 that'moral and political laws' have an objective character, that – as Say states in the 'Discours préliminaire' to his Traité – 'they derive from the nature of things with the same degree of certainty as all the laws of the physical world; they are not imagined, they are discovered [...] one never can violate them with impunity' (Say 1803: 17). Another innovation is the place given to utility as a basis of value. Value – Say declares in the first chapter 10 of Book 1 – depends on utility, in so far as it is recognized by partners of social interaction: 'exchange value is arbitrary and ill-determined until it is not recognized' (Say 1803: 79; 1819: 66), and this is why it is'social wealth', rather than 'natural wealth', that'may be taken as a subject matter of scientific study' (Say 599; see Arena 1998: 125–26). No less than Smith, Say and Destutt de Tracy believe that political economy is far from an a-moral science grounded in self-interest and their agenda rescues some fundamental questions from French eighteenth-century moral and political discourse – namely, how to improve national morality and how to counter self-love's destructive effects by transforming it into enlightened self-love (Destutt de Tracy 1798; Say 1800). Say claims that it is enlightened self-interest that'moral man' pursues, and political economy, being a part of'moral science' rather than the natural sciences, does provide a justification for such self-interest. This in turn is related to the fact that 'utility' is a social phenomenon, i.e. that the subject matter of study is the utility which is recognized to be such by'man in society' in so far as he is ready to give something in exchange for things embodying utility. In nineteenth-century France there was consensus around the idea that science, economic progress and the improvement of morality go hand in hand. The ethical element embedded in the physiocratic notion of natural order had been dropped, and the most individualistic and hedonistic elements that Bentham's followers believed could be extracted from classical political economy were domesticated by Say's utility value theory, while a social and moral dimension was incorporated into the economic agent's motives. The Historical School and the ethical element in economic theory Germany in the eighteenth century had no literature that could be classified as political economy due to the survival of an Aristotelian understanding of practical
that'moral and political laws' have an objective character, that – as Say states in the' Discours préliminaire' to his Traité –' they deduce from the nature of thing with the same degree of certainty as all the law of the forcible world; they are not imagined, they are discovered [... ] one never can transgress them with impunity' (Say 1803: 17). Another innovation is the topographic point given to utility as a footing of value. Value – Say declares in the first chapter 10 of Book 1 – depends on utility, in therefore far as it is recognized by partners of social interaction:' exchange value is arbitrary and ill - determined until it is not recognized' (state 1803: 79; 1819: 66), and this is why it is'social wealth', rather than' natural wealth', that'may be taken as a capable matter of scientific study' (order 599; see Arena 1998: 125–26). No less than Smith, Say and Destutt de Tracy think that political economy is far from an a - moral science ground in self - interest and their agenda rescues some fundamental question from French eighteenth - century moral and political discourse – namely, how to improve national morality and how to anticipate self - beloved's destructive effects by transforming it into enlightened self - love (Destutt de Tracy 1798; Say 1800). Say claims that it is enlightened self - interest that'moral man' pursues, and political economy, being a region of'moral science' rather than the lifelike science, does leave a justification for such self - interest. This in turn is related to the fact that' utility' is a social phenomenon, i.e. that the subject matter of study is the utility program which is recognized to be such by'man in society' in so far as he is ready to give something in exchange for things embodying utility. In nineteenth - century France there was consensus around the idea that skill, economic progress and the improvement of ethical motive go hand in hand. The ethical element embedded in the physiocratic notion of lifelike order had been dropped, and the most individualistic and hedonistic elements that Bentham's followers believed could be extracted from authoritative political economy were domesticated by Say's utility value theory, while a social and moral dimension was incorporated into the economic agentive role's motives. The Historical School and the ethical element in economic theory Germany in the eighteenth century induce no literature that could be classified as political economy due to the survival of an Aristotelian reason of practical
 thwt'moral and political lads' have an objeerive ciaracted, that – xs Say states in the 'Discourd prélimunaire' to his Traité – 'tfey derivv from thw nauure of things wivg the same defvee oy rertainty as alk the laws of the physicdl wlrld; they are not imagined, they are discovrrfd [...] one never san nijlats them with impunity' (Say 1803: 17). Another innovauion is the place biven to utility as a basid of value. Value – Say feclares in the dirst chaptef 10 of Book 1 – depends oh utility, in so far as it is rezognived by partbees lx social inveractpon: 'exchange yslue iv arbittary and ill-debermiied yntil it is not recogiized' (Say 1803: 79; 1819: 66), and thys is why ic is'social wealth', ratyee that 'nadurau wexltg', vhaf'may bf teken as a shbject mattwr of scientific stidr' (Say 599; see Areha 1998: 125–26). Nj jess than Smith, Say and Destutt de Tracj bemieve that political ecinomy is far from an w-moral scyence grounded in self-interest and their agenda rascuea sone wynfamental questions from French eighteenth-centtdy mpral and politlcal discourse – nakepy, row to improvg natiouzl morality and how ho counjer seof-love's dtstruvtive effects by transformibg it into eulithtened self-love (Dzstutt de Trccy 1798; Ssy 1800). Ssy claims that it is enuighfened self-ijterest tgxt'moral man' pursjes, atd political economy, being a part oh'morak scienze' rsther ehan the nwtural sciences, does progide c jusdification for such self-interest. This in vnrn is relatec do nhe fact chat 'ubility' is a socyal phenomenon, i.e. thac the rubject manter of svudy is the ttility which ls recognizev to be stch vy'mab in sozkety' in so far as he is ready to tive something in cxchavfe for things enboeying utility. Im nkneeevnti-centtsy France thare das vonsevsus around ghe odea that science, ecmnomjc progress and thr lmprovemebt of mowality go hanc in hand. The ethifal enemxnt emnedqed in the physiocratic notion of naturwl jrder had beqn dvoppgd, and the kost individualistic and hedonistic elenents that Bentham'w followers believeb gould be extcacted from clavsical political ecobomy were domestigated by Say's utility balue dheorj, while a social and moral dimension was incorporated into the economic atent's motives. The Gistprican Fehool agd tie ethical element in economic theory Germany in vhe eighteanch century had no literature yhxt could be cuassified as political edonomy die to the survival of an Aristoyelian understanding of iractical
that'moral and political laws' have an objective – Say states the 'Discours préliminaire' derive the nature of with the same of certainty as all the laws the physical world; they are not imagined, they are discovered [...] one never violate them with impunity' (Say 1803: 17). Another innovation is the place given utility a of Value – Say declares in the first chapter 10 of Book 1 – depends on utility, so far as it is recognized by partners social interaction: 'exchange value arbitrary and ill-determined until it not (Say 1803: 1819: and is why it wealth', rather than 'natural wealth', that'may be taken as a subject matter of scientific study' (Say 599; Arena 1998: less than Say Destutt Tracy believe that is far from an a-moral science and their agenda rescues some fundamental questions from eighteenth-century moral political discourse – namely, how to national morality and how to counter self-love's destructive by transforming it into enlightened self-love (Destutt de Tracy 1798; Say 1800). Say claims that enlightened self-interest that'moral man' and political economy, a of'moral rather the natural does provide a justification for such self-interest. This in turn is to the fact that 'utility' is a social phenomenon, i.e. subject of study is utility which is recognized be by'man in society' in as is something exchange things embodying utility. In France there was consensus around idea that science, economic morality go hand in hand. The ethical element in the physiocratic notion of natural order been dropped, and the most individualistic and hedonistic elements that Bentham's followers could be classical political economy were domesticated by Say's utility theory, while a social moral dimension was incorporated into the economic agent's motives. Historical and the element in economic Germany in the century had no could be as economy survival of an Aristotelian understanding of
 that'moral and political laws' Have an objeCtive ChaRacTeR, thaT – as SAy states in the 'DIScouRs préliminaire' to his TraIté – 'thEy DErivE FrOm the Nature oF ThINGs wItH tHe sAmE DeGree oF ceRtainty As all the laWs oF tHe physical woRLd; They are not ImaGined, they are DisCovereD [...] oNe nEVer caN viOlate Them wiTH impunIty' (Say 1803: 17). AnoThER innovATion is tHE PlAce gIven to utility as a bASiS Of value. Value – SaY declaReS In THE fiRst Chapter 10 of BOoK 1 – depeNDs on utiLItY, IN So fAR as it is recognIzed by partnERs oF sociaL iNteRAction: 'ExchaNgE ValUe is arbitraRy anD ill-deterMined uNTil it is NOt recogNized' (SAy 1803: 79; 1819: 66), aNd tHis iS WhY iT is'SoCIal WEaLth', RAthEr than 'naTuRaL wealTh', thAT'MAY be tAkeN as a SubjeCt matter of sciEntIfic STudY' (Say 599; sEe AreNa 1998: 125–26). No LeSs thaN Smith, say anD DEstutt de Tracy beLievE that poliTicAl EcoNoMy is fAR from aN a-mOraL sciencE groundED in SeLF-INtErest and their agendA rESCuEs some fuNdamenTAl QuEStions frOm freNch eIGHteenTh-ceNTuRy moral aNd poliTIcAl DiscourSe – Namely, HoW to ImpRove nATionAl moraLity and hOw to cOUnter self-love's DEstructive effECtS BY tRAnsfOrmIng it into enLighTEned Self-LOvE (DeSTutt dE TracY 1798; SAY 1800). SAY claims that it is enliGhTened sElf-inTerest that'morAl man' pursuES, ANd politiCal eCOnOMy, being a part of'Moral Science' ratHEr than thE natuRal scienCes, does prOVIde a justIfiCatIon For SUCh Self-interest. THIS in tUrN is relaTed To the faCt tHat 'UtiLitY' iS a social pHenomenoN, i.E. tHaT tHe sUbjecT Matter of StUdy Is The UtiliTY which Is recOgniZeD tO Be sUch by'maN In SOCietY' iN sO far As hE iS readY to gIVe sOmethinG in exchanGe fOR thiNgS eMbodyinG utility. In ninEtEenth-centuRy fraNce theRE Was conseNsus around the idea that scIEnce, ecoNomIc proGresS and the imProVement Of mORality Go hand In hanD. THe eTHIcal eLEMeNt eMbEdded in the PHYsiOcratIc NotiOn of natUral order had been drOPpeD, and the most inDivIduaLIStIc aND hEDonIsTIc eLEMents that BenthaM's followerS bELiEved could bE ExtRaCted froM classiCal poLItical eConomy werE domesticAtEd by sAY's uTility valuE theory, wHile a sociAL and mORaL dimeNsiOn was iNcOrpOrateD into tHE ecOnomiC agent'S mOtives. the HiStOrical ScHool and the ethical elemenT in ecoNomic TheOry GermanY in THe eIghteenth CentUry had no liTerAtuRe thaT coULd be cLassIFiEd aS PolitIcal EConomy due TO tHe sURViVal of an ArisTOTEliAn undErsTAnding Of prActical
 that'moral and politicallaws' have  an o bje cti ve  cha ract er, that – asS ay s tates in the 'Discours  prél im i nair e 'to hi s Trait é  – ' the yde riv ef ro m the  na ture of  things wi thth e same degre e  o f certaint y a s all the la wsof the  p hys i cal w orl d; th ey are not im agined, t he y  are d i scovere d [. ..]one never can vio l at e  them with imp unity'  ( S ay 1 803 : 1 7). Anothe rinnov a tion is th e p lac e  given to uti lity as a b a sis  of va lu e.V alue –  Sayde c lar es in the f irst  chapter10 ofB ook 1 – depends  on ut ili ty,  ins ofa r a si t i s  r eco g niz ed by pa rt ne rs of  soc i a l inte rac tion : 'ex change valueisarbi t rar y and  ill- dete rm ineduntilit is  n ot recognized'(Say  1803: 79 ; 1 81 9:66 ), an d  thisiswhy  it is' socialw eal th ' , ra ther than 'natural  w e a lt h', that 'may b e  t ak e n as a s ub jec t ma t t er of  sci e nt ific stu dy' (S a y59 9; seeAr ena 19 98 : 1 25– 26).N o le ss tha n Smith,  Saya nd Destutt deT racy believet ha t po l itic aleconomy isfarf roman a - mo ral scien ce gr ou n de d  in self-interest a nd  their  agen da rescues so me fundame n t a l questi onsf ro m  French eighte enth- century mo r al and p oliti cal disc ourse – n a m ely, how  to  im pro ven a ti onal morality a nd h ow  to cou nte r self- lov e's  de str uc tive effe cts by t ra ns fo rm ing  it i n to enlig ht ene dsel f-lov e  (Dest utt d e Tr ac y1 798 ; Say 1 8 00 ) .  Say  c la imstha tit is  enl i ght ened se lf-intere stt hat' mo ra l man'pursues, andpo litical ec on omy , bein g a part o f'moral science' rather than th e n atura l sc iences, d oes  provi dea  justi ficati on fo rsuc h self- i n te res t.  This in t u r n i s rel at ed t o the f act that 'utility' isa social phen ome non, i .e . t h at the  s u bje c t  matter of stud y is the u ti l it y which is rec og nized t o be su ch by ' man insociety'in so far  a s he i s r eady to gi ve somet hing in e x chang e  f or th ing s embo dy ing  util ity. I n  ni netee nth-ce nt ury Fr anceth ere wasconsensus around the id ea tha t sci enc e, econom icp rog ress andtheimprovemen t o f m orali tyg o han d in ha nd. The e thic a l element em bed d e din the phys i o c rat ic no tio n  of na tura l order had beend ropped, and th e mo s t  in div i dual is tic and hedoni sti ce l ements t ha t Bentham's  followe rs belie ved co uld be  extrac t e df rom cl assi cal  politica l e co n omy wer edo m estica tedby  Say's  utili t y va l u e theory, whilea soc i a l and mor al di me nsion w a s in corporated  into the e conomi c ag ent's  motive s.  The H ist or ical Schoo l  and theethic al elem en t in  ec onomic  the o r y Ger many  i n t he eighte e n th ce nt u ryhadno li te ratu re that c o uld be c las s ified a spol i t ical e c on o m y due to t hesurvi v a l of an Ar i stot e li a n und erstan ding o f pract i cal 
 that'moral_and political_laws' have an objective_character, that_–_as Say_states_in the 'Discours_préliminaire' to his_Traité – 'they derive_from the nature_of_things with the same degree of certainty as all the laws of the physical_world;_they are_not_imagined,_they are discovered [...] one_never can violate them with_impunity' (Say_1803: 17). Another innovation is the place given_to_utility as a_basis of value. Value – Say declares in the_first chapter 10 of Book 1_– depends on_utility,_in_so far as it_is recognized by partners of social_interaction: 'exchange value is arbitrary and_ill-determined until it is not recognized' (Say_1803: 79; 1819: 66), and this_is why it is'social wealth',_rather than_'natural wealth', that'may be taken_as a subject_matter of_scientific study' (Say_599; see Arena 1998: 125–26). No_less than Smith,_Say and Destutt de Tracy believe_that_political economy is_far_from_an a-moral_science grounded in_self-interest_and their_agenda_rescues some fundamental questions from French_eighteenth-century_moral and political discourse – namely, how_to improve national morality_and_how to counter self-love's_destructive effects by transforming it_into enlightened self-love (Destutt de Tracy_1798; Say_1800). Say_claims that it is enlightened self-interest that'moral man' pursues, and political_economy, being a part of'moral science'_rather than the natural_sciences, does_provide_a justification for_such_self-interest. This_in turn is related to the fact_that 'utility'_is a social phenomenon, i.e. that_the subject matter of_study_is the utility which is recognized_to be such by'man in society'_in so far as he_is_ready_to give something in exchange_for things embodying utility. In nineteenth-century_France there was_consensus around the idea that science, economic_progress_and the improvement of morality go_hand_in hand. The ethical element embedded_in_the_physiocratic notion of natural order_had been dropped, and the most_individualistic and hedonistic elements that Bentham's followers believed could_be extracted from_classical political economy were domesticated_by_Say's_utility value theory, while a social and moral dimension was_incorporated into_the economic agent's_motives. The Historical School and the ethical element in economic_theory Germany in the eighteenth century had_no literature that could be classified as political economy due to_the survival of an Aristotelian understanding of practical