Richard Whately on economics as the science of exchanges

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guang-Zhen Sun
Keyword(s):  
1966 ◽  
Vol 15 (58) ◽  
pp. 131-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Goldstrom

Throughout the nineteenth century, books, pamphlets and periodicals offered widely-ranging advice to the working class. One theme, appearing about 1820, was political economy: ‘Next to religion’, a royal commission reported, ‘the knowledge most important to a labouring man is that of the causes which regulate the amount of his wages, the hours of his work, the regularity of his employment, and the prices of what he consumes’. And Richard Whately, former Drummond Professor of political economy at Oxford, now archbishop of Dublin, urged similarly the need to teach political economy to the poor : ‘The lower orders’, he said, ‘would not … be, as now, liable to the misleading of every designing demagogue … If they were well grounded in the outlines of the science, it would go further towards rendering them provident, than any other scheme that could be devised.’


Theology ◽  
1963 ◽  
Vol 66 (520) ◽  
pp. 405-410
Author(s):  
W. L. R. Watson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Geertjan Zuijdwegt

Richard Whately (1787-1863) is an intriguing figure in John Henry Newman’s development. Through his mentoring and academic support, he taught the gifted young Newman to think for himself. But intellectual independence came at a price. After a close relationship in the mid-1820s, Newman began to steer a course of his own. In the tumultuous early 1830s, their friendship foundered, as they clashed over key theological issues: the authority of the church, the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of revelation, and the reasonableness of religious belief. Newman had come to think that Whately's theology endangered orthodox Christianity. This conviction shaped his later opposition to other Oriel Noetics, who thought like Whately. Despite their conflicts, Newman drew on Whately's work in logic and rhetoric to formulate his own theory of the relation between faith and reason.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Rosen

Most recent discussions of John Stuart Mill’s System of Logic (1843) neglect the fifth book concerned with logical fallacies. Mill not only follows the revival of interest in the traditional Aristotelian doctrine of fallacies in Richard Whately and Augustus De Morgan, but he also develops new categories and an original analysis which enhance the study of fallacies within the context of what he calls ‘the philosophy of error’. After an exploration of this approach, the essay relates the philosophy of error to the discussion of truth and error in chapter two of On Liberty (1859) concerned with freedom of thought and discussion. Drawing on Socratic and Baconian perspectives, Mill defends both the traditional study of logic against Jevons, Boole, De Morgan, and others, as well as the study of fallacies as the key to maintaining truth and its dissemination in numerous fields, such as science, morality, politics, and religion. In Mill’s view the study of fallacies also liberates ordinary people to explore the truth and falsity of ideas and, as such, to participate in society and politics and develop themselves as progressive beings.


Author(s):  
Ross B. Emmett

The date of the separation of economics from Christian theology is debated, as is its explanation. The process also differs in Britain and America. Richard Whately and Philip Wicksteed’s accounts of the basis of separation in nineteenth-century Britain are considered, and in America the twentieth-century accounts of the impact of the Social Gospel on the founding of the American Economic Association, and of Frank Knight and Reinhold Niebuhr. Knight is a particularly interesting case in that he considered economics to be inadequate on its own while vigorously rejecting the contribution of existing Christian ethics. Economic theory ignored theology, and theology also came to ignore economic theory. The connection between the separation and the wider secularization thesis is discussed, drawing on the work of Charles Taylor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document