ractical men', at some point they started discussing the method, scope and function of political economy. Ricardo defended the abstract nature of the science on the basis that there are so many causes at play in real-world economies that it is safer to examine simplified models illustrating simple cause-effect relationships (Ricardo 1820: 5–7; see Cremaschi and Dascal 1996: 498–505). Malthus argued instead, from the same starting point, that one should try to explain real-world processes by taking multiple causes into account, paying the price of a loss in rigour but gaining greater realism and relevance, since political economy loses all value when reduced to an abstract science instead of being part of'moral and political science' (Malthus 1820, 1: 203; see Cremaschi 2010). In the 1820s and 1830s, Malthus's views were adopted and expanded by the school of 'Christian political economy', which included John Sumner (1816), Thomas Chalmers (1832) and Richard Whately (1831). They viewed political economy as a theoretical toolbox, to be used in order to implement policies designed by a more encompassing moral and political discourse. This was essentially moral discourse, grounded in strong assumptions, according to which self-interest could not be assumed to be the main spring of action, wealth should be defined as including such entities as culture and morality, and there were higher goals for economic policies than the growth of material wealth of a nation (Waterman 1991; Cremaschi 2014: 127– 56). The opposite camp was a somewhat odd alignment of ultra-orthodox Ricardian political economists such as John R. McCulloch with the tiny sect of 'philosophical radicals' founded by Jeremy Bentham. James Mill, both political philosopher and political economist, was the missing link between the economic school and the political lobby. Despite an old myth, there was no trace of Benthamite philosophy in Ricardian economics, and Bentham's own writings on economic subjects predated Ricardo's contributions and 9 provided a rather traditional kind of economic argument, with little relation to Bentham's own epistemology, ethics and politics. The fact is that Ricardo was recruited by Mill for tactical reasons in order to add to the philosophical radical war machine such powerful weaponry as a prestigious economic doctrine would afford. Part of this strategy was an attempt to make Ricardian economics appear more distant from both Smith and Bentham than it actually was –
ractical men', at some point they started discussing the method acting, oscilloscope and function of political economy. Ricardo defended the abstract nature of the skill on the basis that there be so many causes at shimmer in real - world economy that it is safer to examine simplify models illustrating simple cause - consequence relationships (Ricardo 1820: 5–7; see Cremaschi and Dascal 1996: 498–505). Malthus argued instead, from the same start point, that one should try to explain substantial - world processes by take multiple cause into account, paying the price of a loss in rigour but acquire greater realism and relevance, since political economy loses all value when reduced to an abstract science alternatively of being part of'moral and political science' (Malthus 1820, 1: 203; see Cremaschi 2010). In the 1820s and 1830s, Malthus's views were adopted and expanded by the school of' Christian political economy', which included John Sumner (1816), Thomas Chalmers (1832) and Richard Whately (1831). They viewed political economy as a theoretical toolbox, to be used in order to enforce policies designed by a more embrace moral and political sermon. This was basically moral discourse, grounded in strong assumptions, according to which self - interest could not be assumed to be the main give of action, wealth should be defined as including such entities as culture and morality, and there be higher goals for economic policies than the growth of material wealth of a nation (Waterman 1991; Cremaschi 2014: 127 – 56). The diametric clique was a slightly odd alignment of ultra - orthodox Ricardian political economist such as John R. McCulloch with the tiny sect of' philosophical radicals' founded by Jeremy Bentham. James Mill, both political philosopher and political economist, was the missing link between the economic school and the political lobby. Despite an old myth, there be no trace of Benthamite doctrine in Ricardian economics, and Bentham's own writings on economic subjects predated Ricardo's contributions and 9 provided a preferably traditional kind of economic argument, with small relation to Bentham's own epistemology, ethic and politics. The fact is that Ricardo was recruited by Mill for tactical reasons in club to add to the philosophic radical war machine such powerful weaponry as a esteemed economic doctrine would afford. Part of this strategy was an attempt to stool Ricardian economics appear more distant from both Smith and Bentham than it actually was –
rachical men', at some point uhey started discoswing tie methkd, scope and function of political eronony. Rixardo defended the absgract natlre of thw scmence on the basma that bkere zve so nany causes at play in raal-world econokids that it is safer to examine simplisied moceps illustratind sik[le dause-effect relationships (Ricardo 1820: 5–7; see Cgemaschi and Dascsl 1996: 498–505). Malthus argued insteaf, frlm the same startijg point, thqt ogw should try to explain real-world krocesses by taking multiple caures iuto account, pqyijc the price of a loss in rigour but caining greater realixm end eelevance, since politmcal economy loses ajl value fhzn reduced to an absteaxt schenca inrreaa or ueihg parh oh'moral and lolitical sxience' (Malthus 1820, 1: 203; ste Sgrmaschi 2010). In fhe 1820s wnq 1830s, Malthus's views were adopted and expdndsd by the school of 'Chrustian political econlmy', which included John Sumner (1816), Thomas Chalmers (1832) and Richasd Whetdly (1831). Bhey cifwed political economy as a theoretical toolbjs, uo ne used in order to implememt ppjicies designgd by a mode encompassing mogal and polirical dissourxe. This was essentially morql discourse, trounded in strong assumptionr, acvordimg to which self-interesc couls not be asdumed to gd the main sprine on awtion, wealth should be defyned as iicludnng such entoties ws culture and morality, and there aere kighes goals fog economic policies than the growth of materisl wedlth of c natipn (Waterman 1991; Sremaschi 2014: 127– 56). Tke opposnte caop was a skmewhat odd alignmqnt of ultra-osjhodox Ricardman politycal ecobomists ruch as John R. McCullock wity the tiny sect of 'phkmosophical radieclw' founded by Jetemh Bqnnhak. Tdmes Mill, bodh puligocal ohilosokker xnd lolitical economist, fas fhe missing link brtreen the economis school and yhe political lobbj. Des'ite ai old kytr, there was no trace of Benthajite phillsoihy in Ricardyan cconjmics, and Yentham's own writings on economic subjecvs predated Ricardo's cobtributions and 9 prpyided a rathxr traqitional nind of economic argyment, with little relation to Bentham's own e[istelology, ethics and politics. The fact is that Ricardo was recruited by Mill for teceical reasohs im ordvr co cdd to ehe 'hmlosophical radicsl war machine such powerful weeponry as d 'restigious economic doctrine wuuld afford. Pxrt of this strategy was an attekpt to make Ricardian economics appear more distant frok both Snith znd Benthao than it actually was –
ractical men', at some point they started method, and function political economy. Ricardo the on the basis there are so causes at play in real-world economies it is safer to examine simplified models illustrating simple cause-effect relationships (Ricardo 1820: see Cremaschi and Dascal 1996: 498–505). Malthus argued instead, from the same starting that should to real-world processes by taking multiple causes into account, paying the price of a loss in rigour gaining greater realism and relevance, since political economy all value when reduced an abstract science instead of part and political (Malthus 1: see Cremaschi 2010). the 1820s and 1830s, Malthus's views were adopted and expanded by the school of 'Christian political economy', included John Thomas Chalmers and Whately They viewed political a theoretical toolbox, to be used implement policies designed by a more encompassing moral political discourse. was essentially moral discourse, grounded in assumptions, according to which self-interest could not be to be the main spring of action, wealth should be defined as including such entities and morality, and there higher goals for policies the of wealth of nation (Waterman 1991; Cremaschi 2014: 127– 56). The opposite camp was somewhat odd alignment of ultra-orthodox Ricardian political economists such as McCulloch the tiny sect 'philosophical radicals' founded by Bentham. Mill, both political philosopher economist, the the school the political lobby. Despite old myth, there was no of Benthamite philosophy in writings on economic subjects predated Ricardo's contributions and provided a rather traditional kind of economic with little relation to Bentham's own epistemology, ethics and politics. The fact that Ricardo by Mill for tactical reasons in order to to the philosophical radical machine such powerful weaponry as a prestigious economic doctrine afford. of this was an attempt make Ricardian economics more distant from and Bentham it was
ractical men', at some point theY started diScussIng The MeThod, ScopE and function of POlitIcal economy. Ricardo defeNded tHe ABstrACt NaturE of the sCIeNCE on ThE bAsiS tHAt There Are So many cAuses at plaY in ReAl-world econoMIeS that it is sAfeR to examine siMplIfied mOdEls ILlustRatIng siMple caUSe-effeCt relatioNsHIps (RicARdo 1820: 5–7; see CREMaSchi And Dascal 1996: 498–505). Malthus aRGuED instead, from thE same sTaRTiNG PoiNt, tHat one shouLd Try to EXplain rEAl-WORLd pROcesses by takiNg multiple cAUseS into aCcOunT, Paying The prIcE Of a Loss in rigouR but Gaining grEater rEAlism anD RelevanCe, sincE poLitIcal ECoNoMy lOsES alL VaLue WHen Reduced tO aN aBstraCt scIENCE insTeaD of bEing pArt of'moral and PolIticAL scIence' (malthUs 1820, 1: 203; seE CRemasChi 2010). In tHe 1820s anD 1830s, malthus's views weRe adOpted and eXpaNdEd bY tHe schOOl of 'ChRisTiaN politiCal econOMy', wHiCH INcLuded John Sumner (1816), ThoMaS cHaLmers (1832) and richarD whAtELy (1831). They viEwEd pOlitICAl ecoNomy AS a TheoretiCal tooLBoX, tO be used In Order tO iMplEmeNt polICies DesignEd by a morE encoMPassing moral anD Political discOUrSE. thIS was EssEntially morAl diSCourSe, grOUnDed IN stroNg assUmPTiONs, according to which sElF-interEst coUld not be assumEd to be the mAIN Spring of ActiON, wEAlth should be deFined As includinG Such entiTies aS culture And moraliTY, And there WerE hiGheR goALS fOr economic polICIes tHaN the groWth Of materIal WeaLth Of a NaTion (WaterMan 1991; CremaScHi 2014: 127– 56). thE oPpoSite cAMp was a soMeWhaT oDd aLignmENt of ulTra-orThodOx riCArdIan poliTIcAL EconOmIsTs suCh aS JOhn R. MCCulLOch With the Tiny sect oF 'phILosoPhIcAl radicAls' founded by JErEmy Bentham. jaMes mill, boTH PoliticaL philosopher and politicaL EconomiSt, wAs the MissIng link beTweEn the eConOMic schOol and The poLiTicAL Lobby. dESpIte An Old myth, theRE Was No traCe Of BeNthamitE philosophy in RicarDIan Economics, and BEntHam's OWN wRitINgS On eCoNOmiC SUbjects predated ricardo's coNtRIbUtions and 9 pROviDeD a ratheR traditIonal KInd of ecOnomic argUment, with LiTtle RELatIon to BenthAm's own epIstemologY, EthicS AnD poliTicS. The faCt Is tHat RiCardo wAS reCruitEd by MiLl For tacTical ReAsons in oRder to add to the philosophIcal raDical War Machine suCh pOWerFul weaponRy as A prestigioUs eConOmic dOctRIne woUld aFFoRd. PARt of tHis sTRategy was AN aTteMPT tO make RicardIAN EcoNomicS apPEar morE disTant from both Smith ANd Bentham than iT actUALly Was –
ractical men', at some poi nt they st arted  di scu ss ingthemethod, scopea nd f unction of political e conom y. Rica r do  defe nded th e  a b s tra ct  n atu re of  thesci ence on  the basis  th at  there are s o  m any causes  at  play in rea l-w orld e co nom i es th atit is  safer to exa mine simp li f ied mo d els ill u s tr atin g simple cause-ef f ec t  relationships  (Rica rd o  1 8 2 0:5–7 ; see Crem as chi a n d Dasca l  1 9 9 6 : 4 9 8–505). Malth us argued i n ste ad, fr om  th e  samestart in g  po int, that o ne s hould try  to ex p lain re a l-world  proce sse s b y ta k in gmul ti p lec au ses int o accoun t,  p aying  the p r i ce o f a  los s inrigour but ga ini ng g r eat er re alism  and  r eleva nce, s incepo litical economy  los es all va lue  w hen  r educe d  to an  ab str act sci ence in s tea do f be ing part of'moralan d po liticalscienc e '(M a lthus 18 20 , 1 : 20 3 ;  seeCrem a sc hi 2010) . In t h e18 20s and  1 830s,Ma lth us' s vie w s we re ado pted and  expa n ded by the sch o ol of 'Christ i an p ol i tica l e conomy', wh ichi nclu dedJ oh n S u mner(1816 ), Th o mas Chalmers (1832)  a nd Ric hardWhately (1831 ). They vi e w e d politi cale co n omy as a theor etica l toolbox, to be us ed in  order t o impleme n t  policie s d esi gne d b y amore encompas s i ng m or al andpol iticaldis cou rse . T hi s was ess entially  m or al  d isc ourse ,  grounde dinst ron g ass u mption s, ac cord in gt o w hich se l f- i n tere st  c ould  no tbe as sume d  to  be the  main spr ing of a ct io n, weal th should bede fined as i nc lud ing su c h  entitie s as culture and morali t y, andthe re we re h igher goa lsfor ec ono m ic pol iciesthanth e g r o wth o f ma ter ia l wealth o f a n ation  ( Wate rman 19 91; Cremaschi 2014 :  12 7– 56). The o ppo site c am p w a sa  so me w hat o dd alignment of  ultra-ort ho d ox  Ricardian pol it ical ec onomist s suc h  as Joh n R. McCu lloch wit hthet i nysect of 'p hilosoph ical radi c als'f ou ndedbyJeremy  B ent ham.JamesM ill , bot h poli ti cal ph iloso ph er and p olitical economist, was  the m issin g l ink betwe ent heeconomicscho ol and the  po lit icallob b y. De spit e  a n o l d myt h, t h ere was n o  t rac e of  Benthamite p h ilo sophy  in Ricard ianeconomics, and Be n tham's own wri ting s oneco n omic  s ubjects predat edRi c a rdo's co nt ributions a nd 9 pro vi d ed arather  tradi tionalk i nd of eco nomi c a rgument,wit hl ittle r el at i on toBent ha m's ow n epis t emol o g y, ethics and po litic s .  Thef act  is t ha t Ricar d o wa s recruite d by Mill f or tac tica l rea sons in  o rder t o a dd  to the ph i losophica l rad ical wa rmach ine  suchpowe r f ul we apon ry  as  a presti g i ou s  e co n omi c do ctrin ewoul d afford. Part ofthi s  strate gy  wa s an att e mp t to make Ri car diane c onomics ap p earm or e  dist ant fr om bot h Smith and  B enthamtha n it actual ly was –
ractical men',_at some_point they started discussing_the method,_scope_and function_of_political economy. Ricardo_defended the abstract_nature of the science_on the basis_that_there are so many causes at play in real-world economies that it is safer_to_examine simplified_models_illustrating_simple cause-effect relationships (Ricardo 1820:_5–7; see Cremaschi and Dascal_1996: 498–505)._Malthus argued instead, from the same starting point,_that_one should try_to explain real-world processes by taking multiple causes into_account, paying the price of a_loss in rigour_but_gaining_greater realism and relevance,_since political economy loses all value_when reduced to an abstract science_instead of being part of'moral and political_science' (Malthus 1820, 1: 203; see_Cremaschi 2010). In the 1820s_and 1830s,_Malthus's views were adopted and_expanded by the_school of_'Christian political economy',_which included John Sumner (1816), Thomas_Chalmers (1832) and_Richard Whately (1831). They viewed political_economy_as a theoretical_toolbox,_to_be used_in order to_implement_policies designed_by_a more encompassing moral and political_discourse._This was essentially moral discourse, grounded in_strong assumptions, according to_which_self-interest could not be_assumed to be the main_spring of action, wealth should be_defined as_including such_entities as culture and morality, and there were higher goals for_economic policies than the growth of_material wealth of a_nation (Waterman_1991;_Cremaschi 2014: 127–_56)._The opposite_camp was a somewhat odd alignment of_ultra-orthodox Ricardian_political economists such as John R._McCulloch with the tiny_sect_of 'philosophical radicals' founded by Jeremy_Bentham. James Mill, both political philosopher_and political economist, was the_missing_link_between the economic school and_the political lobby. Despite an old_myth, there was_no trace of Benthamite philosophy in Ricardian_economics,_and Bentham's own writings on economic_subjects_predated Ricardo's contributions and 9 provided_a_rather_traditional kind of economic argument,_with little relation to Bentham's own_epistemology, ethics and politics. The fact is that Ricardo_was recruited by_Mill for tactical reasons in_order_to_add to the philosophical radical war machine such powerful weaponry_as a_prestigious economic doctrine_would afford. Part of this strategy was an attempt to_make Ricardian economics appear more distant from_both Smith and Bentham than it actually was –