SC I E N C E.-Supplement. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1886. 



ETHICS AND ECONOMICS. 



In the study of no science is it more impor- 

 tant to bear in mind the distinction between 

 words and ideas than in political economy. Locke 

 enforces the far-reaching character of this dis- 

 tinction in general in one of the books of his 

 wonderful work, ' Essay on the human under- 

 standing.' 



The following personal anecdote is narrated ; 

 and so weighty is the truth which it conveys, 

 that it ought to be read frequently, and fully 

 grasped : "I was once in a meeting of very 

 learned and ingenious physicians, where by 

 chance there arose a question whether any liquor 

 passed through the filaments of the nerves. I 

 (who had been used to suspect that the greatest 

 part of disputes were more about the signification 

 of words, than a real difference in the conception 

 of things) desired, that, before they went any 

 further on in this dispute, they would first estab- 

 lish amongst them what the word 1 liquor ' signi- 

 fied. . . . They were pleased to comply with my 

 motion, and, upon examination, found that the 

 signification of that word was not so settled and 

 certain as they had all imagined, but that each 

 of them made it a sign of a different complex 

 idea. This made them perceive that the main of 

 their dispute was about the signification of that 

 term, and that they differed very little in their 

 opinion concerning some fluid and subtile matter 

 passing through the conduits of the nerves, 

 though it was not so easy to agree whether it 

 was to be called ' liquor ' or no, — a thing which 

 then each considered he thought it not worth 

 the contending about." 



This illustration brings us at once to the heart 

 of a large part of past economic controversies. 

 The same words have stood to different men for 

 different ideas ; and in their hot debates about 

 capital, value, money, and the like, they have 

 often been talking about things not at all the 

 same, though they supposed them to be so. One 

 man comes forward with a definition of value, 

 and cries out, ' It is of vital importance,' as if 

 that would settle all the social problems of the 

 ages, whereas he has simply told us how he in- 

 tends to use a particular word. He has really 

 accomplished nothing in economics. Having 

 settled upon his signs, he is ready to begin work. 



I may choose to adopt another definition : what 

 does that signify ? Simply this : to me this sign 

 stands for this idea ; both may be right, though it 

 is of course important to be consistent, and re- 

 tain throughout, the same sign for the same idea. 

 Another gives a definition for capital, and then 

 says, "To speak of productive capital is mere 

 tautology." — "Of course, my dear sir," I reply, 

 "the idea of productivity is implied in your 

 definition, but it is not implied in mine. Your 

 proposition, as often happens, is a mere repeti- 

 tion of what you already said about capital in 

 your definition ; but capital is not a living definite 

 thing, like a horse or a cow. If it were, our differ- 

 ence of definition might imply error ; at any rate, 

 a difference of opinion." 



Let us take the case of money. One economist 

 ardently maintains that national bank-notes are 

 money ; another denies this. Controversy waxes 

 warm ; but ask them both to define money, and 

 you shall find that each included his proposition 

 in his definition. It is mere logomachy, nothing 

 more. 



One writer — and a very clever one — says 

 'value never means utility.' That is absolutely 

 false. Good writers have used it with that mean- 

 ing. What he ought to have said is, ' according 

 to my definition it can never mean utility.' 



When we pass over to definitions of political 

 economy, we encounter like divergence of concep- 

 tion, and this explains much controversial writ- 

 ing. The words ' political economy ' do not con- 

 vey the same meaning to all persons, nor have 

 they been a sign for an idea which has remained 

 constant in time. 



A definition means one of two things, — what 

 is, or what one wishes something to be. What is 

 political economy ? We can give an answer which 

 will describe the various classes of subjects treated 

 under that designation, or we may simply state 

 what we think the term ought to include. The 

 latter course is that which the doctrinaire always 

 follows. 



Professor Sidgwick, in his ' Scope and method 

 of economic science,' complains because certain 

 recent writers include ' what ought to be ' in their 

 economic discussion. Does political economy in- 

 clude any thing more than what is ? Is its prov- 

 ince confined to an analysis of existing institu- 

 tions and the social phenomena of to-day ? Here 

 we have to do with a question of fact. What do 

 writers of recognized standing discuss under the 



