Abstract
In this thesis, I seek to develop the Cambridge Social Ontology (CSO) framework and explore the implications that follow for ethics from adopting an explicit ontological orientation. Much of the work within CSO is associated with a sustained critique of mainstream economics, but the project also involves elaborating a general account of the social realm. A less well-known aspect of the project is its exploration of ethical issues and defence of a particular position in ethics labelled Critical Ethical Naturalism (CEN). This ethical theory is advanced by Tony Lawson, the leading figure in CSO. Lawson’s elaboration of CEN is relatively brief. My objective is to focus on, clarify, comparatively evaluate, and develop certain aspects of CEN.As a way of exploring the distinctiveness of CEN, I develop a contrast with the contributions of Amartya Sen. Sen’s work has had an enormous impact on political economy and is seen by many as offering (a) an approach in ethics capable of facilitating holistic evaluation of political-economic outcomes and (b) ethically informed methodologies to analyse political-economic phenomena. The comparison between Sen and CEN enables crucial ontological tensions in Sen’s work to be identified and highlights the advantages of drawing on ontological insights when defending specific ethical positions.
In Chapter 1, I elaborate on and develop the central features of CEN, drawing from Aristotle’s writings. Aristotle’s work serves as a valuable resource in this context, as it presents an established ethical theory built upon ontological presuppositions similar to those of CEN. The comparison with Sen unfolds in Chapters 2 and 3, with an initial focus on Sen’s contributions to political economy. I employ Veblen’s (original) concept of ‘neoclassical’ economics to pinpoint crucial inconsistencies in Sen’s work. Veblen coined this term to highlight a specific type of ontological tension evident in the work of a particular group of economists. In Chapter 2, I argue that this very tension permeates Sen’s contributions, pointing towards the distinction between Sen’s project and CSO. In the final chapter, I examine ontological inconsistencies in Sen’s ethics and compare his ethical framework with CEN.
| Date of Award | 1 Mar 2024 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Stephen Pratten (Supervisor) & Yannick Slade-Caffarel (Supervisor) |