Comparison reveals how liberal rationality addresses ethics and institutions in economics, suggesting complexity in human nature.
Mandeville, Smith and Fernández Flórez approached economic and social problems defending liberty and at the same time acknowledging the existence of conflicts and contradictions that demand ethics, politics and law. Their liberal rationality is not Panglossianly optimistic, neither is it cynic, and their individualism not only does not exclude society but builds upon it. They admitted the complexity of human nature and society as they really are, and recognized that we would not progress economically suppressing the market, just as we would not do so morally in a fantastic universe without sins. The three stressed that institutions and rules are indispensable in communities of free and responsible people. They rejected the excesses of power and warned of the dangers of promoting ideal worlds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Braun et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: