes not just a descriptive science of human behavior but a critically engaged social science that judges economic arrangements in terms of how they contribute to individual flourishing.

 

 Conclusion

 

Humanomics represents a significant intellectual shift toward a human-centered economics rooted in the full breadth of Adam Smith’s thought and enriched by contemporary philosophy. By privileging social relations, moral sentiments, and purposeful action, Humanomics provides a more holistic framework for understanding economic life. The contributions of scholars like Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson reorient economics toward a science of human beings, while philosophical thinkers like Douglas B. Rasmussen deepen its conceptual foundations by restoring moral agency and flourishing to the center of inquiry.

 

In an age where economic science faces criticism for its abstraction and detachment from lived experience, Humanomics offers a compelling alternative: one that holds onto the analytical rigor of economics while honoring the complexity of what it means to be human. In reviving Adam Smith’s unified vision of moral sentiments and economic life, Humanomics challenges the reductionism of modern economics and opens new pathways for interdisciplinary research. It invites economists, philosophers, and social scientists to reconsider the moral foundations of markets and the narrative structures that shape human action. In doing so, it honors Adam Smith’s legacy while extending his insights into the twenty‑first century.

 

Recommended reading

 

Bates, Winton. (2021) “Why Should Economists Practice Humanomics?” Freedom and Flourishing. October 4, 2021.

Den Uyl, Douglas J., and Douglas B. Rasmussen. (2016) The Perfectionist Turn: From Metanorms to Metaethics. Edinburgh University Press.

McCloskey, Deidre Nansen McCloskey. (2023) Bettering Humanomics; A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science. University of Chicago Press

Rasmussen, Douglas B (2024), Homo Agens and Homo Moralis in Humanomics. The Independent Review.

Smith, Adam. (1759) 1982The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Smith, Adam. (1776) 1981. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Smith, Vernon L., and Bart J. Wilson. (2019) Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Smith, Vernon L. and Bart J. Wilson. (2024) “Humanomics: An Interview with Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson.” 2024. Profectus Magazine. October 14, 2024.

 

Some other essays by Ed Younkins

Younkins, Edward W (2025) “What Contribution did David L. Norton Make to our Understanding of Ethical Individualism?” Freedom and Flourishing. January 18, 2025.

Younkins, Edward W. (2025) “How can dialectics help us to defend liberty?” Freedom and Flourishing. July 8, 2025.

Younkins, Edward W. (2025) “How can Austrian Economics be reconciled with the Neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Freedom and Flourishing?” Freedom and Flourishing. October 24, 2025.

Younkins, Edward W. (2025) “Can Polarized Moral Politics be Bridged by a Neo-Aristotelian Philosophy of Freedom and Flourishing?” Freedom and Flourishing. December 13, 2025.

Part I: How is human flourishing linked to liberty?

This essay is one of a series exploring the topic: What impact does political entrepreneurship have on freedom and flourishing? The series commenced with a Preface which provides a synopsis of the series and explains why I think it is important to obtain a better understanding of political entrepreneurship.

——

As noted in the Preface, the purpose of the following discussion of the links between freedom and flourishing is to explain why this series of essays is focused on institutions relating to economic and personal freedom.

I adopt Douglass North’s definition of institutions as “the rules of the game in a society”, along with his more formal definition of institutions as “the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (North 1990, p.3). North observed that institutions can be formal or informal. Formal institutions include constitutions, laws, and regulations. Informal institutions include codes of conduct, norms of behavior, conventions, and customs (North 1990, p.4).

The institutional changes that are of most interest for the purposes of this essay are changes in formal institutions that are reflected in levels of economic and personal freedom at a national level.

My understanding of the links between freedom and flourishing has been presented in Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing (Bates, 2021). In broad terms, the perspective adopted in that book is that institutional changes that result in greater freedom are generally desirable because they expand opportunities for individual flourishing. That perspective reflects my understanding of the nature of human flourishing and evidence of the importance of liberty to individual flourishing. A brief outline of the main points in that line of argument is presented below.

1. Human flourishing is the process by which individuals actualize the potential that is inherent in their human nature. It entails the exercise of one’s practical wisdom, with integrity, in the pursuit of happiness in an objectively worthwhile life (pp.4-5).
2. The basic goods of a flourishing human are a matter for ongoing reflection and discussion. I argue that individuals are flourishing when they are exercising wise and well-informed self-direction, accompanied by good physical health, psychological well-being and positive relationships with others, and are living in harmony with nature (pp.6-7).
3. Wise and well-informed self-direction is of central importance to human flourishing because of the nature of humans as creatures who have potential to direct their own flourishing, in pursuit of goals which they determine for themselves. The exercise of self-direction helps individuals to maintain other basic goods that are necessary for the pursuit of chosen goals (pp.7-8, 12). The Neo-Aristotelian viewpoint in the first three points builds on earlier work by several different authors.
4. Individuals flourish in mutually beneficial interactions with others. Adam Smith made a particularly important contribution in promoting that view (pp.49-50, 60-62, 68-9).
5. Given the nature of individual flourishing as an inherently self-directed process, it is not possible for individuals to flourish unless their natural right to self-direction is recognized in social and political structures (pp.22-3). This discussion references a conceptual framework developed by Edward W. Younkins (Younkins, 2019).
6. Norms of liberty solve the social problem of making it possible for individuals to flourish in different ways without the flourishing of one individual being given structural preference over that of others (pp.23-25). This discussion relies heavily on the views of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005).
7. International comparisons of opportunities to obtain the basic goods of flourishing humans point to the importance of liberty, a culture of trust and high incomes as common elements explaining why opportunities have been greater in some countries than others. Liberty is of utmost importance to provide opportunities for well-informed self-direction. High incomes appear to be the most pervasive element, but liberty and a culture of trust have played an important role in facilitating the underlying development process that has enabled incomes to rise. (pp.65-76). 

The existence of a positive relationship between economic freedom and economic development has been well documented elsewhere (for example, Gwartney et al. 2024, pp.27-33 and the chapter by Kevin Grier and Robin Grier, pp.35-49).

The preceding discussion has focused on links between formal rules of the game and human flourishing. Informal institutions are also of interest because they can interact in important ways with the formal rules that determine economic and personal freedom. North observes that a change in formal rules or their enforcement “will result in a disequilibrium situation” and “give rise to efforts to evolve new conventions and norms” (North 1990, pp.87-8). He also makes the more fundamental suggestion that “constitutional forms are typically derivative”. In response to the claim that “the reason we are a free people is that we have certain constitutional forms”, North suggests that “it may just as easily be the case that the reason we have these constitutional forms is that we are a free people” (North 1990, p.60). North notes that informal constraints “come from socially transmitted information and are part of the heritage that we call culture" (North 1990, p.37).

In the following essay, I discuss the extent to which international differences in levels of economic and personal freedom reflect differences in cultural values rather than the influence of political entrepreneurship and accompanying ideologies.

References

Bates, Winton, Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing (Hamilton Books, 2021).

Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson, and Ryan Murphy, Economic Freedom of the World: 2024 Annual Report (Fraser Institute, 2024).

North, Douglass C., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Rasmussen, Douglas B., and Den Uyl, Douglas J, Norms of Liberty (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005).

Younkins, Edward W. ‘Freedom and Flourishing’, Chapter 2 in The Dialectics of Liberty: Exploring the context of human freedom, edited by Roger Bissell, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Edward W Younkins (Lexington Books, 2019).

How can the study of human nature help us to reach normative conclusions in political philosophy?

When I read the sentence quoted in the epigraph above, the thought crossed my mind that Aristotle would have agreed with it. Aristotle based his philosophy on his observation of human nature. The reason why Aristotle came to mind will become apparent as you read the essay.

The quoted sentence written by Gerry Gaus is from the Preface of The Open Society and its Complexities (p.x). I have previously written about this book in an essay entitled: What does Gerry Gaus tell us about the implications of the knowledge problem for political entrepreneurship?

I have three objectives in writing this essay:

• The first is to outline Gaus’s discussion of the social evolution of human nature and how that provides a basis for his normative conclusions about the desirability of an Open Society.
• The second is to consider what we need to know about human nature to reach normative conclusions about the desirability of an Open Society.
• The third is to consider whether Gaus’s approach helps us to defend the intuition that natural rights exist.

The evolution of human nature  

Gaus argues that human nature has been shaped by evolution, including cultural evolution. Humans are a norm-guided species. Social norms are predominantly a cultural phenomenon – a product of cultural evolution. The norms associated with different types of social order differentially encourage some aspects of human nature while discouraging others. Gaus suggests that “the truly outstanding feature of our evolved moral psychology is our ability to follow a wide variety of sharing and fairness norms in different circumstances and cultures”. (p.86)

Gaus suggests that the common view that publicly justified moral rules are a modern Western invention fails to appreciate that public justification has been a fundamental feature of moral life from the beginning:

“From the very beginning, human morality has relied on public justification: the rules of the group must be such that the members’ personal normative convictions and interests align with them.” (p.50)

Gaus is critical of the “tribal collectivist” view that humans “are simply, at bottom, natural egalitarian collectivists”. He begins his evolutionary story with conjectures about the complex social life of ancestral Pan – the posited common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos. Concern for personal autonomy may have its roots in a social life where individuals displayed a keen sense of self-interest in competition for alpha status, and in rebelling to avoid dominance.

Gaus acknowledges that Late Pleistocene (LPA) hunter-gather societies engaged in egalitarian meat-sharing. That was a means of reducing the variance in food intake, but it also reflects successful efforts by subordinates to control would-be bullies and upstarts. Under that interpretation, the egalitarian ethos of LPA societies was not inherently collectivist. LPA societies “appear characterized by a near-obsession with resisting the authority of would-be dominators”. LPA societies also exerted immense social pressure against innovators who sought to introduce new techniques to improve their own lot. This may have been an effective way to protect distributive shares.

People in LPA societies had a strong ethic of reciprocation – they engaged in the conditional cooperation that enables markets to function. Social support was more readily available to those who had a reputation for being willing to assist others.

Social norms developed in LPA societies as some moral rules became internalized because large majorities developed an emotional attachment to them and willingly complied with them. The exercise of self-control in conforming to social rules was a highly prized virtue in many small hunter groups.

About 17,000 years ago, there was a rise in inequality brought about by the development of forager clans, leading to creation of hierarchical states. The state’s organization gave it a decisive military advantage over more egalitarian groups. Grain-based monoculture may be the creation of hierarchical states rather than a cause of it.

Gaus presumably adopts F. A. Hayek’s view of the Open Society (or Great Society) as a society in which coercion of some by others has been reduced as far as possible and individuals are free to use their own knowledge for their own purposes. He argues that the morality of the Open Society scales up the norms of reciprocity and fairness while incorporating the ancient concern with autonomy and personal freedom: “the core rights of person and property become universal”. (p.133)

The recent emergence of WEIRD morality (the morality of Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democracies) may have occurred as a consequence of teachings of the Catholic Church opposed to incest, which was once defined so broadly that it led to the breakup of kin- and clan-based morality. Gaus notes Jonathan Haidt’s data (The Righteous Mind, 2012) indicating that the moral reasoning of WEIRD populations is largely focused on individuals and centres on the dimensions of liberty-oppression, care-harm, and fairness-cheating.  In contrast, most other moral systems, including those of conservatives in WEIRD societies give greater emphasis to loyalty-betrayal, authority-subversion, and sanctity-degradation.

Gaus suggests:

“Extending core morality beyond kin-based networks may have been the critical development of WEIRD morality, but WEIRD morality too manifests a push toward expansion of the impartial network and pulling back by kin and ethnic markers and the power of social proximity. Human social life is defined by this constant tension between the push to wider moral relations and the pulling back of familiarity and social proximity. To describe human morality as either tribalistic or an ever-expanding circle is evocative but fundamentally distorting.” (p. 90)

Gaus goes on to suggest that although cultural evolution does not render humans unfit for the Open Society, they may well be unfit for Millean liberalism (and by implication, WEIRD morality). He argues that Millean progressivism “is a recipe for drastically reducing social learning (aka imitation), throwing us back on our cognitive capacities. That, however, is in turn a recipe for undermining ultra-social cooperation, and would probably make any significant system of social rules dysfunctional”. (p.102)

The Open Society is characterized by self-organized social morality, entailing moral rules that lead toward extended cooperation rather than conflict and division. Diversity of moral perspectives is fundamental to the moral life of the Open Society. Thus, the existence of increasingly diverse moral perspectives can enhance justification of the Open Society and public justifications of those moral rules must be as accommodating to diversity as possible. (pp. 164-167)

Gaus concludes:

 “a variety of different moral perspectives can, counterintuitively, enhance the ability of a society to secure public justification of shared moral rules. Each has his own opinion of the point and value of these rules, yet each can particulate in, and indeed enhance a social process that can generate a self-organized social morality.” (p. 167)

That description of an important characteristic of an Open Society seems to be as close as Gaus comes to reaching a normative conclusion about the desirability of an Open Society.

What do we need to know about human nature to reach normative conclusions supporting an Open Society?

I don’t think we need an evolutionary account of the shaping of human nature to reach normative conclusions supporting an Open Society. Gerry Gaus could have argued that humans have a variety of different moral perspectives by merely referring to evidence such as that presented by Jonathan Haidt. He didn’t need his interesting account of the evolution of human nature to make the point that moral rules can only secure “public justification” if they are as accommodating to diversity as possible.

That is not intended as a criticism. Gaus made clear that his primary intention in providing the evolutionary account was to counter the view (attributed to Hayek among others) that our evolved moral sentiments constantly cause us to rebel against the Open Society and resort to a “tribal” moral outlook.

Gaus’s discussion of the evolution of moral norms helped him to focus on some aspects of human nature that are relevant to assessment of politico-legal orders. However, it seems to me that Gaus overlooked other relevant aspects of human nature such as the importance to individual flourishing of the exercise of practical wisdom and self-direction. The relevance of those aspects might have been given more prominence if Gaus had considered some studies with an individualistic focus on virtues and values.

The study by Martin Seligman and Christopher Petersen of virtues that are ubiquitous and valued in every culture is relevant in this context. By reading the basic writings of all the major religious and philosophical traditions, the researchers found that six virtues were endorsed by “almost every single one” of these traditions: wisdom and knowledge, courage, love and humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. That list incorporates the ancient cardinal virtues of practical wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice and the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love. Seligman and Petersen identified 24 character strengths that they viewed as the routes by which the virtues can be achieved. One aim of the study was to assist people to identify their own character strengths. The study recognizes that individuals who have different character strengths have potential to flourish in different ways. (The study is described in Martin Seligman, Authentic Happiness, 2012, pp. 125-161.)

Another relevant approach is Shalom Schwartz’s theory of basic values. The findings of his surveys suggest that the value priorities in 82 countries exhibit a similar hierarchical order, despite substantial differences in the value priorities of individuals within those countries. The 10 basic values identified in that study were self-direction, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, and stimulation. (See: Schwatz, S.H., 2012, ‘An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values’, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture.)

There are no doubt other empirical studies that identify the importance of practical wisdom and self-direction to individual flourishing.

However, as Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (often referred to as the Dougs) have pointed out, “the character of human flourishing is not discovered solely by a scientific study of human nature. Considerations of the requirements and conditions for human volition and action, cultural and social practices, and commonsense observations are part of the process”. The Dougs add: “The point of entry for such reflection most often occurs when we examine our lives as a whole and wonder what they are for”. (Norms of Liberty, 2005, p.116).

The Dougs present a Neo-Aristotelian account of human flourishing in which the human good is explained to be objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, self-directed and social. After providing that explanation, the authors conclude:

“Regardless of whether or not the forgoing outline of human flourishing meshes with Aristotle’s, it clear that human flourishing is, for our theory of individualistic perfectionism, something plural and complex, not monistic and simple. As we have noted, this view of human flourishing amounts to a version of moral pluralism because there are many goods that help to define human flourishing. Further, there is no single good or virtue that dominates all others and reduces them to mere instrumental values.” (p.143)

The Dougs do not refrain from declaring that human flourishing is good. Flourishing occurs when individuals actualize their natural potential to be good humans. (p.122)

The Dougs note that the individualized and agent-relative character of human flourishing poses the problem of how it can be possible for individuals to flourish in different ways without the flourishing of some individuals or groups being given structural preference over that of others. They explain that recognition of individual rights solves that problem because it enables individuals to flourish in different ways provided that they do not interfere with the rights of others. (pp. 76-96)

I hope that this brief outline of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl’s discussion of human flourishing provides sufficient evidence that their normative conclusions in political philosophy are based on their study of human nature.

Does Gaus’s evolutionary discussion help us to defend intuitions that natural rights exist?

In my book, Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing, I noted that, since ancient times, some philosophers have recognized that there is a foundation in human nature for intuitions about natural rights. I noted Haidt’s moral foundations theory and Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution but most of my discussion focused on Robert Nozick’s discussion of the evolution of norms and intuitions related to social cooperation for mutual benefit and the ethics of respect. (pp. 26-28) Nozick’s discussion is in his book, Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World, published in 2001.

Gaus’s discussion of cultural evolution overlaps considerably with Nozick’s, but there are differences of emphasis. As noted above, Gaus’s discussion emphasizes that public justification has always been a fundamental feature of moral life of humanity and that some moral rules become internalized as large majorities developed an emotional attachment to them. I think public justification is also implied in Nozick’s discussion of the merits of voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit because voluntary cooperation requires public justification.  (Nozick, p.259)

One difference of emphasis arises because of Nozick’s interest in the question of why conscious self-awareness was selected for in evolutionary processes. Nozick suggests that “if the function of conscious self-awareness was selected for because it makes us capable of ethical behaviour, then ethics, even the first layer of the ethics of respect, truly is what makes us human”. (p.300) Gaus is more interested in issues of public justification of norms and the question of “how we can live without oppression and subjugation in a complex and deeply divided world”.

I think Gaus’s evolutionary discussion is helpful to an understanding of why it is common for people to have intuitions that rules that restrain individual action require public justification to ensure that, as far as is possible, they are aligned with the personal normative convictions of community members.  Perhaps the intuition that people have a natural right to public justification of rules that restrain individual action is just as widespread and as strong as the intuition that individuals have a natural right to respect for their persons and property.

 Conclusions

This essay was prompted by my reading of Gerry Gaus’s book, The Open Society and its Complexities.

Gaus’s discussion of the evolution of human nature emphasizes the following points:

• Public justification of rules and concern for personal autonomy were a fundamental feature of moral life even before the evolution of modern humans.
• The evolved moral psychology of humans has allowed a wide variety of fairness norms to be followed in different circumstances and cultures.
• Human nature is neither fundamentally tribalistic nor is it characterized by an ever-expanding circle of moral relationships. There is constant tension between tendencies toward expansion of moral concerns and pulling back to familiarity and social proximity.
• The Open Society is characterized by self-organized social morality and diversity of moral perspectives.

Gaus argues that diversity can enhance the ability of a society to secure public justification of shared moral rules.

I think the points that Gaus emphasizes about human nature are helpful in considering the merits of an Open Society but I would have liked to have seen him give consideration to the relevance of other aspects of human nature such as the widespread view that exercise of practical wisdom is a virtue and the value that people place on self-direction. Consideration of practical wisdom and self-direction would have required consideration of studies with an individualistic focus as well as those that focus on social norms.

 It is possible to obtain insights about human nature from commonsense observations, introspection and reasoning, as well as from scientific research. On the basis of their observations and reasoning Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl were able to explain (in Norms of Liberty) that the human good is individualized, agent-relative and self-directed, as well as social. Their understanding of the nature of human good and individual flourishing provided a foundation for their normative conclusion that it is necessary for the politico-legal framework to recognize individual rights. Rights recognition makes it possible for individuals to flourish in different ways without the flourishing of some individuals or groups being given structural preference over that of others.

It is appropriate for conclusions about the rights of individuals to be based on the study of human nature rather than intuitions. Nevertheless, the intuition that humans have rights that should be respected is an important factor influencing individual behaviour. That influence could be expected to be stronger when people believe that individual rights are natural, in the sense of having a foundation in human nature. It seems to me that evolutionary theory supports that belief.

Gaus’s book left me thinking that the intuition that individuals have a natural right to public justification of the rules that restrain their actions may be as widespread and as strong as the intuition that they have a natural right to respect for their persons and property. More generally, it may be that humans tend to have strong intuitions that natural justice itself is a natural right.

Addendum

Readers might also be interested in a later series of essays on political entrepreneurship.