The Foundations of Morality by Henry Hazlitt

The Foundations of Morality Reviews

• 
  Othoob

  I begin to say that this book would be the most influential book I encountered in 2020. It cleared the fog in many parts and aspects, but also tempted me to learn more about it.
  
  I want to do a little book analysis for it:
  Henry begins by questioning what morality is and why do we need to be moral? And then emphasis on the word “happiness” and “long term interest” as these are related to one another.
  He emphasis on certains things mainly that revolves around the “happiness of an individual”:
  - Justice
  - Means and ends
  - Freedom and a system that adapts that
  - Society
  - Ethics
  
  Henry states that there are things that can maximize the happiness and well-being of an individual and I shall look into these things here:
  
  1- The individual himself;
  If he tried to maximize his well-being, he ought to become moral, and ought to sacrifice his short-term interest for his long term interest.
  For instance, let us say that you have $20 and you want to buy clothes with it, now this is a short-term interest. Suppose you have a goal for the future in which requires $2000, let’s say becoming a traveler, wouldn’t that be a long-term interest?
  So one tried to reduce his short-term interest for the long-term interest in order to maximize his happiness in the long run.
  
  He also states the difference between Pleasure and Happiness;
  
  ““Happiness is the aggregate of which pleasures are the component parts. . . . Let not the mind be led astray by any distinctions drawn between pleasures and happiness. . . . Happiness without pleasures is a chimera and a contradiction; it is a million without any units, a square yard in which there shall be no inches, a bag of guineas without an atom of gold.”- Bentham”
  - Henry Hazlitt quoted from Bentham
  
  Another thing he focused on are the ethics, in which every individual must be ethical for his persuasion of his own happiness.
  
  “Ethics is a means rather than an ultimate end. It has derivative or “instrumental” value rather than “intrinsic” or final value. A rational ethics cannot be built merely on what we “ought” to desire but on what we do desire. Everyone desires to substitute a more satisfactory state for a less satisfactory one. As Pascal put it: “Man’s ordinary life is like that of the saints. Both seek satisfaction, and they differ only in the object in which they set it.” Everyone desires his own long-run happiness. This is true if only because it is tautological. Our long-run happiness is merely another name for what we do in fact desire in the long run.”
  
  2- Society
  
  “The aim of each of us is to maximize his own satisfaction; and each of us recognizes that his satisfaction can best be maximized by cooperating with others”
  
  Social cooperation is an important factor for having a good society, in other words, society consists of individual cooperating with one another.
  We can say that each offers something in which we give in return, that is a social cooperation. You give me this bread and I give you the money for its product. It’s merely an economic thing, in which receiving and giving the return.
  
  Another Example:
  
  “One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head” and so on, so that “the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations.”
  - Henry Hazlitt quoted from Adam Smith
  
  Another example:
  Check the I, Pencil book review!
  
  Now, each of us pursue this because of their self-interest and self-love. They cooperate not because they’re interest in each individual’s purpose but of every individual’s own purpose. In which One exchanges; I take the bread and I give you the money it deserves; it is my own self-interest to the bread and I have the dinner tonight, and thus, it is the seller’s self-interest to take the money in return.
  
  Each and every individual has to be given the freedom to cooperate with one another, that is to maximize the self-interest of every individual because a society is merely a combination of the individual cooperativeness with each other.
  
  
  3- The Law/Economic System.
  
  Now the law, he states that there different types of law (Note that I still do not get this section a lot and would want to look forward into it):
  
  - Natural Law
  “Rules based on reason were law by nature. The right or the just by nature became law by nature or natural law”
  
  - The common law
  
  
  ——
  The law Mainly contribute to being a just law, in which we find justice.
  And justice is
  “When Justice is represented on court house statues as being blind, it does not mean that she is blind to the justice of the case, but blind to the wealth, social position, sex, color, looks, amiability or other qualities of the particular litigants. It means that she recognizes that justice, happiness, peace, and order can only be established, in the long run, by respect for general rules, rather than respect for the “merits” of each particular case. This is what Hume means when he insists that justice will often require that a poor good man be forced to pay money to a rich bad man—if, for example, it concerns the payment of a just debt”
  
  “In short, in ethics as in law, the traditional and accepted rule is to be followed unless there are clear and strong reasons against it. The burden of proof is never on the established rule, but on breaking or changing the rule. And even if the rule is defective it may be unwise for the individual to ignore it or defy it unless he can hope to get it generally changed.”
  
  As justice doesn’t merely mean that you are being held in the court for justice because of your wealth, position, sex and so on.. It is merely to look upon peace, happiness and order, for all are in the long-run. Justice is considered as means in which it tries to achieve an end.
  
  “That justice is primarily a means to social cooperation, that social cooperation is primarily a means to promote the maximum happiness and well-being of each and all, does not reduce the importance of either justice or social cooperation. For both are the necessary means, the indispensable means to the desired goal.”
  
  As for the Economic system, the only way to allow the individual to be ethical and moral and the only way for them to social cooperate is through an economic system which gives the liberty to people, and increase the free market system. In which competition (through social cooperation) appear and there for goods and service are produced and exchanged, and prices become reasonable for customers but how?
  
  When the market is competitive, the same product is being produced by different companies or business, and in order to maximize the satisfaction of the customer, it must be in a reasonable price, a price the customer is willing to pay, which means that, for instance, business A lowered its price so customers could buy, then business B, in order to increase its profit, lowered its price just as below Business A, and Business C did the same thing by lowering the price below business A and B. Now prices in a competitive market are low and which leaves the customer with choices of good quality because each business tried to look for away to increase production and changing the production at a lower price of the same quality and outcome. This system of free markets + Private ownership are merely a system of Capitalism. In which the relationship is between the customer and the seller, and no other interventions. It is merely cooperations between people, each are giving something and receiving something. This not only, lowers the prices and methods of productions, it also increases the productivity of the individual and creates the effort of getting what it deserves to be received from each product. This gives an opportunity for the individual to put an effort and to work because he simply knows that to each what he creates. And you simply get something in return to what you have created.
  
  On property rights:
  “Every child reveals a sense of property with regard to his own toys. Scientists are just beginning to realize the astonishing extent to which some sense or system of property rights or territorial rights prevails even in the animal world.”
  
  “If anyone were free to seize your house after you had built it, you would not build it in the first place. All production, all civilization, rests on recognition of and respect for property rights. A free enterprise system is impossible without security of property as well as security of life. Free enterprise is possible only within a framework of law and order and morality.”
  
  What happens in a socialist system?
  
  “A number of socialists, for example, think they can duplicate the functions and efficiencies of the free market by imitating the free market in a socialist system—that is, in a system in which the means of production are in the hands of the State”
  
  “Hands of the state” thus means that property rights is taken, and social cooperation as well.
  Not only that but it also reduces productivity and increases the idleness of those individuals. In which the rise of pseudo-rights increase in vast amount.
  
  Now let me explain the statement above:
  First what is socialism? And what is the difference between communism and socialism
  
  
  “It is true that the words have come to have different connotations today; But in most of this discussion we shall assume, with Bernard Shaw, that “A communist is nothing but a socialist with the courage of his convictions.” The parties and programs in present-day Europe that call themselves “socialist” in fact advocate merely a partial socialism—the nationalization of railroads, various public utilities, and heavy industry—but not usually of light industries, the service trades, or agriculture. When socialism becomes complete, it becomes what is generally called communism.”
  
  Now, let us say that under socialism one cannot produce because the cooperation is not in the hands of an individual, and the means of production are in the hands of the state, which can be said that, it reduces competitiveness, and when that happens, less variety of products will be on the market. And prices are increased in the market — as we have already seen that prices decrease with the increase of competition— making disadvantages for the people and the producers;
  1. Not all customers will be able to afford different varieties of goods and services as they are limited.
  2. This increases poverty. Which means that people need money to buy the good and services that allows them to survive.
  
  3. Method of Production is not changed and stays the same, as it doesn’t try to reduce the amount of money it takes for the production of the product.
  
  4. Varieties, again, are limited: “because of the same lack of competition, the goods would be poor and of limited variety. They would not be what the customers wanted, but what the government bureaucrats thought were plenty good enough for them.”
  
  
  
  The motto of Capitalism:
  - To each what he created
  
  The motto of Socialism:
  - “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”
  
  Since we have since the motto of socialism we can observe point number 2;
  When people do not have money to buy their needs, they start think that they have the right to those needs. And this, in fact, start to believe in those pseudo-right such as education and healthcare. It is of course a good thing to give those in need but only voluntary, however, socialism was never voluntary. In fact, it takes money of someone’s own effort to which he created, and give it to someone to which never produced anything. This creates idleness, which they wouldn’t mind working or paying an effort because those money is already supplied to him off of someone’s work and effort.
  And not only this reduces productivity in the poor and among unemployed people, it also reduces productivity as a whole society consisting of people with different jobs and outcomes. Because he know that no matter how hard he work, his money needs to be shared and distributed... And that he wouldn’t think that to each what he creates because of of his work, a proportion of his money is taken involuntary to those who never produced goods and services simply because it is their right in free education, a job, healthcare and so on.
  They would think that it is someone’s duty to pay for their son’s education. But why? it may be an important to get his son educated but what makes it think it that someone should pay for his education?
  
  It can be analyzed in here:
  “the right to a minimum standard of living”; “the right to a decent wage”; “the right to a job”; “the right to an education”; and even “the right to a comfortable living”; “the right to a satisfactory job,” or “the right to a good education.” It is not only that all these alleged rights have vague quantitative boundaries—that they do not specify how high a wage is considered “decent” or how much education “the right to an education” implies. What makes them pseudo-rights is that they imply that it is somebody else’s obligation to supply those things. But they do not usually tell us whose obligation, or precisely how it comes to be his. My “right to a job” implies that it is somebody’s else’s duty to give me a job, apparently regardless of my qualifications or even whether I would do more damage than good on the job.”
  
  And lastly I would like to quote from the book The X Y Z’s of Socialism:
  
  “One thing I know for sure: When the milk runs out, socialists will blame the cow. Maybe the reason why socialists don’t like personal responsibility is that they don’t want to be held personally responsible.”
  
  ———
  
  These three main part in which it can maximize the happiness of the individual, he ought to be moral, but in order to be order he needs to free because no one can be moral if they are not free. And a system to which creates that rule and goes by this rule, is capitalism. For him to social cooperate, and to maximize his happiness in the long-run
  
  I would like to pick some chapters from this book and try to analyze it on different place. Because some chapters are very informative to which it needs to be discussed.. I will not forget this book, because it is the first book ever that opened my eyes and mind.
• 
  José Antonio Lopez

  The Foundation of Morality (Spanish edition) is a work on Ethics by Henry Hazlitt, better know by his book Economics in One Lesson. This book is a critique to different Ethics schools and the proposal of his system called Cooperatism.
  
  Hazlitt analyses different areas of human life as well as moral schools usually contrasting opposing theories with his personal contribution. His key point is that cooperation is the solution that preserves the interests of the individual and flourishes the society. For Hazlitt cooperation achieves the best for the individual, hence it is in his own interest to cooperate with others.
  

  social cooperation is the common means by which we all forward each other's purposes as an indirect means of forwarding our own, and help each other to achieve our individual and separate goals and to "maximize" our individual values

  
  Since Hazlitt aims the benefits in terms of the long run, his system gives priority to general rules and not ad-hoc solutions to specific instances. The idea is to judge an action based on its effects in the future. He does not pretend to foresee detail consequences but again general benefits for the individual and the society. The creation of the moral code is rational process that is adaptive and evolutionary following Frederick A. Hayek.
  

  It is no less silly, and far more dangerous, to try to do the same with established moral codes which, like languages, are the product of immemorial social evolution. The improvement or perfection of moral codes, like the improvement or perfection of languages, is to be achieved by piecemeal reforms.

  
  Hazlitt's theory is a form of utilitarianism, indeed some people frame it into rules-utilitarianism of David Hume, the British Utilitarianist he most admires. As utilitarianist, Hazlitt defines morality based on the results.
  

  Is the moral philosophy advocated in these pages "utilitarian" or not? In the sense that all rules of conduct must be judged by their tendency to lead to desirable rather than undesirable social results, any rational ethics whatever must be utilitarian

  
  However he distances from other forms of utilitarianism specially that of Jeremy Bentham because they preserve the apparent dichotomy between the individual and society. Hazlitt's system bridges the distance through Social Cooperation, a concept develop at large by his teacher and friend Ludwing Von Mises.
  

  In brief, each of us, in pursuing his self-interest, finds that he can do it most effectively through social cooperation. The belief that there is a basic conflict between the interests of the individual and the interests of society is untenable. Society is only another name for the combination of individuals for purposeful cooperation.

  
  He makes a lot of parallels between Economics and Morality because the subject of both sciences is the Human Action.
  

  It is commonly assumed that there is little relation between the ethical and the economic point of view, or between Ethics and Economics. But they are, in fact, intimately related. Both are concerned with human action, human conduct, human decision, human choice.

  
  

  In ethics we are dealing with human action, with human purposes, with human wishes and desires, with human choices and preferences, with the conscious use of means to attain chosen ends. Ethics is not a branch of physics, and the methods appropriate to it are not the experimental, statistical, and empiric methods appropriate to physics. Ethics is sui generic, with methods peculiarly its own. But it is, among other things, based on "praxeology,"

  
  

  Economics is concerned with the actual valuations that people make; ethics with the valuations they would make if they always had benevolence and foresight and wisdom. It is the function of the ethical philosopher to determine what some of these valuations would be.

  
  Another subject that Hazlitt addresses is the limits of responsibility and duty. He disagrees with the universal view of an universal responsibility to humanity. For him ones responsibility is limited to those closer to oneself. However he sees that in the degree that we all act ethically the circles of responsibility intersect and expand, reaching the whole humanity. This point of view again builds on economics and limited resources. Trying to fix all humanity problems is overwhelming because none has the capacity to do it. However social cooperation is a multiplier of human interactions. By acting morally one gets the personal benefits (a more desired situation than before), helps others do the same, raises the average of standard of morality, and expands the circles of influence.
  

  For the best way to promote this maximum general happiness may be for each individual to cooperate with, and perform his duties toward, his immediate family, neighbors, and associates.

  
  Hazlitt critique to flaw moral theories that support Socialistic systems and his support to freedom and a Capitalism are as relevant today as they were almost a century ago. Despite he was a self-taught economist and philosopher his contribution is no less important than his academic peers. This is a book I need to read again and dig deeper to get all its wisdom. Additional readings of the works he builds on and critiques is also required to appreciate his full value.
• 
  David

  Wow, this book made my head spin! If you need some exercise in mental gymnastics give this book a careful read. Hazlitt’s book provides a careful and thorough examination of the basis for human morality and ethics. Originally published in 1964, the writing seems timeless. He provides a review, critique and examination of a great collection of authors on this topic including Aristotle, Tomas Aquinas, Augustine, Jeremy Bentham, John Calvin, Hayek, Hegel, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Luther, Marx, Mises, Rashdall, Rothbard, Bertrand Russell, Santayana, Bernard Shaw, Henry Sidgewick, Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer and many more.
  
  Hazlitt sees no conflict between individual happiness and the happiness of society – indeed no conflict between egoism and altruism. They work together and in harmony in what he calls mutualism. Hazlitt explains that when people think of someone as an egoist, they usually think that person’s selfishness comes at the direct expense of others. But he explains that this common usage of the term is not completely accurate.
  

  “We have asserted that all action is action undertaken to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory state. Isn’t every action I take, therefore, taken to increase my own satisfaction? Don’t I help my neighbor because it gives me satisfaction to do so? Don’t I seek to increase the happiness of another only when this increases mysatisfaction? Doesn’t a doctor go to a plague spot, to inoculate others or tend the sick, even at the risk of catching the disease or dying of it, because this is the course that gives him most satisfaction? Doesn’t the martyr willingly go to the stake rather than recant his views because this is the only choice capable of giving him satisfaction?”

  
  
  In this case altruism is nothing more than a form of egoism! There are 33 well organized chapters in this book covering various topics such as these. Some will seem obvious and intuitive when you read them, others not so much and may make your head spin. In the second to last chapter he disputes the notion that religion was the origin of morality. It makes for an interesting read, but IMHO he doesn’t provide a very well-reasoned defense of the religions basis. His primary source for the defense is taken from Hastings Rashdall who was an English philosopher and Anglican priest who wrote The Theory of Good and Evil in 1907. Better defenses can be found from more recent authors such as RC Sproul or John Robbins.
  
  Hazlitt answers the question of the origin of human morality. You may not like his answer or agree with it, but he provides a very sound and well-reasoned defense. His positions seem very utilitarian generally, but to distinguish himself from other variations of the utilitarian philosophy he declares his own philosophy as “eudaemonic-mutualistic-rule-utilitarianism.” Since this term is too cumbersome, he coins a new term for it: Cooperatism.
  
  According to Hazlitt, the basis or foundation for all morality is social cooperation. That is to say to maximize human happiness and well-being for the individual as well as society over the long-term. If this sounds like something you may read in an economics book it should. Hazlitt was the economist who wrote “Economics in One Lesson” which has sold more than a million copies. He draws heavily between the similarity of economic reasoning and basic morality. These connections have also been made by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises among others from the Austrian School of Economics.
  
  Overall a good book and worth having as a resource in your library to read again.
  
• 
  Eduardo Garcia-Gaspar

  Al menos, una obra interesante y provechosa, con buenas ideas. La explicación de derechos y pseudo-derechos es un buen ejemplo del sentido común que posee el autor. Es un gozo leer a una mente capaz de esos razonamientos, ahora dedicados a los cimientos de principios éticos.
  Escribí un resumen de ello en
  Son de Dos Direcciones
  
• 
  Adrián Sánchez

  Me parece que en Hazlitt hay varias obras que sirven de introducción a las ideas liberales libertarias, ya me sucedió con Economía en una lección, ahora este sirve para entender la perspectiva sobre la ética, la moral y una introducción al derecho natural.
• 
  Dan

  Oustanding!