Phronetics and Economics

That Bentham's Moral System is a codification of Smith's Capitalism supports Dewey's contention that the Utilitarian 'calculus', including Mill's, is a reckoning that quantifies pleasures and pains as if they were monetary gains and losses. Dewey's criticism of Utilitarianism on Psychological grounds bypasses the more historically striking phenomenon of Morality becoming subordinate to Economics. In contrast, for Plato, Economic activity occurs at a lower part of the ideal Political entity, and for Aristotle, Economic well-being is a necessary condition of Happiness, but no more than that. Even Kant seems intimidated by the rise of Capitalism. While his Principle purports to transcend Economic motives, he misses an easy opportunity to explicitly subordinate the latter to the status of mere means, leaving his Theory vulnerable to Mill's interpretation of it as disguised Utilitarianism, and, hence, of disguised Economic Morality. In Evolvemental Phronetics, Economic activity is context-bound and receives no special consideration. The static possession of Economic goods, being no Action, has no Evolvemental Value. Saving or wisely investing money is likely to be more Evolving than squandering it. Turning a profit for two people is likely to be better than doing so for only one. An act that both generates a profit and is intellectually enriching is likely to be better than one that merely generates a profit, etc. In general, the pursuit of personal monetary gain is neither the best Conduct, as Bentham has it, nor 'the root of all Evil', as the saying goes, nor outside the sphere of Moral judgment, as some Systems seem to have it, but, rather, too narrow an Action to more than infrequently qualify as the choice in which one Evolves as much as possible.