¿¹¼öÀÎÅÍ³Ý ¼±±³È¸

 



 

 

Àüü¹æ¹®ÀÚ¼ö :

289917

 

 

¿À´Ã¹æ¹®ÀÚ¼ö :

7

 

 

¾îÁ¦¹æ¹®ÀÚ¼ö :

11

 

 

 




J.C.O'Brien  ´ÔÀÇ ±ÛÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
°æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú À±¸®Àû Áøº¸(Çؼ®: ½É »óÇÊ) 2004-08-28 09:14:03, Á¶È¸ : 43,069, Ãßõ : 657


      ÁÖÁ¦: ¼­±¸¿¡¼­ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú À±¸®Àû Áøº¸(Economic Growth and Ethical Progress, The Western Experience)

¡Ú¹Ì¸® µå¸®´Â ¸»¾¸
ÀÌ À¥ ÆäÀÌÁöÀÇ "¼­±¸¿¡¼­ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú À±¸®Àû Áøº¸"¿¡ °üÇÑ °ÔÀç¹®(ÁÖÁ¦³í¹®)Àº ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ Á¦¥°ºÎ, Á¦¥±ºÎ¿Í ºÎ·Ï[¿ø¹®(¿µ¹®)ÀÚ·á]À¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÇ¾î ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.
Á¦¥°ºÎ¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖÁ¦³í¹®ÀÇ À±°û(OUTLINE)°ú ÃßõÀÇ ¸»¾¸À» ½Ç¾ú°í,
Á¦¥±ºÎ¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖÁ¦³í¹®ÀÇ ¿ø¹®(¿µ¹®)°ú Çؼ®¹®À» °ÔÀçÇß½À´Ï´Ù.

Á¦¥°ºÎ  ÁÖÁ¦³í¹®ÀÇ À±°û¼Ò°³¿Í ÃßõÀÇ ¸»¾¸

¼º°æ¿äÀý: "³ÊÈñ´Â ¸ÕÀú ±×ÀÇ ³ª¶ó¿Í ±×ÀÇ ÀǸ¦ ±¸Ç϶ó ±×¸®Çϸé ÀÌ ¸ðµç °ÍÀ» ³ÊÈñ¿¡°Ô ´õÇϽø®¶ó"(¸¶6:33)
                          
1.ÀÚ·áÀÇ Ãâó
1977³â 8-9¿ù°æ, ÇÁ¶û½º Æĸ®¿¡ º»ºÎ¸¦ µÎ°í ÀÖ¾ú´ø ±¹Á¦°æÁ¦ÇÐȸ(THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION)´Â "°æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ÀÚ¿ø(Economic Growth and Resources)"À̶ó´Â ÀÏ¹Ý ÁÖÁ¦·Î ¾Æ½Ã¾Æ(Asia)¿¡¼­ ÃÖÃÊ·Î, ÀϺ» µµÄì¿¡¼­ Á¦5ȸ ¼¼°è °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ ´ëȸ(Fifth World Congress of THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, Tokyo, 29 August - 3 September 1977)¸¦ °³ÃÖÇß½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ ¶§ ÇÊÀÚ(½É »óÇÊ)´Â Çѱ¹ °æÁ¦ÇÐȸ(ȸÀå: ÃÖÈ£Áø ¹Ú»ç)ÀÇ ÃßõÀ» ¹ÞÀº ȸ¿ø ´ëÇ¥µé(7¸í)ÁßÀÇ ÇÑ »ç¶÷À¸·Î Âü¼®ÇÏ¿© Á¦ 4 ºÐ°úȸÀÇ¿¡¼­, ¹Ì±¹ Ķ¸®Æ÷´Ï¾Æ ÁÖ¸³ ´ëÇб³(California  State University, Fresno)ÀÇ °æÁ¦ À±¸®ÇÐ ±³¼ö(Professor of Economics and Ethics)ÀÎ ¿Àºê¶óÀ̾ð(John C. O'Brien)¹Ú»ç°¡ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÑ, °æÁ¦ À±¸®ºÐ¾ß¿¡ °üÇÑ À¯ÀÏÇÑ  ³í¹®ÀÎ ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÚ·á(°æÁ¦ ¼ºÀå°ú À±¸®Àû Áøº¸, Economic Growth and Ethical Progress)¸¦ ¹èºÎ ¹Þ¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù.

2. ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ ¸ñÂ÷
¼­¹®(INTRODUCTION)
(1) °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸(ECONOMIC GROWTH AND MATERIAL PROGRESS)
   ¨çdz¿ä·Î¿î ¼­±¸(The Affluent West)
   ¨èÀüÀï°ú °æÁ¦¼ºÀå(War and Economic Growth)
(2) Áøº¸ÀÇ ±æ(THE PATH TO PROGRESS)
(3) ¾Õ±æÀÇ ³­°ü(THE LION IN THE PATH)
  ¨çµµ´öÀû Áøº¸(Moral Progress)
  ¨èµµ´öÀû »ó´ë·Ð(Moral Relativism)
(4) °æÁ¦ °úÇаú ¹®¸í(ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION)
  ¨ç°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥(The Goal of Economics)
  ¨è¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥(The Goal of Civilization)
°á·Ð(CONCLUSION)

3. ÃßõÀÇ ¸»¾¸
ÀÌ ³í¹®Àº °æÁ¦¿¡ °ü½ÉÀ» °®´Â Çö´ëÀÇ ¸ðµç Áö¼ºÀεé, ƯÈ÷ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀ» Àü°øÇϽô ºÐµéÀÌ  ²À ÀÐÀ» °¡Ä¡°¡ÀÖ´Ù°í »ý°¢µÇ¾î, ¿ø¹®(¿µ¹®)ÀڷḦ Çؼ®ÇÏ¿© ¿¹¼öÀÎÅͳݼ±±³È¸(www.yesu.kimc.net)ÀÇ À¥»çÀÌÆ®('±âµ¶±³°æÁ¦' ¸ñ·Ï 36¹ø)¿¡ °ÔÀçÇß½À´Ï´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ¿À´Ã³¯ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå °³³äÀÇ Çã½Ç(úÈãù)°ú µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ°¡ ÃÊ·¡ÇÑ Çö´ë ¹®¸íÀÇ º´¸®(Ü»×â)¸¦ ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â µ¥¿¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ °Í °°°í, ¶Ç ¿ì¸®µéÀÇ ¹®¸í»çȸ°¡ °è¼Ó »ì¾Æ ³²±â À§Çؼ­´Â ³ôÀº À±¸®¼º(µµ´ö¼º), ƯÈ÷ Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡Ã¼°èÀÎ ±âµ¶±³ÀÇ °æÁ¦À±¸®ÀÇ ½ÇõÀÌ ¿À´Ã³¯ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ µ¿¹ÝµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â ¸Þ½ÃÁö°¡ ½Ã»çµÇ°í Àֱ⠶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

2004³â 8¿ù  28ÀÏ(¿µ¹®(¿ø¹®)³í¹®ÀÇ °ÔÀçÀÏ)
2005³â 2¿ù   6ÀÏ(º» ³í¹®ÀÇ Çؼ®¹® °ÔÀçÀÏ)    

Á¦¥±ºÎ  ÁÖÁ¦³í¹®ÀÇ ¿ø¹®(¿µ¹®)°ú Çؼ®¹®

ECONOMIC  GROWTH  AND  ETHICAL  PROGRESS
          THE  WESTERN  EXPERIENCE(¼­±¸ÀÇ °æÇè¿¡¼­ º» °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú À±¸®Àû Áøº¸)
                                by
    John  C.  O'Brien (CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY¡¤FRESNO)

"We have no idea where we are going, and sweeping, confident articles on the future seem to me intellectually, the most disreputable of all forms of public utterances. The scientists who are best qualified to talk have kept their mouths shut."1 Kenneth Clark.
¿ì¸®´Â ¿ì¸®°¡ ¾îµð·Î °¡°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¸ð¸£°í ÀÖ´Ù. Àå·¡¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ÀÌ ½Ã´ë¸¦ dz¹ÌÇÏ´Â, ÀڽŠÀÖ´Â ±â»çµéÀº ¸ðµç Çü½ÄÀÇ °ø°³ ¹ß¾ðµé Áß  ÁöÀûÀ¸·Î ³ª¿¡°Ô´Â °¡Àå ºÎ²ô·¯¿î °ÍÀÎ °Í °°´Ù. °¡Àå ¸»ÇÒ ÀÚ°ÝÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ÇÐÀÚµéÀº ±×µéÀÇ ÀÔÀ» ´Ù¹°°í ÀÖ´Ù. (Äɳ׵ð Ŭ¶óÅ©ÀÇ ¸»)

INTRODUCTION
¼­·Ð
     The main purpose of this paper lies in the endeavor to show that the future of Western civilization has been placed in jeopardy, in spite of economic growth on a phenomenally large scale, as a result of the declining influence of the traditional code of ethics, a system of transcendental values, due to the zeal and diligence of various groups of individuals whose philosophies have a common base in utilitarianism.
ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ ÁÖ¸ñÀûÀº ¼­±¸ ¹®¸íÀÇ Àå·¡°¡ ³î¶ó¿î ´ë±Ô¸ðÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ±×µéÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀÇ  °øµ¿ ±â¹ÝÀ» µÐ ´Ù¾çÇÑ °³ÀεéÀÇ Áý´ÜÀÇ ¿­Á¤°ú ±Ù¸é ¶§¹®¿¡, ÃÊ¿ùÀû °¡Ä¡Ã¼°èÀÎ. ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ À±¸®±Ô¹üÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÌ ¼èÅðÇÑ °á°ú·Î¼­, À§±â¿¡ ³õ¿©Á³´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸ÀÌ·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
       Due to a lack of agreement on ethical principles, the study of ethics has been in our day quite unceremoniously pushed into the background of our academic and national life. The result as Kenneth Clark has noted is a civilization without goals. We truly do not know where we are going. This shortcoming is not restricted to our society, nor the Western world at large, not even to areas of academic endeavor within the bounds of society. In this paper, attention will be brought to the fact that economic science is without a goal and, most hazardous of all, it cannot even direct itself, if it wished, towards the attainment of the goals of society. There appears to be none.
À±¸®Àû ¿øÄ¢ÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡ÀÇ °á¿© ¶§¹®¿¡, À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸´Â ¿À´Ã³¯ ¾ÆÁÖ È¦´ë¹ÞÀ¸¸ç ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Çб¸Àû, ±¹°¡Àû »ýÈ°ÀÇ À̸éÀ¸·Î ¹ÐÃÄÁ® ¿Ô´Ù. Äɳ׵ð Ŭ¶óÅ©°¡  ÁÖ¸ñÇß´ø °Íó·³ ±× °á°ú´Â ¸ñÇ¥ ¾ø´Â ¹®¸íÀÌ´Ù.
ÂüÀ¸·Î ¿ì¸®´Â ¿ì¸®°¡ ¾îµð·Î °¡°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¸ð¸£°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ °áÁ¡Àº  ¿ì¸®ÀÇ »çȸ¿¡ ÇÑÁ¤µÇÁö ¾Ê°í, ³Ð°Ô´Â ¼­±¸¼¼°è¿¡ ÇÑÁ¤µÇÁö ¾Ê°í,  ½ÉÁö¾î ÇÐ°è ³»ÀÇ  Çй®Àû ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¿µ¿ª¿¡ ÇÑÁ¤µÇÁö ¾Ê°í ÀÖ´Ù.  ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â, °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀÌ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾ø´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ÁÖÀÇÇÏ°Ô µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¹«¾ùº¸´Ù °¡Àå À§Çè ÇÑ °ÍÀº °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀÌ ¿øÇÑ´ÙÇصµ, ±×°ÍÀº ½ÉÁö¾î »çȸÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Þ¼ºÀÇ ¹æÇâÀ» ±× Àڽſ¡°Ô Á¦½ÃÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀº ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾ø´Â °Í °°´Ù.

  
The view will therefore be advanced that although economics is an independent science, it is not an isolated one. If the economist still wishes to hold himself forth as an economist and a scientist, his study is wertfrei, he will be obliged because of the exigencies of present-day life to look beyond his discipline to discover  the  goals  for which he should strive. The question for the economist boils down to this:  "Am  I engaged in the pursuit of truth for its own sake, or is my purpose the discovery of knowledge which will enable me to reach a goal?"

±×·¯¹Ç·Î ºñ·Ï °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÌ µ¶¸³°úÇÐÀ̶ó ÇÒÁö¶óµµ, ±×°ÍÀº Àý¿¬(ºÐ¸®)µÈ °úÇÐÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â °ßÇØ°¡ Á¦±â µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¸¸ÀÏ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ°¡ ÀÚ½ÅÀ» ¿©ÀüÈ÷ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ¿Í °úÇÐÀÚ·Î ÁÖÀåÇϱ⸦ ¿øÇÑ´Ù¸é, ±×ÀÇ ¿¬±¸´Â °¡Ä¡ Á߸³(°¡Ä¡·ÎºÎÅÍÀÇ ÀÚÀ¯)ÀûÀÌ°í, ±×´Â Çö´ëÀÇ ±ä¹ÚÇÑ ½Ã´ëÀû ¿äû ¶§¹®¿¡ ±×°¡ ³ë·ÂÇؾßÇÒ ¸ñÇ¥µéÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ±×ÀÇ Çй®À» ³Ñ¾î¼­ ¹Ù¶óº¸¾Æ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ°¡ ´ë´äÇؾßÇÒ Áú¹®Àº ÀÌ·¸°Ô(´ÙÀ½°°ÀÌ) ¿ä¾àµÈ´Ù. "³ª´Â Áø¸®ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Áø¸®¸¦ Ãß±¸ÇÏ°í Àִ°¡? ȤÀº ³ªÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ³ª·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ´Þ¼ºÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô ÇÒ Áö½ÄÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀΰ¡?" (Âü°í:  º» ³í¹®ÀÇ 17 p., 22 p.(1) the goal of economics)

--------------------------
*This paper is derived in part from The Role of Economics and Ethics in Civilization and Progress, a paper presented at the 5lst Annual Western Economic Association Conference, San Francisco, California, June, 1976.



     The first part of the paper is devoted to a brief survey of recent economic growth and the resultant economic progress. This part is divided into two sections in which attention is directed to the affluent west and the effect of war on economic growth, or, economic growth on war.
     The second part of the paper is devoted to a brief, historical examination of the idea of progress. Historically, the idea of progress has manifested itself not in material progress alone, but in moral progress, too. In fact, the moral perfectibility of man has generally been regarded as highest peak in civilization. This paper generally implies that the partial knowledge of the economist is insufficient to deal with the problems of civilization. The economist must look beyond his discipline for his goals.
     The third part of the paper is concerned with the view here advanced, that the goals of civilization are beyond reach  as  long as moral relativism, the lion in the path, is widely accepted.  It is here maintained that the gravest problems of the twentieth century have found their roots in the  philosophy which holds that all values are relative in time  and  space.  This section will first of all devote itself to problem of moral progress and later moral relativism.
     The goals of the economy and civilization at large are examined in the fourth part of the paper.  It is here argued that the goals of civilization can be determined only by impartial and disinterested scholars in the field of moral philosophy. Outside the field of moral philosophy there is no one competent to discover these goals.
     Moreover, our leaders, statesmen, politicians and men of affairs have axes to grind.  Free from the power that corrupts, the moral philosopher remains impartial and unprejudiced.
     Agreement on the goals of civilization and a determination to work for them as essential to the preservation of a society where advances in science and technology have produced a rate of economic growth which will permit warfare on a scale too terrible to imagine is the view reached in the conclusion.

ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ Á¦1ºÎ´Â ±Ù·¡ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ±× °á°ú·Î ÀÎÇÑ °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸¿¡ °üÇÑ °£·«ÇÑ °³°ü¿¡ Àü³äÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ 1ºÎ¿¡¼­´Â dzºÎÇÑ ¼­±¸»çȸ¿Í ÀüÀïÀÇ È¿°ú°¡ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ°ú °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÌ ÀüÀï¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ ÁÖÀǸ¦ À̲ô´Â ³»¿ëÀ» µÎ Àý·Î ³ª´©°í ÀÖ´Ù.
ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ Á¦2ºÎ´Â Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³ä¿¡ °üÇÑ °£·«ÇÑ ¿ª»çÀû °ËÅ並 ±â¿ïÀÌ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¿ª»çÀûÀ¸·Î Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³ä ±× ÀÚü´Â ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸¸¸ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ñ, ¶ÇÇÑ µµ´öÀû Áøº¸µµ ¸í½ÃÇß´Ù. »ç½Ç Àΰ£ÀÇ µµ´öÀû ¿Ï¼º °¡´É¼ºÀº ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î ¹®¸íÀÇ ÃÖ°í Á¤Á¡À¸·Î °£ÁÖµÇ¾î ¿Ô´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®Àº ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÇ ºÎºÐÀû(ºÒ¿ÏÀüÇÑ) Áö½ÄÀÌ ¹®¸íÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ´Ù·ç´Â °ÍÀÌ ºÒÃæºÐÇÏ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ´Â ±×ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥µéÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ±×ÀÇ Çй®ÀÇ ¹üÀ§¸¦ ³Ñ¾î¼­ ¹Ù¶óº¸¾Æ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.
Á¦3ºÎ¿¡¼­´Â, ¿©±â¼­ Á¦ÃâµÈ ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â Àå·¡ÀÇ ³­°üÀÎ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ°¡ ³Î¸® ¹Þ¾Æ µå·ÁÁö´Â ÇÑ µµ´ÞÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â °ü³ä¿¡ °ü½ÉÀ» µÎ°í ÀÖ´Ù. 20¼¼±âÀÇ ½É°¢ÇÑ ¹®Á¦µéÀº ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡´Â ½Ã°£°ú °ø°£¿¡ °ü·ÃµÈ´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇϴ öÇп¡¼­ ±×µéÀÇ »Ñ¸®¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇß´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌ ¿©±â¼­ ÁÖÀåµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ Àý¿¡¼­´Â ¹«¾ùº¸´Ù µµ´öÀû Áøº¸ÀÇ ¹®Á¦¿Í µÚÀÇ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ¸ôµÎÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
°æÁ¦¿Í ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â ´ëü·Î ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ Á¦4ºÎ¿¡¼­ °ËÅäµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¿©±â¼­ ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â °øÁ¤ÇÏ°í  »ç½É ¾ø´Â µµ´ö öÇÐÀÇ ºÐ¾ßÀÇ ÇÐÀڵ鿡 ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ °áÁ¤µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌ ÁÖÀåµÈ´Ù. µµ´ö öÇÐ ºÐ¾ß ÀÌ¿Ü´Â ´©±¸µµ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇÒ ´É·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. ´õ±¸³ª ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ÁöµµÀÚµé, Á¤Ä¡Àεé, Á¤°´µé, ±×¸®°í »ç¹«°¡ µéÀº ¸ô·¡ Ç°°í ÀÖ´Â ¸ñÀû(»ç½É)ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù.  µµ´ö öÇÐÀÚµéÀº ºÎÆÐÇÏ´Â ±Ç·Â¿¡¼­ ÀÚÀ¯·Ó±â ¶§¹®¿¡ °øÁ¤ÇÏ°í Æí°ßÀÌ ¾ø´Â »óÅ¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.

¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥µé¿¡ µ¿ÀÇÇÏ°í ÀÌ ¸ñÇ¥µéÀÌ, °úÇаú ±â¼úÀÇ Áøº¸°¡ »ó»óÇϱ⵵ ²ûÂïÇÑ ±Ô¸ðÀÇ ÀüÀïÀ» Çã¶ôÇÒ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå·üÀ» »ý»êÇÑ »çȸÀÇ º¸Á¸¿¡ ÇʼöÀûÀ̶ó°í º¸°í, ÀÌ ¸ñÇ¥µéÀ» À§ÇØ ÀÏÇϱâ·Î °á½ÉÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ °á·Ð¿¡¼­ µµ´ÞÇÑ °ßÇØÀÌ´Ù.


I.  ECONOMIC  GROWTH  AND  MATERIAL  PROGRESS(°æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸)

     The view of Sir Francis Bacon expressed in the New Atlantis, another elusive Utopia, that economic growth leads not just to material progress but also to moral, religious and intellectual advancement is so widely and uncritically accepted that it has today become a commonplace.

ÀÌÇØÇϱ⠾î·Á¿î ´Ù¸¥ ÀÌ»óÇâÀÎ '»õ ³«Åä(´º ¾ÆÆ®¶õƼ½º)'¿¡¼­ Ç¥ÇöµÈ ÇÁ¶õ½Ã½º º£ÀÌÄÁ °æÀÇ °ßÇØ, Áï '°æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº ¹°ÁúÀû ¼ºÀå»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó µµ´öÀû, Á¾±³Àû, ÁöÀû Áøº¸¿¡·Î À̲ö´Ù'´Â »ý°¢ÀÌ ¸Å¿ì ±¤¹üÇÏ°Ô ±×¸®°í ¹«ºñÆÇÀûÀ¸·Î ¹Þ¾Æ µé¿©Á³±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ±×°ÍÀº ¿À´Ã³¯ »ó½ÄÀÌ µÇ¾ú´Ù.

     (1) The  Affluent  West (dzºÎÇÑ ¼­±¸»çȸ)

     That there has been material progress, and that of a phenomenal nature, there can be no doubt. That there have been phenomenal advances in economic growth and material prosperity unaccompanied by similar improvements in ethical conduct, is summed up by the Marquise de la Tour du Pin when she said in the early part of the nineteenth century : "If the sentiments and virtues had made the same progress as industry, we should now be angels, worthy of Paradise.  How far we are from that?"2   For the last quarter of the twentieth century her words still have relevance.
     We are no nearer Paradise than we ever were. On the contrary, we are probably farther away than ever. The fault according to some lies in the uncritical acceptance of the view of Sir Francis Bacon expressed above. "The increasing disposition to measure all progress in terms of economic growth has contributed not only to a crisis in the realm of art, but to a moral and intellectual crisis."3  Nevertheless, there is no gainsaying the fact that economic growth and material progress have taken place here in the West on a scale hitherto unprecedented.

¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´ø °Í, ±×¸®°í ³î¶ó¿î ¼º°ÝÀÇ Áøº¸°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´ø °ÍÀ» ÀǽÉÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ÀÌ¿Í À¯»çÇÑ ¼öÁØÀÇ À±¸®Àû ÇൿÀÇ Áøº¸°¡ µ¿¹ÝµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº  ³î¶ó¿î °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ¹°ÁúÀû ¹ø¿µÀÇ  Áøº¸°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀº, 19¼¼±â Ãʱ⿡ " ¸¸ÀÏ °¨¼º°ú ´ö¼ºÀÌ »ê¾÷°ú °°Àº ¼öÁØÀÇ ¹ßÀüÀ» ÀÌ·ç¾ú´Ù¸é ¿ì¸®´Â Áö±Ý õ±¹¿¡ »ì±â¿¡ ÇÕ´çÇÑ Ãµ»ç°°ÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ßÇÑ´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ¿ì¸®´Â ±×·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾ó¸¶³ª ¸Ö¸® Àִ°¡?"¶ó´Â ¸¶¸£³¢ÁîÀÇ ¸»·Î ¿ä¾àµÈ´Ù. 20¼¼±â ¸¶Áö¸· ºÐ±âÀÎ Áö±Ýµµ ±×³àÀÇ ¸»Àº ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ÀûÀý¼ºÀ» °®´Â´Ù.
¿ì¸®´Â Áö±Ý ¿¹Àüº¸´Ù ´õ ³«¿ø¿¡  °¡±îÀÌ ÀÖÁö ¾Ê°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±× ¹Ý´ë·Î ¿ì¸®´Â ¾Æ¸¶ ÀÌÀüº¸´Ù ÈξÀ ´õ ¸Ö¸® ÀÖ´Â °Í °°´Ù. ÀϺÎ(¾î¶²) »ç¶÷¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¸é ±× Ã¥ÀÓÀº À§(´º ¾ÆÆ®¶õƼ½º)¿¡¼­ Ç¥ÇöµÈ ÇÁ¶õ½Ã½º º£ÀÌÄÁ °æÀÇ °ßÇØ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹«ºñÆÇÀûÀÎ ¿ë³³¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.
"°æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ ¸ðµç ¹ßÀüÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ·Á´Â °æÇâÀÌ Áõ´ëÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ±â¼úÀÇ ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ÀÇ À§±â»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, µµ´öÀû, ÁöÀû À§±â¿¡ ±â¿©Çß´Ù." ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸°¡ ¿©±â ¼­±¸¿¡¼­ ÀÌÁ¦±îÁö Àü·Ê°¡ ¾ø´Â ±Ô¸ð·Î ÀϾ´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀº ºÎÁ¤ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.

     More than twenty years ago, Angus Maddison published a study in which he showed that twelve countries in the West:
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the U. K., Canada and the USA, although they constitute only fifteen percent of the population of the world, are the richest nations on the face of the earth and account for half of the world's income, one-third of the output of agriculture, and sixty percent of world trade and industrial production.4

20¿© ³â Àü¿¡ ¾È±¸½º ¸Åµð¼ÕÀº, ¼­±¸ÀÇ ¿­ µÎ ³ª¶óµé(º§Áö¿ò, µ§¸¶Å©, ÇÁ¶û½º, µ¶ÀÏ, ÀÌŸ®, ³×´ú·£µå, ³ë¸£¿þÀÌ, ½º¿þµ§, ½ºÀ§½º, ¿µ±¹, Ä«³ª´Ù¿Í ¹Ì±¹)ÀÌ, ºñ·Ï ¼¼°è Àα¸ÀÇ 15%¸¦ Â÷ÁöÇÒ »ÓÀÏÁö¶óµµ, Áö±¸»óÀÇ ÃÖ ºÎ±¹µéÀÌ°í, ÀÌ ±¹°¡µéÀÌ Àü ¼¼°è ¼ÒµæÀÇ 50%¿Í ³ó¾÷»ý»êÀÇ 1/3, ¼¼°è ±³¿ª°ú °ø¾÷»ý»êÀÇ 60%¸¦ Â÷ÁöÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸ÀÌ´Â ÇÑ ¿¬±¸º¸°í¼­¸¦ ÃâÆÇÇß´Ù.

     It is noteworthy that most of these countries prefer an economic order characterized by free enterprise based as it is on private property and the freedom of the individual.  The State intervenes for no reason other than that of creating a climate wherein the forces of free enterprise may find their greatest strength.  The influence of Keynesian economics is here plainly to be seen.  In the nineteenth century when Britain abandoned herself to a completely unfettered price mechanism she had become the workshop of the world.  When the depression of the thirties brought the period of laissez - faire to an end, the United Kingdom, as well as other leading economies of the West, created the managed market economy.

ÀÌ ±¹°¡µéÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀÌ ÁøÁ¤À¸·Î »çÀ¯Àç»ê°ú °³ÀÎÀÇ ÀÚÀ¯ À§¿¡ ±âÃÊÇÑ ÀÚÀ¯±â¾÷¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿î¿µµÇ´Â Ư¡À» °®´Â °æÁ¦Á¦µµ(°æÁ¦Áú¼­)¸¦ ÅÃÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº ÁÖ¸ñ ÇÒ ¸¸ ÇÏ´Ù. ÀÚÀ¯±â¾÷ÀÇ °­Á¡µéÀÌ ±×µéÀÇ ÃÖ´ëÀÇ ÈûÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÒ ¼ö Àִ ȯ°æÀ» âÁ¶ÇÏ´Â ÀÌÀ¯ ÀÌ¿ÜÀÇ ¾î¶² ÀÌÀ¯·Îµµ ±¹°¡´Â °£¼·ÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÄÉÀÎÁî °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¿µÇâÀº ¿©±â¿¡¼­ ¸í¹éÈ÷ º¸¿©Áú ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ¿µ±¹ÀÌ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ÀÚÀ¯·Î¿î °¡°Ý±â±¸¸¦ ÀÎÁ¤Çß´ø 19¼¼±â¿¡ ±× ³ª¶ó´Â ¼¼°èÀÇ °øÀåÀÌ µÇ¾ú´Ù. 1930³â´ëÀÇ ºÒȲÀÌ ÀÚÀ¯ ¹æÀÓÁÖÀÇÀÇ ±â°£À» Á¾¸»¿¡ ¿À°Ô ÇßÀ» ¶§ ´Ù¸¥ ¼­±¸ÀÇ ÁÖµµÀûÀÎ °æÁ¦µé°ú ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î ¿µ±¹Àº °ü¸®µÈ ½ÃÀå°æÁ¦¸¦ âÁ¶Çß´Ù.

     The material progress of these nations is due in no small measure to the fact that these countries are closely linked by trade, and policies calculated to make the free flow of trade easier have enhanced their interdependence in every way.  Moreover, according to Maddison, the growth of material prosperity in these nations redounds to the advantage of the less developed nations:
Not only is rapid growth essential to the advancing welfare of the rich countries, but it is essential for the progress of the world economy that the rich countries get richer.
They will thus be enabled to export more capital and provide better markets to the less privileged.  And the process of pushing forward the frontiers of technology, even though it may not help to raise the relative position of the less developed, adds to the welfare of everybody in absolute terms. 5

ÀÌ ±¹°¡µéÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸´Â ÀÌ ±¹°¡µéÀÌ ±³¿ª¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¹ÐÁ¢ÇÏ°Ô ¿¬°áµÇ¾ú°í, ±³¿ªÀÇ ÀÚÀ¯·Î¿î È帧ÀÌ ¿ëÀÌÇϵµ·Ï °èȹµÈ Á¤Ã¥µéÀÌ ¿©·¯ Ãø¸é¿¡¼­ ±×µéÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÇÁ¸¼ºÀ» °­È­Çß´Ù´Â »ç½Ç¿¡ »ó´çÈ÷ ÈûÀÔ¾ú´Ù. ´õ±¸³ª ¸Åµð¼Õ¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé ÀÌ ±¹°¡µéÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû ¹ø¿µÀº Àú°³¹ß±¹°¡ÀÇ À¯ÀÍ¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇÑ´Ù.
ºü¸¥ ¼ºÀåÀÌ ºÎ±¹ÀÇ º¹Áö¹ßÀü¿¡ ÇʼöÀûÀÏ »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ºÎ±¹µéÀÌ Á¡Á¡ ºÎ¿ä·Î¿öÁö´Â °ÍÀÌ ¼¼°è°æÁ¦ÀÇ ¹ßÀü¿¡ ÇʼöÀûÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ºÎ±¹µéÀº ´õ ¸¹Àº ÀÚº»À» ¼öÃâÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µÉ °ÍÀÌ°í, °æÁ¦Àû Ãë¾à±¹°¡µé¿¡°Ô ´õ ÁÁÀº ½ÃÀåÀ» Á¦°øÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±â¼úÀÇ ¿µ¿ªÀ» È®ÀåÇÏ´Â °úÁ¤Àº, ºñ·Ï ±×°ÍÀÌ Àú°³¹ß±¹°¡ÀÇ »ó´ëÀû À§Ä¡¸¦ ³ôÀ̴µ¥´Â µµ¿òÀÌ µÇÁö ¸øÇÒÁö¶óµµ, Àý´ëÀû Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­´Â °¢ÀÚÀÇ º¹Áö¸¦ »ó½Â½ÃŲ´Ù.

   Economic growth in the West, especially in the years following the Second World War, was due to the creation of a high and stable level of aggregate demand, a situation to which the governments in the West contributed in no small measure by their monetary and fiscal policies.  The intervention in the economic order may be regarded as a wise step along the path to the general, material welfare.  The free market knows nothing about justice or the dignity of man.  As Wicksteed has pointed out, the blind forces of supply and demand are just as likely to promote the common good as lightning is likely to strike trees that are better felled.6

¼­±¸¿¡ À־ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº, ƯÈ÷ Á¦ 2Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü ÀÌÈÄÀÇ ¿©·¯ ÇØ µ¿¾È, ³ô°í ¾ÈÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ¼öÁØÀÇ ÃÑ ¼ö¿äÀÇ Ã¢Á¶, Áï ¼­±¸ÀÇ Á¤ºÎµéÀÌ ±×µéÀÇ ÅëÈ­ ¹× ÀçÁ¤Á¤Ã¥¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© Å©°Ô ±â¿©Çß´ø »óȲ ´öÅà ÀÌ¿´´Ù. °æÁ¦Àû Áú¼­¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °£¼·Àº ¾Æ¸¶ ÀϹÝÀû, ¹°ÁúÀû º¹ÁöÀÇ ±æÀ» µû¶ó °É¾î°¡´Â Çö¸íÇÑ ¹ß°ÉÀ½À¸·Î °£Áֵǰí ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÚÀ¯½ÃÀåÀº Á¤Àdzª Àΰ£ÀÇ Á¸¾ö¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©´Â ¾Æ¹«°Íµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù. À¨Å©½ºÆ¼µå°¡ ÁöÀûÇÑ °Íó·³, ¼ö¿ä °ø±ÞÀÇ ¸Í¸ñÀû ¼¼·ÂÀº ´õ Àß ³Ñ¾îÁö´Â ³ª¹«µéÀ» ¹ø°³°¡ Ä¡´Â °Í°ú  ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î °øÀÍÀ» ÁõÁøÇÏ´Â °Í °°´Ù.
     In describing the pre-conditions prevailing in an economy preparing for take-off, the period during which the obstacles to steady economic growth are being overcome, Walt Rostow, the American economic historian, notes as one of the pre-conditions the idea that economic progress is desirable.
The idea spreads not merely that economic progress is possible, but that economic progress is a necessary condition for some other purpose, judged to be good : be it national dignity, private profit, the general welfare, or a better life for the children. Education, for some at least, broadens and changes to suit the needs of modern economic activity.

¾ÈÁ¤ÀûÀÎ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ ÀåÇصéÀÌ ±Øº¹µÇ´Â ±â°£ÀÎ, µµ¾àÀ» ÁغñÇÏ´Â °æÁ¦¿¡ À־ À¯·ÂÇÑ ÇʼöÁ¶°ÇÀ» ±â¼úÇÔ¿¡ À־, ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦»ç°¡ÀÎ ¿ùÆ® ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â,  °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸°¡ µÇÀÚ¸é »ç¶÷µéÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸¸¦  ¹Ù¶ó´Â ¸¶À½(»ý°¢)ÀÌ ÇʼöÁ¶°ÇÀÇ Çϳª¶ó°í º»´Ù.
±× ¸¶À½(»ý°¢)Àº °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸´Â °¡´ÉÇÒ »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸´Â, ÁÁ´Ù°í ÆǴܵǸé, ¾î¶² ´Ù¸¥ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÑ ÇÊ¿äÁ¶°ÇÀ̶ó´Â »ý°¢ÀÌ È®»êÇÑ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀÌ ±¹°¡Àû ±ÇÀ§µç, »çÀû ÀÌÀ±À̵ç, ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ º¹ÁöÀ̵ç, ȤÀº ¾î¸°À̸¦ À§ÇÑ ´õ ³ªÀº »îÀÌµç °£¿¡.
±³À°Àº, Àû¾îµµ ¾î´À Á¤µµ´Â, Çö´ëÀÇ °æÁ¦È°µ¿ÀÇ ÇÊ¿ä¿¡ ÀûÀÀÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿©  ³Ð¾îÁö°í º¯È­ÇÑ´Ù.

     The desire for economic growth, according to Rostow's analysis, culminates in the fifth and final stage of growth:     The Age of High Mass Consumptions.  At this stage in time the leading sectors of the economy:

¡¦ shift towards durable consumer's goods and services : a phase from which Americans are beginning to emerge; whose not unequivocal joys Western Europe and Japan are beginning energetically to probe; and with which  Soviet society is engaged in an uneasy flirtation.8

·Î½ºÅä¿ìÀÇ ºÐ¼®¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé, °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿å±¸´Â ¼ºÀåÀÇ ´Ù¼¸ ¹ø °À̸ç ÃÖÁ¾ ´Ü°èÀÎ °íµµ ´ë·® ¼Òºñ½Ã´ë¿¡¼­  ÃÖ°íÁ¡¿¡ ´ÞÇÑ´Ù.
ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â Á¶¸¸°£ °æÁ¦ÀÇ ÁÖµµÀû ºÎ¹®Àº ³»±¸ ¼ÒºñÀÚÀç(Ò±Îù á¼Þ¨íºî¯)¿Í ¼­ºñ½ººÐ¾ß¿¡·Î ¿Å±ä´Ù. ¹Ì±¹ÀεéÀÌ ºüÁ® ³ª¿À´Â ´Ü°èÀÌ´Ù. ¼­±¸¿Í ÀϺ»Àº ÀÌ ±¹¸éÀÇ ¸í¹éÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±â»ÝÀ» È°±âÂ÷°Ô Ž»öÇϱ⠽ÃÀÛÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¼Ò·Ã »çȸ´Â ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿Í ÇÔ²² ºÒ¾ÈÇÑ À¯Èñ¸¦ ½ÃÀÛÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.( ¿ªÀÚÇؼ³: ÀÌ°ÍÀº 1977³â ¹«·ÆÀÇ »óȲÀ» Ç¥ÇöÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.)(Çؼ³1)

Çؼ³1: ·Î½ºÅä¿ìÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ 5´Ü°è¼³
¹Ì±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ ·Î½ºÅä¿ì(W.W.Rostow)´Â ±×ÀÇ Àú¼­ "°æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ Á¦ ´Ü°è(The Stages of Economic Growth)¿¡¼­ ¸ðµç °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¹ßÀü´Ü°è¸¦ ¨çÀüÅë»çȸ, ¨èµµ¾à Áغñ ±â (¶Ç´Â ÀÌ·úÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼±Çà Á¶°Ç ±â), ¨éµµ¾à ±â(¶Ç´Â ÀÌ·ú ±â), ¨ê¼º¼÷ ±â(¶Ç´Â ¼º¼÷À¸·ÎÀÇ ÀüÁø ±â), ¨ë°íµµ´ëÁß¼Òºñ ±â·Î ³ª´«´Ù.
¨ç Á¦1´Ü°è(ÀüÅë»çȸ)
ÀüÅëÀû »çȸ¿¡¼­´Â ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ ÀÚ¿øÀÌ ³ó¾÷ºÎºÐ¿¡ ÁýÁߵǰí, ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡¼­ »çȸÁ¶Á÷Àº ´ë°¡Á·Á¦µµ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© Áö¹èµÈ´Ù.
¨èÁ¦2´Ü°è(µµ¾àÁغñ ±â)
µµ¾àÁغñ±âÀÎ Á¦2´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ³ó¾÷ ¹× °ø¾÷¿¡ À־ ±Ù´ë °úÇÐÀÌ ´Ù¼Ò ÀÀ¿ëµÊÀ¸·Î½á »ý»ê¼ºÀÌ Çâ»óµÇ±â ½ÃÀÛÇÑ´Ù. ¶Ç´Â ÀüÅë»çȸ¿¡¼­ º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´ø ºÀ¼â°æÁ¦´Â ¹®È£¸¦ °³¹æÇÏ¿© ±³¿ª·®ÀÌ ´Ã°í ±¹Á¦°æÀï·ÂÀÇ ¹®Á¦°¡ Á¦±âµÈ´Ù.
¨éÁ¦3´Ü°è(µµ¾à ±â)
Á¦3´Ü°èÀÎ µµ¾à±â(take-off)¿¡¼­´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº Ư¡ÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³­´Ù.
(¤¡)°ø¾÷ºÎºÐ¿¡¼­ ÀÌÀ±À²ÀÌ »ó½ÂÇÏ°í ÀÚº»ÃàÀûÀÌ È®´ëµÈ´Ù.
(¤¤)°è±Þ´ë¸³Àº ÁöÁÖ¿Í ³ó¹ÎÀÇ °ü°è¿¡¼­ ±â¾÷°¡¿Í ±Ù·ÎÀÚ¿ÍÀÇ °ü°è·Î º¯ÇÑ´Ù.
(¤§)»çȸ°£Á¢ÀÚº»ÀÌ ±Þ¼Óµµ·Î È®´ëµÇ°í ±â¼úÇõ½ÅÀÌ ÀϾ¸ç, ÅõÀÚÀ²°ú ÀúÃà·üÀÌ ³ô¾ÆÁø´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ³ó¾÷µµ »ó¾÷È­µÇ°í ³ó¾÷±â¼úÀÇ Çõ½ÅÀÌ ÀϾ´Ù. ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó´Â 1960³â´ë ÈĹݱâºÎÅÍ ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡ Á¢¾îµé¾ú´Ù.
¨êÁ¦4´Ü°è(¼º¼÷ ±â)
Á¦4´Ü°èÀÎ ¼º¼÷±â¿¡¼­´Â ±â¼úÀûÀ¸·Î º¹ÀâÇÑ »ý»ê¹°ÀÇ »ý»ê¿¡ ÁßÁ¡À» µÎ¸ç, ¹«¾ùÀ̵çÁö »ý»êÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¸é »ý»êÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »ý»ê±â¼ú´É·Â ¹× ±â¾÷´É·ÂÀ» °¡Áø´Ù. ¶Ç ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ±¹¹Î¼ÒµæÀÇ ¾à 10%-20% Á¤µµ°¡ ²÷ÀÓ¾øÀÌ ÅõÀÚµÇ¾î »ý»ê·®Áõ°¡À²ÀÌ Àα¸ Áõ°¡·üÀ» ¾Õ¼±´Ù. ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó´Â 1980³â´ë¿¡ ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡ µ¹ÀÔÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
¨ëÁ¦5´Ü°è(°íµµ´ëÁß¼Òºñ ±â)
Á¦5´Ü°èÀÎ °íµµ´ëÁß¼Òºñ ±â¿¡´Â ¼±µµÀû »ê¾÷ÀÌ ³»±¸¼ÒºñÀç ¹× ¼­ºñ½ººÎºÐÀ¸·Î ÀÌÇàÇÏ°í, ÀÚµ¿Â÷ÀÇ ´ë·®»ý»êÀ¸·Î ÀÚ°¡¿ëÀÚµ¿Â÷°¡ ´ë·®À¸·Î º¸±ÞµÇ¸ç »çȸº¸Àå°ú º¹ÁöÁ¦µµÀÇ ¹ßÀüÀÌ »çȸÀÇ Áß½ÉÀû °úÁ¦°¡ µÈ´Ù. ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó´Â 1990³â´ë ÈÄ¹Ý ¶Ç´Â 2000³â´ëºÎÅÍ ÀÌ ´Ü°è¿¡ ÁøÀÔÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸´Â ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ ¸¹´Ù.

À̻󿡼­ º» ·Î½ºÅä¿ìÀÇ 5´Ü°è ¼ºÀå¼³Àº Ä® ¸¼½º(Karl Marx, 1818-1883, µ¶ÀÏÀÇ »çȸÁÖÀÇÀÚ)ÀÇ ¿ª»ç¹ßÀü 5´Ü°è¼³°ú Á¤¸éÀ¸·Î ´ë¸³ÇÑ´Ù. ¸¼½º´Â ¸ðµç »ç¹°Àº °íÁ¤µÇ¾î ÀÖÁö ¾Ê°í °è¼Ó À¯µ¿¹ßÀü ÇÑ´Ù´Â ±×ÀÇ Ã¶Çп¡¼­ ÀηùÀÇ »çȸ´Â, ¿ø½Ã°ø»ê»çȸ¡æ³ë¿¹»çȸ¡æºÀ°ÇÁ¦»çȸ¡æÀÚº»ÁÖÀÇ»çȸ¡æ»çȸÁÖÀÇ»çȸ·Î ¹ßÀüÇÑ´Ù´Â ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ µµ½ÄÀ» Á¦°øÇß¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â ±×ÀÇ Àú¼­ "°æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ Á¦ ´Ü°è"¸¦ "¹Ý°ø»êÁÖÀǼ±¾ð(A Non-Communist Manifesto)"¶ó°í ºÎ¸£±âµµ Çß´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ·Î½ºÅä¿ìÀÇ ´Ü°è¼³Àº ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº ºñÆÇÀ» ¹Þ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¨ç ·Î½ºÅä¿ìÀÇ ´Ü°è¼³Àº °è¼öÀûÀÎ µÞ¹ÞħÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. ¨è ¸ðµç °æÁ¦¸¦ ȹÀÏÀûÀ¸·Î º¸¾Ò´Ù.  ¿¹ÄÁ´ë, µµ¾à±â¿¡¼­ ¼º¼÷±â±îÁö´Â ¾à 60 ³â °£ÀÇ ±â°£ÀÌ °É¸°´Ù°í ·Î½ºÅä¿ì°¡ ¸»ÇßÀ¸³ª, ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿Í °°Àº °æ¿ì´Â ±× ±â°£À» ¾à 20-30³âÀ¸·Î ´ÜÃàÇÏ¿´´ø °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
(ÂüÁ¶¹®: ±Ç ¿Àö, °æÁ¦Çпø·Ð, ¼­¿ï, ¹Ú¿µ»ç, 1993, p.1086.)

     It is to the problem raised by this situation that Lord Keynes brought out attention almost fifty years ago when he said:  "All this means in the long run that mankind is solving  its economic problem."9  Earlier in  "The End of Laissez-Faire" 1926, he offered the view that divisions of  opinion would not center themselves in years to come"  around technical questions, where the arguments on either side are mainly economic, but round which,  for want of better words, may be called psychological, or, perhaps, moral."10


ÄÉÀÎÁî °æÀº ¾à 50 ³â Àü "ÀÌ ¸ðµç °ÍÀº Àå±â¿¡ À־ Àηù´Â ±×ÀÇ °æÁ¦¹®Á¦¸¦ ÇØ°áÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù"°í ¸»ÇßÀ» ¶§ ¹Ù·Î ÀÌ »óȲ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© Á¦±âµÈ ¹®Á¦¿¡ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ÁÖÀǸ¦ À̲ø¾ú´Ù. ÀÏÂïÀÌ  "ÀÚÀ¯¹æÀÓÁÖÀÇÀÇ Á¾¸»"(1926³â)¿¡¼­, ±×´Â Àå·¡¿¡´Â ÀÇ°ßÀÇ ºÐºÐÇÔÀÌ ¾î´À ÇÑÆíÀÇ ³íÀÇ°¡ °æÁ¦ÀûÀÎ ³íÀÇ°¡ ÀÖ´Â ±â¼úÀûÀÎ ¹®Á¦¸¦ µÑ·¯½Î°í ÀϾ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó-´õ ÁÁÀº ¸»ÀÌ ¾ø¾î¼­-½É¸®Àû ȤÀº ¾Æ¸¶ µµ´öÀûÀ̶ó°í ºÎ¸¦ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹®Á¦µéÀ» µÑ·¯½Î°í ÀϾ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â »ý°¢À» Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù.

     Through the political process,  Rostow believes that the decision has been made in  Western societies to increase the quality of resources devoted to social security in preference to policies designed to promote the advance of technology as an overriding objective.
The emergence of the welfare state is one manifestation of a society's moving beyond technical  maturity,  but it is also at this stage that resources tend increasingly to be directed to the production of consumers'  durables and to the diffusion of services on a mass basis, if consumers'  sovereignty reigns.  The sewing-machine, the bicycle, and then the various electric-powered household gadgets were gradually diffused. Historically, however, the decisive element has been the cheap mass automobile with its quite revolutionary effects ¡¦¡¦11.

Á¤Ä¡Àû °úÁ¤À» ÅëÇÏ¿©, ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â ¼­±¸»çȸ¿¡ À־ Á¤Ã¥°áÁ¤Àº ¿ì¼±ÀûÀÎ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î¼­ ±â¼úÀÇ Áøº¸¸¦ ÁõÁø½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇÏ¿© °èȹµÈ Á¤Ã¥µéº¸´Ù´Â ¿ÀÈ÷·Á »çȸº¸Àå¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿øÀÇ ÁúÀ» Áõ´ëÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© °áÁ¤µÇ¾ú´Ù°í ¹Ï°í ÀÖ´Ù.
º¹Áö±¹°¡ÀÇ ÃâÇöÀº ±â¼úÀûÀÎ ¼º¼÷´Ü°è¸¦ ³Ñ¾î¼­´Â »çȸÀ̵¿ÀÇ ÇÑ Ç¥ÇöÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¶ÇÇÑ, ¼ÒºñÀÚ ÁÖ±ÇÀÌ Áö¹èÇÑ´Ù¸é, ´ë·®±âÃÊ À§¿¡¼­ ÀÚ¿øÀÌ Á¡Á¡ ³»±¸ ¼ÒºñÀÚÀçÀÇ »ý»ê°ú ¼­ºñ½ºÀÇ È®»ê ÂÊÀ¸·Î ÇâÇØÁö´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀÌ ´Ü°èÀÌ´Ù. ÀçºÀƲ, ÀÚÀü°Å, ±×¸®°í ¿©·¯ °¡Áö °¡ÀüÁ¦Ç°µéÀº Á¡Â÷ÀûÀ¸·Î È®»êµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿ª»çÀûÀ¸·Î °áÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ¿ä¼Ò´Â »ó´çÈ÷ Çõ¸íÀûÀÎ È¿°ú¸¦ Áö´Ñ °ª½Ñ ´ë·®»ý»êÀÇ ÀÚµ¿Â÷¿´´Ù.

     As John Maynard Keynes and others had foreseen, failure to make the necessary spiritual progress may retard subsequently many of the advances made by economic growth.  The time comes when people realize the fact that the production of wealth is after all simply a means to an end, the good life.  For the sake of additional wealth people are no longer quite so ready to sacrifice their leisure hours.  In describing this situation,  Rostow poses these questions:

Will man fall into secular spiritual stagnation, finding no worthy outlet for the expression of his energies, talents, and instinct to reach for immortality?  Will he follow the Americans and reimpose the strenuous life by raising the birth-rate?  Will the devil make work for idle hands?  Will men learn how to conduct wars with just enough violence to be good sport --- and to accelerate capital depreciation  --- without blowing up the planet?  Will the exploration of outer space offer an adequately interesting and expensive outlet for resources and ambitions?12

ÄÉÀÎÁî¿Í ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ¿¹°ßÇßµíÀÌ, ÇÊ¿äÇÑ Á¤½ÅÀû Áøº¸¸¦ ¸¸µéÁö ¸øÇÑ ½ÇÆа¡ ±× °á°ú·Î °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÀÌ·èÇÑ Áøº¸ÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀ» ¹æÇØÇÑ °Í °°´Ù. »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ºÎÀÇ »ý»êÀÌ °á±¹ ´Ü¼øÈ÷ ÁÁÀº »îÀ̶õ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¶§°¡ ¿Â´Ù. Ãß°¡ÀûÀÎ ºÎ¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¶÷µéÀº ±×µéÀÇ ¿©°¡½Ã°£À» ´õ ÀÌ»ó ±â²¨ÀÌ Èñ»ýÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸·Á°í ÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ·± »óȲÀ» ±â¼úÇÔ¿¡ À־,  ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â ÀÌ·± Áú¹®µéÀ» Á¦ÃâÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
Àΰ£Àº ±×ÀÇ ¿¡³ÊÁö, Àç´É, ±×¸®°í ºÒ¸êÀ» Ãß±¸ÇÏ´Â º»´ÉÀÇ Ç¥ÇöÀ» À§ÇÑ °¡Ä¡ ÀÖ´Â Ãⱸ¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇÏÁö ¸øÇϸ鼭, ¼¼¼ÓÀûÀÎ Á¤½ÅÀû ħü¿¡ ºüÁú °ÍÀΰ¡?  Àΰ£Àº ¹Ì±¹ÀÎÀ» µû¸£°í Ãâ»ý·üÀ» ³ôÀÓÀ¸·Î½á Èûµç »îÀ» ´Ù½Ã Áú °ÍÀΰ¡? ¾Ç¸¶°¡ °ÔÀ¸¸¥ ¼ÕµéÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ÀϰŸ®(ÀÏ°¨)¸¦ ¸¸µé °ÍÀΰ¡? Àΰ£µéÀº Áö±¸¸¦ ÆĸêÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é¼­ ÀÚº» °¨ °¡(íÀÜâ Êõʤ)¸¦ ÃËÁø½ÃÅ°¸ç, ÁÁÀº ½ºÆ÷Ã÷°¡ µÇ±â¿¡ µü ¾Ë¸ÂÀº Æø·ÂÀ¸·Î ÀüÀïÀ» ÇàÇÒ ¹æ¹ýÀ» ¹è¿ï °ÍÀΰ¡?  ¿Ü°è(¿ìÁÖ)ÀÇ Å½ÇèÀÌ ÀÚ¿ø°ú ¾ß¸ÁÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¾Ë¸Â°Ô Èï¹Ì·Ó°í, ¾Ë¸Â°Ô ºñ¿ëÀÌ µå´Â Å»Ãⱸ¸¦ Á¦°øÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡?

     The best example of economic progress in the Western world is, of course, the United States.  A swiftly growing population, from about three millions in 1776 to over 200 millions two hundred years later, and a richness in natural resources nowhere surpassed, created a dynamic economy where a high level of investment led enormous economic growth.  By 1870, the  United  States had already taken over the leadership in productivity.  The increase in the output of wealth between the present time and the lowest point in the depression has been quite phenomenal.  The role of the government has become one of the utmost importance.  Continuous growth seems assured.  The level of investment expenditures has never been higher.

¼­±¸¼¼°è¿¡ À־ÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸ÀÇ °¡Àå ¸ð¹ü »ç·Ê´Â ¹°·Ð ¹Ì±¹ÀÌ´Ù. 1776³â¿¡ ¾à 300¸¸ ¸í¿¡¼­ 200³â ÈÄ¿£ 2¾ï ¸í À̻󿡷Π ±Þ¼ÓÈ÷ Áõ°¡ÇÑ  Àα¸¿Í ¾î´À °÷¿¡¼­µµ ´É°¡µÇÁö ¸øÇß´ø õ¿¬ÀÚ¿øÀÇ ºÎ¿ä(Ý£é®)´Â ³ôÀº ÅõÀÚ¼öÁØÀÌ °Å´ëÇÑ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀ» À̲ø¾ú´ø ¿ªµ¿ÀûÀÎ °æÁ¦¸¦ âÁ¶Çß´Ù. 1870 ³â¿¡ À̸£·¯¼­´Â, ¹Ì±¹Àº ÀÌ¹Ì »ý»ê¼º¿¡ À־ ÁÖµµÀû ÁöÀ§¸¦ Â÷ÁöÇß´Ù. ÇöÀç(1977³â °æ)¿Í ºÒȲ±âÀÇ ÃÖÀú Á¡(¿ªÀÚ ÁÖ: 1930³â´ë) °£ÀÇ ºÎÀÇ »ý»êÀÇ Áõ°¡´Â ¸Å¿ì ±²ÀåÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¤ºÎÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀº °¡Àå Áß´ëÇÑ ¿ªÇÒÀÌ µÇ¾ú´Ù. °è¼ÓÀûÀÎ ¼ºÀåÀÌ º¸ÀåµÇ´Â °Í °°´Ù. ÅõÀÚÁöÃâÀÇ ¼öÁØÀº ´õ ³ôÀº ÀûÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´Ù.(Áï ÀÌÁ¦±îÁö °¡Àå ³ô¾Ò´Ù.)
     The  President of the  United  States saw the record of the world economy as quite positive in many respects.  "Output in the industrial countries is estimated to have risen by five percent above its 1975 level in real terms, the volume of trade expanded by about ten percent, and inflation rates, though not eliminated as much as desirable, are significantly below earlier levels."13
     A comparison of the dollar figures of important aggregates between the depression and the present time helps to emphasize the economic growth in recent years in the  USA.
     From 1933, the lowest point in the depression, the Gross National  Product rose from $56 billion to $1,700 billion in 1976.  In the same period, consumption rose from  $46 billion to  $1,118 billion;  private domestic investment from  $1.4 billion to an amazing  $250 billion.  Federal government expenditures on  goods  and  services  were  almost  $140  billion  compared to  $238  billion for  State and local governments.  Expenditure  for  national  defense rose from a low of  $1.2  billion  in 1938  to  $91.3 billion  in  1976.
     The total wage bill in 1976 was  $1,020 billion compared to  $19.5  billion in  1933 : profits for the same period rose from  - $1.7 billion  to  $117 billion.  The number of people in employ- ment  rose from 45 million in 1933 to around 90 million in 1976.  During this time, the national income had increased from  $85 billion to  $1,350 billion and the population had grown from 125 million to 215 million.
     In 1976, the quantity of money, M1, had risen to over $310 billion.  The government's  fiscal policy was reflected in a rise in total receipts in 1968 of  $ 153.7 billion to an estimated  $393.1 billion for  1978; a rise in total outlays in 1968 of  $178.8 billion to an estimated  $439.9  billion in 1978.  The national debt of  $370 billion in 1968 is expected to grow to an estimated $785 billion in 1978. 14

¹Ì±¹ ´ëÅë·ÉÀº ¼¼°è°æÁ¦ÀÇ ±â·ÏÀ» ¸¹Àº Á¡¿¡¼­ »ó´çÈ÷ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸¾Ò´Ù.
"°ø¾÷±¹°¡µéÀÇ »ý»êÀº ½Ç¹° Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­ 1975³â ¼öÁØÀÇ »ý»êº¸´Ù 5% »ó½ÂÇß°í, ±³¿ª·®Àº ¾à 10% È®ÀåÇß´Ù°í Æò°¡µÇ°í, ÀÎÇ÷¹ÀÌ¼Ç »ó½Â·üÀº, ºñ·Ï ¹Ù¶ó´Â ¸¸Å­ Á¦°ÅµÇÁö´Â ¾Ê¾ÒÁö ¸¸, ÀÌÀü ¼öÁغ¸´Ù ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â Àú ¼öÄ¡ÀÌ´Ù. ºÒȲÀÇ ½Ã±â¿Í ÇöÀç°£ÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ÃÑ°èÀÇ ´Þ·¯ ¼öÄ¡ÀÇ ºñ±³´Â ±Ù³â¿¡ À־ÀÇ ¹Ì±¹ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ °­Á¶¸¦ µ½°í ÀÖ´Ù.(Áï ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ ´«ºÎ½Å °æÁ¦ ¼ºÀåÀ» Àß º¸ÀÌ°í ÀÖ´Ù.) ºÒȲ(ºÒ°æ±â)ÀÇ ÃÖÀúÁ¡ÀÎ 1933³âºÎÅÍ ±¹¹Î ÃÑ»ý»êÀº 560¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 1976 ³â¿¡´Â 17,000¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù. °°Àº ±â°£¿¡, ¼Òºñ´Â 460¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 11,180 ¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î, ±¹³» ¹Î°£ÅõÀÚ´Â 14 ¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 2,500 ¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù.
ÀçÈ­¿Í ¼­ºñ½º¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬¹æ Á¤ºÎÁöÃâÀº ÁÖ Á¤ºÎµé°ú Áö¹æ Á¤ºÎµéÀÇ 2,380¾ï ´Þ·¯ÀÇ ÁöÃâ¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿© 1,400¾ï ´Þ·¯¿´´Ù. ±¹¹æºñ ÁöÃâÀº 1938³âÀÇ 12¾ï ´Þ·¯ÀÇ ÃÖÀú±Ý¾×¿¡¼­ 1976 ³â¿£ 913¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù.
1976³âÀÇ ÃÑ ÀÓ±Ý Ã»±¸ ¾×Àº 1933³âÀÇ 195¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿© 10,200¾ï ´Þ·¯¿´´Ù. °°Àº ±â°£ µ¿¾È ÀÌÀ±Àº 17¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 1,170¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù. °í¿ë Àα¸¼ö´Â  1933³âÀÇ 4,500¸¸ ¸í¿¡¼­ 1976³â¿¡´Â ¾à 9,000¸¸ ¸íÀ¸·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù.  ÀÌ ±â°£ µ¿¾È, ±¹¹Î¼ÒµæÀº 850¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 13,500¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î Áõ°¡Çß°í Àα¸´Â 12,500¸¸ ¸í¿¡¼­ 21,500¸¸ ¸íÀ¸·Î Áõ°¡Çß´Ù.
1976³â¿¡, ÅëÈ­·®(M1)Àº 3,100¾ï ´Þ·¯ ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î »ó½ÂÇß´Ù. Á¤ºÎÀÇ ÀçÁ¤Á¤Ã¥Àº 1968³âÀÇ ÃÑ ¼¼ÀÔ ¾× 1,537¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 1978³â¿£ ÃßÁ¤Ä¡ 3,931¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î, ÃÑ ÁöÃâÀº 1968³âÀÇ 1,788¾ï ´Þ·¯¿¡¼­ 1978³â¿£ ÃßÁ¤Ä¡ 4,399¾ï ´Þ·¯ÀÇ »ó½ÂÀ¸·Î ¹Ý¿µµÇ¾ú´Ù. 1968³âÀÇ 3,700¾ï ´Þ·¯ÀÇ ±¹Ã¤´Â 1978³â¿¡´Â ÃßÁ¤Ä¡ 7,850¾ï ´Þ·¯·Î Áõ°¡ÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¿¹ÃøµÈ´Ù.
     There is no question that the  Federal  Government of the United  States intends to use fiscal policy and monetary policy, in its endeavors to contribute toward economic growth and stability  of employment.  To this end,  working in cooperation with private enterprise, the  Federal  Government  has helped to create  the most prosperous  economy ever known to man.  Nonetheless, grave social problems, many of them with a base in ethics, still exist on a national and international level.
     There is no doubt that the government of the  United  States is committed to a policy of economic growth.  Nevertheless,  Edward  F. Denison, in his studies of economic growth in leading  European industrial countries and the  United  States, pointed out that economic growth had become a national goal everywhere but none of the countries examined in his study allowed it to take precedence over more urgent needs. 15.

¹Ì±¹ ¿¬¹æÁ¤ºÎ°¡ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú °í¿ë¾ÈÁ¤À» µµ¸ðÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ³ë·Â¿¡ À־ ÀçÁ¤Á¤Ã¥°ú ÅëÈ­Á¤Ã¥À» »ç¿ëÇÏ·Á´Â °ÍÀº Àǹ®ÀÇ ¿©Áö°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¿¬¹æÁ¤ºÎ´Â ¹Î°£±â¾÷°ú Çù·ÂÇϸ鼭, Àΰ£¿¡°Ô ÀÌÁ¦²¯ ¾Ë·ÁÁø °¡Àå ¹ø¿µÇÏ´Â °æÁ¦¸¦ âÁ¶Çϵµ·Ï µµ¿Ô´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, ±× ´ëºÎºÐÀÌ À±¸®¿¡ ±âÃʸ¦ µÎ°í ÀÖ´Â ½É°¢ÇÑ »çȸ¹®Á¦µéÀº ±¹°¡Àû, ±¹Á¦Àû Â÷¿ø¿¡¼­ ¿©ÀüÈ÷ Á¸ÀçÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
¹Ì±¹ Á¤ºÎ°¡ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå Á¤Ã¥À» Ãß±¸ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº ÀǽÉÀÇ ¿©Áö°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í,  µ¥´Ï¼ÕÀº, ÁÖ¿äÇÑ  À¯·´ °ø¾÷±¹°¡µé°ú ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ °üÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­, °æÁ¦ ¼ºÀåÀº µµÃ³¿¡¼­ ±¹°¡Àû ¸ñÇ¥°¡ µÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±×ÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ °ËÅäµÈ ³ª¶óµé °¡¿îµ¥ ¾î¶² ³ª¶óµµ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÌ ´õ ±Þ¹ÚÇÑ Çʿ亸´Ù ¿ì¼±Çϵµ·Ï Çã¶ôÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

     (2) War  and  Economic  Growth(ÀüÀï°ú °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸)

     At the present time economic growth, spurred by scientific and technological advances of an extraordinary sort, have led to the creations of weapons whose unethical use could result in the virtual annihilation of the human race.  This undesirable condition is aggravated by the fact that, in addition to China, most countries in the southern hemisphere are either ready for the take-off leading to economic maturity, or in the preconditions for such take-off.  Economic maturity,  Rostow defines as the "stage in which an economy demonstrates that it has the technological and entrepreneurial skills to produce not everything, but anything it chooses to produce."16

Çö´ë¿¡ À־ ºñ»óÇÑ Á¾·ùÀÇ °úÇÐÀû ±â¼úÀû Áøº¸¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¹ÚÂ÷°¡ °¡ÇØÁø °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº ±×°Íµé(¹«±âµé)ÀÇ ºñÀ±¸®Àû »ç¿ëÀÌ ÀηùÀÇ ½ÇÁúÀûÀÎ Àü¸êÀ» ÃÊ·¡ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹«±âµéÀÇ Ã¢Á¶¿¡·Î À̲ø¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¹Ù¶÷Á÷ÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ »óÅ´Â, Áß±¹ ¿Ü¿¡, ³²¹Ý±¸ÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ ±¹°¡µéÀÌ °æÁ¦Àû ¼º¼÷´Ü°è·Î µé¾î°¡´Â µµ¾àÀ» ÁغñÇϰųª, ȤÀº ±×·¯ÇÑ µµ¾àÀ» À§ÇÑ µµ¾à Áغñ´Ü°è(¼±Çà Á¶°Ç ±â)¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù´Â »ç½Ç¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ´õ¿í ¾ÇÈ­µÇ¾ú´Ù.  ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â °æÁ¦Àû ¼º¼÷´Ü°è¸¦,  "¾î¶² °æÁ¦°¡ ¸ðµç °ÍÀ» »ý»êÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ±× °æÁ¦°¡ »ý»êÇÏ·Á°í ¼±ÅÃÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¾ùÀ̳ª »ý»êÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »ý»ê±â¼ú´É·Â ¹× ±â¾÷°¡Àû ´É·ÂÀ» °®°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»´Â ´Ü°èÀÌ´Ù." ¶ó°í Á¤ÀÇÇÑ´Ù.
     In discussing the three types of war which can do nothing but ravish people and nations, and which he groups under the headings of colonial wars; wars of regional aggression; and the massive wars of the twentieth century,  Rostow reveals that the dangerous age comes with  "economic maturity, when one of the options open is to concentrate the resources of the mature economy on a more ambitious expansion of external power."17
Rostow adds that the reaching of economic maturity at different times helps  "to illuminate the three great military struggles of the twentieth century: the First  World  War, the  Second  World  War, and the Cold  War ¡¦¡¦"18

»ç¶÷µé°ú ±¹°¡µéÀ» °­Å»¸¸ ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÀüÀïÀÇ ¼¼ °¡Áö À¯ÇüµéÀ» ÅäÀÇÇÔ¿¡ À־, ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â ±×°ÍµéÀ» ½Ä¹ÎÁö ÀüÀïµé, Áö¿ªÀû ħ·«ÀüÀïµé, ±×¸®°í 20¼¼±âÀÇ ´ëÇü ÀüÀïµé(¼ÒÀ§ ¼¼°è´ëÀüµé)À̶ó´Â Ç¥Á¦·Î ºÐ·ùÇϸ鼭, ±×´Â À§Çè ÇÑ  ½Ã´ë´Â "°æÁ¦Àû ¼º¼÷±â¿Í ÇÔ²² ¿À´Âµ¥,  ±×¶§´Â ¿­¸° ¼±Åõé ÁßÀÇ Çϳª°¡ ´õ  ¾ß¸Á ÀûÀÎ ¿ÜºÎ¿¡·ÎÀÇ  ÈûÀÇ ÆØâÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¼º¼÷±â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ÀÚ¿øµéÀ» ÁýÁßÇÏ´Â °Í"À̶ó°í Æø·ÎÇÑ´Ù.
·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â °æÁ¦Àû ¼º¼÷±âÀÇ ½ÃÂ÷´Â Á¦1Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü, Á¦2Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü, ±×¸®°í ³ÃÀü µî 20 ¼¼±â 3´ë ±º»çÅõÀïÀ» Á¶¸íÇϴµ¥ µµ¿òÀ» ÁØ´Ù.
     Concerning the havoc which wars have wrought in this century of great economic growth and progress,  Rostow points out that the arrival at economic maturity of the  United  States,  Germany,  Japan and  Russia  was to determine the balance of power in the first half of the twentieth century.
     At the same time, the relative economic backwardness of  Eastern  European countries, and  China, still in the preconditions of take-off, "provided the occasion for the  First  World  War the  Second  World  War, and the  Cold  War in its first phase." 19  The lesson is clear.  Economic growth contributed to a country's military might and made it strong.  Lack of economic growth contributed to a country's undoing.  Is military might,  therefore, it may be asked, a good?

À§´ëÇÑ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú Áøº¸¸¦ ÀÌ·èÇÑ ÀÌ ¼¼±â¿¡¼­ ÀüÀïµéÀÌ ÀÏÀ¸Ä×´ø ´ë Æı«¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©, ·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â ¹Ì±¹, µ¶ÀÏ, ÀϺ»°ú ·¯½Ã¾ÆÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû ¼º¼÷´Ü°èÀÇ µµ´ÞÀº 20 ¼¼±â Ãʹݺο¡ À־ÀÇ ¼¼·Â(Èû)±ÕÇüÀ» °áÁ¤ÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. µ¿½Ã¿¡ ¾ÆÁ÷ µµ¾àÀÇ Áغñ´Ü°è¿¡ ÀÖ¾ú´ø µ¿À¯·´ ±¹°¡µé°ú Áß±¹ÀÇ »ó´ëÀû °æÁ¦Àû ³«ÈļºÀº Á¦1Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü, Á¦2Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü, ±×¸®°í ³ÃÀüÀÇ Ã¹ ±¹¸éÀ» ¾ß±â ½ÃÄ×´Ù. ±× ±³ÈÆÀº ¸í¹éÇÏ´Ù. °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº ÇÑ ±¹°¡ÀÇ ±º»ç·Â¿¡ ±â¿©Çß°í ±×°ÍÀ» °­ÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µé¾ú´Ù. °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ ºÎÁ·Àº ÇÑ ±¹°¡ÀÇ ¼è¸Á(áñØÌ)¿¡ ±â¿©Çß´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ¿ì¸®°¡ ¹°À» ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Áú¹®Àº ±º»ç·ÂÀº ¼±(à¼)Àΰ¡? ÀÌ´Ù.
     Rostow, in another work, answers this question with reference to the effect of war on the economy of the  United  kingdom:

¡¦ it must be concluded that war constituted a great waste of British resources.  Looking strictly at economic variables, the rate of economic progress would appear to have been slower than it otherwise would have been; and it took forms other than those which would have maximized over time the British real national income.20

·Î½ºÅä¿ì´Â  ¿µ±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦¿¡ ¹ÌÄ£ ÀüÀïÀÇ È¿°ú¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÌ Áú¹®¿¡, ´Ù¸¥ Àú¼­¿¡¼­, ´ë´äÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

........ÀüÀïÀº ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ÀÚ¿øÀÇ Å« ³¶ºñ¿¡ ±â¿©Çß´Ù°í °á·ÐÀ» ³»·Á¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. °æÁ¦º¯¼öµéÀ» ¾ö¹ÐÈ÷ °íÂûÇϸé, °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ ¼Óµµ°¡ ÀüÀïÀ» ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ» ¶§ °¡´ÉÇß´ø °Íº¸´Ù ´õ ´À·È´ø °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³­ °Í °°´Ù. ±×¸®°í °æÁ¦¼ºÀå ¼Óµµ´Â ½Ã°£ÀÇ °æ°ú¿¡ µû¶ó ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ½ÇÁú±¹¹Î¼ÒµæÀ» ±Ø´ëÈ­  ÇßÀ» ÇüÅ¿ʹ ´Ù¸¥ ÇüŸ¦ ÃëÇß´Ù.(Áï ÀüÀïÀº ¿µ±¹°æÁ¦ÀÇ ¼ºÀå¿¡ ÁöÀåÀ» ÁÖ¾ú´Ù.)

     Wars did, however, hasten the rate of social and political change in Britain which changes in themselves had positive effects on the rate of economic growth.21
     For John U. Nef, historian and economist, war is "a disease of human nature, which has affected all societies ¡¦ in various ways.  By seeking and achieving economic improvement, men and women change the means of fighting.  The greater their economic success, the greater the risks that economic success brings with it."22
     It is against this tendency in the  West to gravitate toward economic strength, and urge it elsewhere, by unlimited expansion, that  Schumacher warns us when he points out the lack of any philosophical base in our economics and the need for nonviolence to permeate the whole of man's activities.  "Present day economics," he says, "while claiming to be ethically neutral, in fact propagates a philosophy of unlimited expansion, without any regard to the true and genuine needs of man, which are limited." 23

±×·¯³ª ÀüÀïÀº ¿µ±¹¿¡¼­ »çȸÀû, Á¤Ä¡Àû º¯È­ÀÇ ¼Óµµ¸¦ ÃËÁø½ÃÄ×´Ù. ÀÌµé º¯È­µéÀº ±×µé ÀÚü·Î¼­ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÇ ¼Óµµ¿¡ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ È¿°ú¸¦ ¹ÌÃÆ´Ù.
¿ª»çÇÐÀÚÀÌ¸ç °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÎ Á¸ ³×ÇÁ¿¡°Ô À־´Â, ÀüÀïÀº "Àΰ£¼ºÀÇ Áúº´ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ Áúº´Àº ¿©·¯ °¡Áö ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ¸ðµç »çȸ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÃÆ´Ù. °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸ÀÇ Ãß±¸¿Í ¼ºÃë¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ³²ÀÚµé°ú ¿©ÀÚµéÀº ½Î¿òÀÇ ¼ö´ÜÀ» º¯È­½ÃŲ´Ù. ±×µéÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû ¼º°øÀÌ Å©¸é Ŭ¼ö·Ï, °æÁ¦Àû ¼º°øÀÌ ±×¿Í ´õºÒ¾î ÃÊ·¡ÇÏ´Â À§Çèµµ ±×¸¸Å­ Ä¿Áø´Ù. ½´¸¶Çã°¡ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ °æÁ¦Çп¡  ¾î¶² öÇÐÀû ±âÃÊÀÇ °á¿©¿Í Àΰ£È°µ¿ Àüü¿¡ ¹è¾î µé¾î¾ßÇÒ ºñÆø·ÂÀÇ Çʿ伺À» ÁöÀûÇÒ ¶§ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô °æ°íÇÑ °ÍÀº °æÁ¦·ÂÀ» Ãß±¸ÇÏ°í, ¹«ÇÑÇÑ ÆØâ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ´Ù¸¥ Áö¿ªÀ¸·Î ±×°ÍÀ» ¸ô¾Æ´ë´Â ¼­±¸ÀÇ ÀÌ °æÇâÀ» ¹è°æÀ¸·Î ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×´Â "¿À´Ã³¯ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº  ÂüµÈ ÁøÂ¥ ÇÊ¿ä(Àΰ£¿¡°Ô ÀÌ·± ÇÊ¿ä´Â  ÇÑÁ¤µÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù.)¿¡  ¾Æ¹« °ü°è°¡ ¾øÀÌ, À±¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î Á߸³ÀûÀ̶ó°í ÁÖÀåÇÏ´Â ÇÑ, »ç½ÇÀº ¹«ÇÑÇÑ ÆØâÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀ» ¹ø½Ä½ÃŲ´Ù."°í ¸»ÇÑ´Ù.
  
     The pursuit of economic growth and wealth without regard to the needs of man, to ethical considerations, was for the British economic historian,  R. H. Tawney, quite meaningless. A civilization which rested on the faith "that riches are not a means but an end, implies that all economic activity is equally estimable, whether it is subordinated to a social purpose or not."24

Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇÊ¿ä¿Í À±¸®Àû °í·Á¿¡ °ü°è°¡ ¾ø´Â °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ºÎ(Ý£)ÀÇ Ãß±¸´Â ¿µ±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦»çÇÐÀÚÀÎ Åͳ×ÀÌ¿¡°Ô´Â ¹«ÀǹÌÇÑ °ÍÀ̾ú´Ù. ºÎ´Â ¼ö´ÜÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í ¸ñÀûÀ̶ó´Â ½Å³ä¿¡ ±âÃÊÇÑ ¹®¸íÀº, "¸ðµç °æÁ¦È°µ¿Àº ±×°ÍÀÌ »çȸÀû ¸ñÀû¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇÏ´øÁö, ¾Ê´øÁö ¶È°°ÀÌ Á¸ÁßÇÒ ¸¸ ÇÏ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù."
     This failure to distinguish between goods which are necessary for man's needs and those which are not has a much more ominous meaning for us today than when  Tawney wrote in 1920.  It has led one economist to distinguish between productive economic growth and parasitic economic growth.  Productive growth refers to the production of those goods which are required by society's standard of living, or to goods which contribute to further production.  On the other hand, parasitic growth involves the production of goods and services not demanded by the level of living or not contributing to further production.  This is true of the production of military goods and services.  "The common use of the money unit to measure all economic activity masks the functional difference between parasitic and productive growth." 25

Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇÊ¿ä¿¡ ¹Ýµå½Ã ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ÀçÈ­¿Í ±×·¸Áö ¾ÊÀº ÀçÈ­°£ÀÇ ±¸º°ÀÇ ½ÇÆд Åͳ×ÀÌ°¡ 1920³â¿¡ Àú¼úÇß´ø ¶§º¸´Ù ¿À´Ã³¯ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ÈξÀ ´õ ºÒ±æÇÑ Àǹ̸¦ °®´Â´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ÇÑ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý »ý»êÀûÀÎ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ±â»ýÀûÀÎ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀ» ±¸º°ÇÏ°Ô Çß´Ù. »ý»êÀûÀÎ ¼ºÀåÀº »çȸÀÇ »ýÈ° Ç¥ÁØ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿ä±¸µÇ´Â ÀçÈ­ÀÇ »ý»êÀ̳ª, ȤÀº Àå·¡ÀÇ »ý»ê¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÏ´Â ÀçÈ­ÀÇ »ý»êÀ» °¡¸®Å²´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ¹ÝÇؼ­ ±â»ýÀû ¼ºÀåÀº »ýÈ°¼öÁØ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿ä±¸µÇÁö ¾Ê°Å³ª. ȤÀº Àå·¡ÀÇ »ý»ê¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â ÀçÈ­¿Í ¼­ºñ½ºÀÇ »ý»êÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù. ±º»ç¿ë ÀçÈ­³ª ¼­ºñ½º°¡ ÀÌ°Í¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÑ´Ù. "¸ðµç °æÁ¦È°µ¿À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ´Â µ¥¿¡   ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î È­Æó´ÜÀ§¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ±â»ýÀû ¼ºÀå°ú »ý»êÀû ¼ºÀå°£ÀÇ ±â´ÉÀû Â÷À̸¦ °¨Ãá´Ù."

   With the advent of total war in the twentieth century, the scientist, unlike his predecessor of the nineteenth century, has seen the possibility of his discoveries being used for evil and for destructive purposes.  Scientific and technological advances serve economic growth regardless of the direction taken by such growth.
    In modern times the gods of war have also been served by the application of scientific discoveries to peaceful economic progress.  All economic life has received a military purpose from industrialism.  The hopes of  European philosophers and scientists that economic growth and progress would subdue war were in vain.
    At the beginning of the twentieth century, the principal powers of  Europe had four million men under arms.  These forces could be enlarged to account for thirty to forty million.  Today this figure could probably be increased several times over. "The god of war has been transformed into a mechanical Moloch, almost as impersonal as nature, but made capable by man's intelligence of swallowing at a gulp nearly all the children of God."26

20¼¼±âÀÇ ÃÑ·ÂÀüÀÇ ÃâÇöÀ¸·Î, °úÇÐÀÚ´Â ±×ÀÇ 19¼¼±âÀÇ ¼±¹è¿Í´Â ´Þ¸® ±×ÀÇ ¹ß¸íÀÌ ¾Ç°ú Æı«Àû ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °¡´É¼ºÀ» º¸¾Ò´Ù. °úÇÐÀû Áøº¸¿Í ±â¼úÀû Áøº¸´Â °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀ»- ±×·± ¼ºÀå¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÀÌ·ïÁø ¹æÇâ°ú´Â »ó°ü¾øÀÌ- ¼¶±ä´Ù.(µ½´Â´Ù.)
Çö´ë¿¡ À־ ÀüÀïÀÇ ¾Ç½ÅµéÀº ÆòÈ­·Î¿î °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸¸¦ À§ÇÑ °úÇÐÀû ¹ß¸íÀ» ¶ÇÇÑ ÀüÀï¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ¼¶±èÀ» ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù. ¸ðµç °æÁ¦»ýÈ°Àº »ê¾÷ÁÖÀǷκÎÅÍ ±º»çÀû ¸ñÀûÀ» ºÎ¿©¹Þ¾Ò´Ù. °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú Áøº¸°¡ ÀüÀïÀ» ¾ïÁ¦ÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â À¯·´ öÇÐÀÚµé°ú °úÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ Èñ¸ÁµéÀº Çã»ç¿´´Ù.  20¼¼±â ÃÊ¿¡, À¯·´ÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä ¿­°­µéÀº 400¸¸ ¸íÀÇ ¹«Àå ±ºÀ» º¸À¯Çß´Ù. ÀÌ ±º»ç·ÂÀº È®ÀåµÇ¾î 3,000¸¸ ³»Áö 4,000¸¸ ¸í¿¡ À̸¦ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¿À´Ã³¯ ÀÌ ¼öÄ¡´Â ¾Æ¸¶ 5-6¹è ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î Áõ°¡µÇ¾úÀ» °Í °°´Ù.
"ÀüÀïÀÇ ¾Ç½ÅÀº °ÅÀÇ ÀÚ¿¬ °°Àº ºñÀΰÝÀûÀÎ ±â°èÀû ¸ô·Ï(¿ªÀÚ ÁÖ: °í´ë Æä´ÏÅ°¾ÆÀÇ ½Å)À¸·Î º¯ÇØÁ³´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ Àΰ£ÀÇ Áö¼º¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© °ÅÀÇ ¸ðµç Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ÀÚ³àµéÀ» ÇÑ ÀÔ¿¡ »ïÄѹö·ÁÁú ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï ¸¸µé¾îÁ³´Ù."
     Commenting on the fact that the mechanization of war has diminished the extent to which physical courage is essential for victory,  Professor  Nef emphasizes the importance for victory to "organize industrial production, to deliver weapons and missiles in profusion, and to guide by technical rules the hands of the fighters."27
     Earlier the  English writer,  Leonard  Woolf, had advanced a somewhat similar view when he said that the evaluation of the modern national state had an immediate effect on the nature of war due to the birth of  Napoleon  Bonaparte and the industrial revolution.  The genius of  Napoleon, says  Woolf, consisted  "in a superhuman ability to move large masses of men about in fields, over roads, across rivers and mountains, in such a way that they were infallibly brought into positions where they could destroy other large masses of men." 28
     Industrial growth may affect wars but it does not start them. Men do that and they need not the genius of  Napoleon.

ÀüÀïÀÇ ±â°èÈ­´Â ½Â¸®¸¦ À§ÇÑ À°Ã¼Àû ¿ë±âÀÇ ÇÊ¿äÀÇ Á¤µµ¸¦ °¨¼Ò½ÃÄ×´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ³íÆòÇϸ鼭,  ³×ÇÁ ±³¼ö´Â ½Â¸®¸¦ À§ÇØ »ê¾÷»ý»êÀ» Á¶Á÷ÇÏ°í, ¹«±â·ù¸¦ dzºÎÈ÷ °ø±ÞÇÏ°í, ÀüÅõ º´µéÀÇ ¼ÕµéÀ» ±â¼úÀû ±ÔÄ¢À¸·Î ÁöµµÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÇ Á߿伺À» °­Á¶ÇÑ´Ù.
ÀÏÂïÀÌ ¿µ±¹ ÀÛ°¡ ·¹¿À³ªµå ¿ïÇÁ´Â,  ±×°¡ ±Ù´ë ¹ÎÁ·±¹°¡ÀÇ ¹ß´ÞÀº ³ªÆú·¹¿ÂÀÇ Åº»ý°ú »ê¾÷Çõ¸í ¶§¹®¿¡ ÇϳªÀÇ Á÷Á¢Àû È¿°ú¸¦ ÀüÀïÀÇ ¼º°Ý¿¡ ÁÖ¾ú´Ù°í ¸»ÇßÀ» ¶§ ¾ó¸¶°£ ºñ½ÁÇÑ °ßÇظ¦ Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù. ³ªÆú·¹¿ÂÀÇ ÃµÀç(Àç´É)´Â ´ë±Ô¸ðÀÇ º´·ÂÀ», ±×µéÀÌ ´Ù¸¥ ´ë·®ÀÇ »ç¶÷µéÀ» Æı«ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °÷¿¡ ¿À·ù ¾øÀÌ È®½ÇÇÏ°Ô ÁøÁö¿¡ ÅõÀԵǴ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î  Æò¿ø¿¡, µµ·Î»ó¿¡, °­µé°ú »êµé À§¿¡ À̵¿½ÃÅ°´Â ÃÊÀÎÀÇ ´É·Â¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù°í ¿ïÇÁ´Â ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
»ê¾÷¼ºÀåÀº ÀüÀï¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÙ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±×°ÍÀº ÀüÀïÀ» ½ÃÀÛÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. Àΰ£Àº ÀüÀïÀ» ÀÏÀ¸Å²´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±×µéÀº ÀÌÁ¦ ³ªÆú·¹¿ÂÀÇ ÃµÀ縦 ÇÊ¿ä·Î ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.

¥±. THE  PATH  TO  PROGRESS (Áøº¸ÀÇ ±æ)

     The eminent historian  J. B. Bury in his  The  Idea of Progress offered the view that we have come to judge a civilization as good or bad according to whether or not it is progressive because the expression  "civilization and progress"  had become stereotyped. 29  It seems, however, beyond dispute that the idea of civilization and progress originated with the  French.  According to the  French historian,  Guizot,  France was the doorway to  European civilization.  Says he: "It is not necessary to flatter anyone, not even one's country; however,  I believe that it can be said without flattery that  France has been the centre, the entrance to civilization."30
    Civilization also meant progress to that great twentieth century humanitarian,  Albert  Schweitzer, and progress both spiritually and materially and for the mass as well as the individual.  Progress meant for him:  "The establishment of as favorable conditions as possible for all is a demand which must be made partly for its own sake, partly with a view to the spiritual and moral perfecting of individuals, which is the ultimate object of civilization."31.

Àú¸íÇÑ ¿ª»çÇÐÀÚ ºÎ¸®´Â ±×ÀÇ Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³ä¿¡¼­, ¿ì¸®´Â "¹®¸í°ú Áøº¸"¶ó´Â Ç¥ÇöÀÌ ÆÇ¿¡ ¹ÚÇô¼­ ¾²¿´±â ¶§¹®¿¡  ¹®¸íÀÌ Áøº¸ÀûÀΰ¡ ¾Æ´Ñ°¡¿¡ µû¶ó¼­ ¹®¸íÀÇ ¼±¾ÇÀ» ÆÇ´ÜÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù´Â °ßÇظ¦ Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¹®¸í°ú Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³äÀº ÇÁ¶û½º»ç¶÷À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ À¯·¡Çß´Ù´Â °ÍÀº ³íÀïÀÇ ¿©Áö°¡ ¾ø´Â °Í °°´Ù. ÇÁ¶û½º ¿ª»çÇÐÀÚÀÎ ±âÁ¶¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé, ÇÁ¶û½º´Â À¯·´¹®¸íÀÇ ¹®È£(Ú¦ûÂ)¿´´Ù. ±×´Â " ´©±¸¿¡°Ôµµ, ½ÉÁö¾î ÀÚ±âÀÇ ³ª¶ó¿¡µµ ¾Æ÷ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ³ª´Â ÇÁ¶û½º´Â ¹®¸íÀÇ Áß½ÉÀÌ°í, ÀÔ±¸¿´´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¾Æ÷ ¾øÀÌ µéÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù°í ¹Ï´Â´Ù."¶ó°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
¹®¸íÀº ¶ÇÇÑ Àú 20¼¼±â ÀεµÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÎ ¾Ë¹öÆ® ½´¹ÙÀÌó¿¡°Ô´Â Áøº¸¸¦ ÀǹÌÇß´Ù. ±×¸®°í Áøº¸´Â Á¤½ÅÀû Áøº¸¿Í µ¿½Ã¿¡ ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸¸¦ ÀǹÌÇß°í, °³ÀÎÀû Áøº¸»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ´Ù¼ö(Áý´Ü)ÀÇ Áøº¸¸¦ ÀǹÌÇß´Ù. ±×¿¡°Ô À־ Áøº¸´Â ´ÙÀ½ ¸»À» ÀǹÌÇß´Ù. "¸ðµç »ç¶÷À» À§Çؼ­ °¡´ÉÇÑ ÇÑ ¹Ù¶÷Á÷ÇÑ È¯°æÀ» È®¸³ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº  ºÎºÐÀûÀ¸·Î ±× ȯ°æ È®¸³ÀÇ ¿ä±¸ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¸¸µé¾îÁ®¾ßÇÏ°í, ºÎºÐÀûÀ¸·Î ¹®¸íÀÇ ±Ã±ØÀû ¸ñÀûÀÎ °³ÀÎÀÇ Á¤½ÅÀû, µµ´öÀû ¿Ï¼ºÀ» À§ÇÑ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ¸¸µé¾îÁ®¾ßÇÑ´Ù."  

    There was no doubt in  Schweitzer's mind that economic growth was necessary for the advancement of civilization.  To this end it was necessary for man to gain control over the dispositions of men.  Economic growth is not an end in itself.  Listen to  Schweitzer when he says: "Ethical progress is ¡¦ that which is truly of the essence of civilization, and has only one significance; material progress is that which is less essential and may have a good or bad effect on the development of civilization."32  Civilization, in other words, is embodied in the  German work  Kultur which signifies  "the development of man to a state of higher organization and higher moral standard."33

°æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀÌ ¹®¸íÀÇ Áøº¸¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ÇÊ¿äÇß´Ù´Â ½´¹ÙÀÌóÀÇ ¸¶À½¿¡´Â ÀǽÉÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´Ù.  ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© Àΰ£ÀÌ Àΰ£ÀÇ ±âÁú(¼ºÇâ)À» Áö¹èÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇß´Ù. °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº ±× ÀÚü°¡ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ½´¹ÙÀÌó°¡ ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» µé¾î¶ó.  "À±¸®Àû Áøº¸´Â......ÂüÀ¸·Î ¹®¸íÀÇ º»ÁúÀû ¿ä¼ÒÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¿ÀÁ÷ ÇÑ °¡Áö Áß¿äÇÑ Àǹ̸¦ °®°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸´Â ´ú º»ÁúÀûÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸´Â ¹®¸íÀÇ ¹ßÀü¿¡ ÁÁÀº È¿°ú¸¦ ÁÙ ¼öµµ ÀÖ°í, ȤÀº ³ª»Û È¿°ú¸¦ ÁÙ ¼ö µµ ÀÖ´Ù. ¹®¸íÀº, ´Ù¸¥ ¸»·Î, ¹®È­(kultur)¶ó´Â µ¶ÀϾ ±¸Ã¼È­ µÇ¾îÀÖ´Ù. ±× ¸»Àº " ´õ ³ôÀº üÁ¦(Áú¼­)¿Í ´õ ³ôÀº µµ´öÀû Ç¥ÁØÀÇ »óÅ¿¡·ÎÀÇ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹ßÀü"À» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù.

     Schweitzer felt constrained to criticize when progress in the nineteenth century seemed to lose its ethical spur as it was restricted to the material sphere where it had advanced with phenomenal speed.  "In this way," complains  Schweitzer, "our own age, having never taken the trouble to reflect, arrived at the opinion that civilization consists primarily in scientific,  technical and artistic achievements, and that it can reach its goal without ethics, or at any rate with a minimum of them."34
     The view that progress and civilization consisted in material progress, in economic growth, did not sit lightly with the eminent Tawney: "If the kingdom of  Heaven is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace, neither is civilization the multiplication of motor-cars and cinemas, or of any other of the innumerable devices by which men accumulate means of ever increasing intricacy to the attainment of ends which are not worth attaining."35

½´¹ÙÀÌó´Â 19¼¼±âÀÇ Áøº¸°¡ ¹°ÁúÀûÀÎ ¿µ¿ª¿¡ ÇÑÁ¤µÇ¾î ³î¶ó¿î ¼Óµµ·Î ¹ßÀüÇؼ­ ±×ÀÇ À±¸®ÀûÀÎ ¹Ú·ÂÀ» »ó½ÇÇÑ °Íó·³ º¸¿´À» ¶§ ºñÆÇÀ» Çؾ߸¸ Çß´Ù. ½´¹ÙÀÌó´Â "ÀÌ·± ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î" ÇÑźÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. "¿ì¸® ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ½Ã´ë´Â ¼÷°íÇÏ´Â ¼ö°í¸¦ ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò±â ¶§¹®¿¡, ¹®¸íÀº ÁÖ·Î °úÇÐÀû, ±â¼úÀû, ¿¹¼úÀû ¼ºÃë¿¡ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù´Â ÀÇ°ß¿¡ µµ´ÞÇß´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ¹®¸íÀº À±¸® ¾øÀÌ, ȤÀº À־ ÃÖ¼ÒÀÇ À±¸®·Î ±×ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ µµ´ÞÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù´Â ÀÇ°ß¿¡ µµ´ÞÇß´Ù."
Áøº¸¿Í ¹®¸íÀº ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸ÀÎ °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù´Â °ßÇØ´Â Àú¸íÇÑ Å¸¿ì³×ÀÌ ¿¡°Ô´Â ½±°Ô ¾î¿ï¸®Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. "õ±¹Àº ¸Ô°í ¸¶½Ã´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÀÇ¿Í Æò°­ À̶ó¸é (¿ªÀÚÃß°¡: ·Ò14:17), ¹®¸íÀº ÀÚµ¿Â÷µé°ú ¿µÈ­µéÀÇ Áõ°¡°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ¹«¼öÇÑ ´Ù¸¥ »óÇ°µéÀÇ Áõ½Äµµ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ »óÇ°µé¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© »ç¶÷µéÀº ´Þ¼ºÇÒ °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø´Â ¸ñÀûÀÇ ´Þ¼ºÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© °è¼Ó Áõ°¡ÇÏ´Â º¹ÀâÇÑ ÀÚ»êÀ» ÃàÀçÇÑ´Ù.

     Tawney had no illusions about the meaning of progress, and has no compunctions about saying what was not in fact progress. Bemoaning the British economy, one without goals, for it was without principle,  Tawney says:

It is true that the mark of civilization is respect for excellence in the things of the spirit, and a readiness to incur sacrifice for the sake of fostering it.  It is true that excellence is impossible in the absence of severe and exacting standards of attainment and appreciation which check the taste for cheap success and shoddy achievement by cultivating a temper which discriminates ruthlessly between the admirable and the second-rate.  It is true that such a temper has no more persistent or insidious foe than the perversion of values, which confuses the ends of life with the means and elevates material prosperity, whether the interpretation put upon it is the accumulation of wealth or the diffusion of comfort, from the position of secondary and instrumental importance that properly belongs to it, into the grand and overmastering object of individual effort and public approval. 36

     The confusion of ends and means frequently results in the attachment of too much importance to the pursuit of profit, capital accumulation and economic growth.  The pursuit of wealth becomes an end in itself; our reason for being.

Ÿ¿ì³×ÀÌ´Â Áøº¸ÀÇ Àǹ̿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ¾î¶² ȯ»óµµ °®Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ±×¸®°í ½ÇÁ¦¿¡ À־´Â Áøº¸°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¸»ÇÑ °Í¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ¾î¶² ¾ç½ÉÀÇ °¡Ã¥µµ °®Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾ø´Â °æÁ¦¶ó°í ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¿µ±¹°æÁ¦¸¦ ź½ÄÇϸ鼭 (¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ¿µ±¹ °æÁ¦°¡ ¿øÄ¢ÀÌ ¾ø¾ú±â ¶§¹®¿¡),  Å¸¿ì³×ÀÌ´Â ´ÙÀ½ °°ÀÌ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

¹®¸íÀÇ Ç¥Àû(Áõ°Å)ÀÌ Á¤½ÅÀû °¡Ä¡ÀÇ ´ö¼º(°í±Í¼º)ÀÇ Á¸Áß°ú  ±× ´ö¼º(°í±Í¼º)À» Á¶ÀåÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© Èñ»ýÀ» Ä¡¸¦ °¢¿À°¡ µÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀº Áø½ÇÀÌ´Ù. °í±ÍÇÑ Á¤½ÅÀû ´ö¼ºÀº ¾ö°ÝÇÏ°í ¾ö¹ÐÇÑ ¼ºÃë¿Í Æò°¡ÀÇ ±âÁØÀÌ ¾øÀÌ´Â ºÒ°¡´ÉÇÏ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº Áø½ÇÀÌ´Ù.  ±× ±âÁØÀº ¿ì¼öÇÑ °Í°ú 2·ù(¿­µîÇÑ °Í)¸¦ ³ÃÁ¤ÇÏ°Ô ±¸ºÐÇÏ´Â ¼º¹Ì(±âÁú)¸¦ ¹è¾çÇÔÀ¸·Î½á °ª½Ñ ¼º°ø°ú ½Î±¸·ÁÀÇ ¼ºÃë¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼ºÇâÀ» ¾ïÁ¦ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ ¼º¹Ì´Â °¡Ä¡ÀÇ ¿Ö°îÀÌ °¡Àå ¿Ï°íÇϰųª, À½ÈäÇÑ Àû¼ö(¿ø¼ö)¶ó´Â °ÍÀº Áø½ÇÀÌ´Ù.(Áï ±×·¯ÇÑ ¼º¹Ì´Â °¡Ä¡¿Ö°îº¸´Ù ´õ ¿Ï°íÇϰųª À½ÈäÇÑ ÀûÀ» °®°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù. ´Ù½Ã ¸»Çϸé, °¡Ä¡¿Ö°îÀÌ °¡Àå °í¾àÇÑ ¿ø¼öÀÌ´Ù.) °¡Ä¡ÀÇ ¿Ö°îÀº »îÀÇ ¼ö´ÜÀ» ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î È¥µ¿½ÃÅ°°í, ¹°ÁúÀû ¹ø¿µ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Çؼ®ÀÌ ºÎÀÇ ÃàÀûÀÌ´ø, ¾È¶ôÀÇ È®»êÀÌ´ø, ±×°Í(¹°ÁúÀû ¹ø¿µ)¿¡ Àç´ë·Î ¼ÓÇÏ´Â ºÎ¼öÀûÀÌ°í µµ±¸ÀûÀÎ Á߿伺ÀÇ À§Ä¡·ÎºÎÅÍ °³ÀÎÀû ³ë·Â°ú  °øÀû ÀÎÁ¤ÀÇ °ÅâÇÏ°í ¾ÐµµÀûÀÎ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ³ôÀÌ µé¾î ¿Ã¸°´Ù.
¸ñÀû°ú ¼ö´ÜÀÇ È¥µ¿Àº ÀÚÁÖ ÀÌÀ±ÀÇ Ãß±¸, ÀÚº»ÀÇ ÃàÀû°ú °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡ Áö³ªÄ¡°Ô Á߿伺À» µÎ´Â ÁýÂøÀ» ÃÊ·¡ÇÑ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ºÎÀÇ Ãß±¸ ÀÚü°¡ ¸ñÀûÀÌ µÇ°í,  °ð ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Á¸ÀçÀÌÀ¯°¡ µÈ´Ù.
*********************************

     In his book,  Observations on the  Continuous  Progress of  Civilization,  1737, the  Abbe de  Saint  Pierre, a  Deist and a utilitarian, advanced another concept of civilization.  It is in the writings of the  Abbe, who believed that  La cathedrale de  Notre Dame had little value compared to that of a road, canal, or bridge, that we find the theory of intellectual progress enlarged to include the idea of the progress of man toward social perfection.  In his  Observations, the  Abbe compared the life of humanity to the life of the individual and reached the conclusion that civilization was only in the infancy of human reason.

ÀÚ¿¬½Å·ÐÀÚÀÌ¸ç °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÎ ¾Æº£ µå »ý »ß¿¡¸£´Â ±×ÀÇ Ã¥, '¹®¸íÀÇ °è¼ÓÀû Áøº¸¿¡ °üÇÑ °üÂû'(1737)¿¡¼­ ¹®¸íÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ °³³äÀ» Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù. ¿ì¸®°¡, ÁöÀû Áøº¸ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ »çȸÀû ¿ÏÀüÀ» ÇâÇÑ Àΰ£ÀÇ Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³äÀ» Æ÷ÇÔÇϵµ·Ï È®´ëµÇ´Â °ÍÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÑ °ÍÀº ¾Æº£ÀÇ ÀÛÇ°¿¡¼­ÀÌ´Ù. ¾Æº£´Â  ³ë¶ß¸£´ã »ç¿øÀ» ¾î¶² µµ·Î, ¿îÇÏ, ¶Ç´Â ±³·®¿¡ ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© °ÅÀÇ °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø´Ù´Â ¹ÏÀ½À» °¡Á³´Ù. ±×ÀÇ À§ Ã¥¿¡¼­, ¾Æº£´Â ÀηùÀÇ »ý¾Ö¸¦ °³ÀÎÀÇ »ý¾Ö¿¡ ºñ±³Çß°í, ¹®¸íÀº Àΰ£ À̼ºÀÇ À¯¾Æ±â¿¡ ÀÖ¾úÀ» »ÓÀ̾ú´Ù´Â °á·Ð¿¡ µµ´ÞÇß´Ù.
     The Abbe saw in the "advance" of civilization the same weakness as that to which  Schweitzer was later to bring our attention.  Claiming that the literary works of the English and  French compared favorably with those of  Aristotle and  Plato, the Abbe advanced the view that morals and the general level of happiness had changed imperceptibly.  "Our mediocre savants know twenty times as much as  Socrates and  Confucius but our most virtuous men are not more virtuous than they."37  For this reason, the  Abbe lamented the neglect of the study of ethics and politics.  For him it was "a grave misfortune that  Descartes and  Newton did not devote themselves to perfecting these sciences (Ethics and  Politics),  so incomparably more useful for mankind than those in which they had made their great discoveries." 38
     The  Abbe was the forerunner of the  Encyclopaedists, those eighteenth century  French thinkers who did so much to nurture the humanist spirit, and who, in their writings, revealed their superb sense of the dignity of man.  Their belief in man is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the writings of  Anne - Robert - Jacques  Turgot, economist and administrator, and a  Physiocrat, according to some, who believed with  Abbe de  Saint Pierre in the infancy of humanity.  In his famous discourse  "A Philosophical  Review of the  Successive  Advances of the Human Mind," 1750, he says,  "¡¦ the human race, considered over the period since its origin, appears to the eye of a philosopher as one vast whole, which itself, like each individual has its infancy and its advancement." 39

¾Æº£´Â ¹®¸íÀÇ "Áøº¸"¿¡¼­ ³ªÁß¿¡ ½´¹ÙÀÌó°¡ ¿ì¸®¸¦ ÁÖ¸ñ½Ãų ¶È °°Àº ¾àÁ¡À» º¸¾Ò´Ù.
¿µ±¹°ú ÇÁ¶û½ºÀÇ ¹®ÇÐÀÛÇ°µéÀÌ ¾Æ¸®½ºÅäÅÚ·¹½º¿Í ÇöóÅæÀÇ ÀÛÇ°µé°ú ÀûÀýÇÏ°Ô ºñ±³µÇ¾ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÁÖÀåÇϸ鼭, ¾Æº£´Â µµ´ö°ú ÇູÀÇ ÀϹÝÀû ¼öÁØÀº ¹Ì¹ÌÇÏ°Ô º¯Çß´Ù´Â °ßÇظ¦ Á¦ÃâÇß´Ù.
"¿ì¸®ÀÇ Æò¹üÇÑ ÇÐÀÚµéÀº ¼ÒÅ©¶óÅ×½º¿Í °øÀÚÀÇ 20¹è¸¸Å­ ¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿ì¸® ½Ã´ëÀÇ °¡Àå ÈǸ¢ÇÑ µµ´öÀÎÁ¶Â÷µµ ±×µéº¸´Ù ´õ µµ´ö¼ºÀÌ ³ôÁö ¸øÇÏ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ÀÌÀ¯ ¶§¹®¿¡, ¾Æº£´Â À±¸®Çаú Á¤Ä¡ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¼ÒȦ(¹«½Ã)À» ½½ÆÛÇß´Ù. ¾Æº£¿¡°Ô À־´Â µ¥Ä«¸£Æ®¿Í ´ºÅæÀÌ À̵é Çй®µé(À±¸®Çаú Á¤Ä¡ÇÐ)ÀÇ ¿Ï¼ºÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© Åõ½ÅÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´ø °ÍÀº ½É°¢ÇÑ ºÒÇàÀ̾ú´Ù. (±× ÀÌÀ¯´Â) À̵é Çй®µé(À±¸®Çаú Á¤Ä¡ÇÐ)Àº ±×µé(µ¥Ä«¸£Æ®¿Í ´ºÅæ)ÀÌ ±×µéÀÇ À§´ëÇÑ ¹ß°ßÀ» ÀÌ·èÇß´ø ºÐ¾ßº¸´Ù Àηù¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¸Å¿ì ºñ±³ÇÒ ¼ö ¾øÀÌ ´õ À¯¿ëÇϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.
¾Æº£´Â Àι®ÁÖÀÇ Á¤½ÅÀÇ ÇԾ翡 Áö´ëÇÑ °øÇåÀ» Çß°í, ±×µéÀÇ ÀÛÇ°µé¿¡¼­ Àΰ£Á¸¾ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¶Ù¾î³­ ÀνÄ(ÃÖ°íÀÇ ÀǽÄ)À» ³ªÅ¸³Â´ø 18¼¼±â ÇÁ¶û½º »ç»ó°¡µéÀ̾ú´ø ¹é°ú»çÀüÆíÁýÀÚµéÀÇ ¼±±¸ÀÚ¿´´Ù. ±×µéÀÇ Àΰ£½Å¾Ó(Àΰ£°ü)Àº, ¾î¶² ºÐµé¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé, ¾Æº£ µå ½ß »ß¿¡¸£¿Í ÀηùÀÇ À¯¾Æ±â¸¦ °ø°¨Çß´ø, °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀ̸ç, ÇàÁ¤°¡À̸ç, Áß³óÁÖÀÇÀÚ¿´´ø ¾È´À-·Îº£¸£-ÀÚ²ô ¶Ù¸£°íÀÇ ÀÛÇ°µé¿¡¼­º¸´Ù ´õ ¸í¹éÈ÷ ¼³¸íµÈ °÷Àº ¾ø´Ù.
"Àΰ£Á¤½ÅÀÇ °è¼ÓÀû Áøº¸¿¡ °üÇÑ Ã¶ÇÐÀû °íÂû"(1750)À̶ó´Â ±×ÀÇ ³í¹®¿¡¼­, ±×´Â ".........ÀηùÀÇ ±â¿øÀÌÈĸ¦ Á× °í·ÁÇßÀ» ¶§, Àηù´Â öÇÐÀÚÀÇ ´«¿¡´Â ÇϳªÀÇ Å« ÅëÀÏü·Î º¸ÀÌ´Â °Í °°´Ù. ±× ÅëÀÏü ÀÚü´Â °¢ °³Àΰú °°ÀÌ ±×°ÍÀÇ À¯¾Æ±â¿Í ±×°ÍÀÇ ¼ºÀå±â¸¦ °®´Â´Ù.

     His hopes for humanity and his optimism about the future are reflected in the following words:

Self-interest, ambition, and vainglory continually change the world scene and inundate the earth with blood; yet in the midst of their ravages manners are softened, the human mind becomes more enlightened, and separate nations are brought closer to one another.  Finally, commercial and political ties unite all parts of the globe, and the whole human race, through alternate periods of rest and unrest, of weal and woe, goes on advancing, although at a slow pace, towards greater perfection.40

Àηù¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ Èñ¸Á°ú ±× Àå·¡¿¡ °üÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ³«°ü·ÐÀº ´ÙÀ½ ±Û¿¡ ¹Ý¿µµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

À̱âÁÖÀÇ, ¾ß¸Á, ÀÚ¸¸½ÉÀº °è¼ÓÀûÀ¸·Î ¼¼°èÀÇ Àå¸éÀ» º¯È­½ÃŲ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÇÇ·Î Áö±¸¸¦ ¹ü¶÷½ÃŲ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±×µéÀÇ Æı« Áß¿¡¼­µµ dz½ÀÀº ¼øÈ­µÇ°í, Àΰ£ÀÇ ¸¶À½Àº ±³È­µÇ°í, °¥¶óÁø ±¹°¡µéÀº ¼­·Î Á¡Á¡ °¡±î¿öÁø´Ù. ¸¶Ä§³» »ó¾÷Àû, Á¤Ä¡Àû À¯´ë´Â Áö±¸ÀÇ ¸ðµç ºÎºÐÀ» °áÇÕ½ÃŲ´Ù.  ±×¸®°í ¿Â Àηù´Â, Æò¾È°ú ºÒ¾ÈÀÇ ±â°£À» ±³Ã¼Çϸç, ¶Ç´Â È­(ü¡)¿Í º¹(ÜØ)ÀÇ ±â°£À» ±³Ã¼Çϸ鼭, ºñ·Ï ´À¸° °ÉÀ½ÀÌÁö¸¸, ´õ Å« ¿ÏÀüÀ» ÇâÇÏ¿© ³ª¾Æ°£´Ù.

     Although the whole world is not yet united by commercial and political ties there seems nothing unethical about a readiness to share with  Turgot his aspirations for the human race's advancement towards greater perfection.
     For  Diderot, who directed the  Encyclopaedia, man was all that mattered.  Voltaire's view of man as an insect crawling on a heap of mud left him free to chart his own destiny, free at last from the trappings of final causes and original sin.  The complete faith of the  Encyclopaedists in man's perfectibility, in his indefinite improvement, dominated  French thinking in this era.  Truth, however, was no longer being sought for its, own sake but for its utility.
     In 1770,   Sebastien  Mercier wrote in his book  L'an 2440: "¡¦ where can the perfectibility of man stop, armed with geometry and the mechanical arts and chemistry?"41
     In  Germany,  Herder in his  Ideas of the  Philosophy of the History of  Humanity, 1784, opposed the view of a unique state of perfection as the goal of history.  Instead he held that  all forms of society are equally legitimate, the imperfect as well as the perfect; all are ends in themselves, not mere stages on the way to something better. 42

ºñ·Ï ¿Â ¼¼°è°¡ ¾ÆÁ÷ »ó¾÷Àû, Á¤Ä¡Àû À¯´ë(ëªÓá)¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© °áÇÕµÇÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ»Áö¶óµµ ´õ Å« ¿ÏÀüÀ» ÇâÇÏ¿© Àηù°¡ ³ª¾Æ°¡´Â °Í¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ¿­¸ÁÀ» ¶Ù¸£°í¿Í ±â²¨ÀÌ °øÀ¯ÇÏ·Á´Â °Í¿¡ ºñÀ±¸®ÀûÀÎ °ÍÀº ¾ø´Â °Í °°´Ù. ¹é°ú»çÀüÀ» ÁöµµÇß´ø µðµå·Î¿¡°Ô À־´Â Àΰ£¸¸ÀÌ Áß¿äÇÑ Á¸Àç¿´´Ù. º¼¶¼¸£ÀÇ Àΰ£À» Èë´õ¹Ì À§¸¦ ±â¾î´Ù´Ï´Â °ïÃæÀ¸·Î º¸´Â °ßÇØ(¿ªÀÚ º¸Ãæ: ÀÌ °ßÇØÀÇ ¼ûÀº ¶æÀº Àΰ£Àº ÀÚÀ¯ÀÇÁö°¡ ¾ø´Â »ý¹°Àû Á¸Àç¶ó´Â °Í °°´Ù.)´Â Àΰ£ÀÌ ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¿î¸íÀ» ±×¸®´Â °Í(°èȹÇÏ´Â °Í)À» ÀÚÀ¯·Ó°Ô Çؼ­, ¸¶Ä§³» ÃÖÁ¾ÀûÀÎ ¿øÀεé°ú ¿øÁËÀÇ ¿Ã°¡¹Ì·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀÚÀ¯·Óµµ·Ï Çß´Ù. ¹é°ú»çÀüÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀÇ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¿ÏÀü°¡´É¼º Áï ¹«ÇÑÇÑ °³¼±°¡´É¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀüÀûÀÎ ¹ÏÀ½Àº ÀÌ ½Ã´ëÀÇ ÇÁ¶û½ºÀÎÀÇ »ç°í(»ç»ó)¸¦ Áö¹èÇß´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Áø¸®´Â ´õ ÀÌ»ó Áø¸®ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Ãß±¸µÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò°í ±×ÀÇ È¿¿ë(°ø¸®)À» À§ÇÏ¿© Ãß±¸µÇ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.  
1770³â¿¡ ½ê¹Ù½º¶ì¾Ó ¸Þ¸£¾¾¿¡¸£´Â '2440³â'À̶ó´Â ±×ÀÇ Ã¥¿¡¼­  "..........±âÇÏÇÐ, ±â°èÀû ±â¼ú°ú È­ÇÐÀ¸·Î ¹«ÀåµÈ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¿ÏÀü °¡´É¼ºÀº ¾îµð¼­ ¸ØÃâ ¼ö ÀÖÀ»±î?"¶ó°í ½è´Ù.
µ¶ÀÏ¿¡¼­, Ç츣´õ´Â ±×ÀÇ 'Àηù»çÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀÇ °ü³ä'(1784)¿¡¼­ ¿ª»çÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥·Î¼­  µ¶Æ¯ÇÑ ¿ÏÀü »óŸ¦ ¹Ý´ëÇß´Ù.  ´ë½Å ±×´Â ¸ðµç ÇüÅÂÀÇ »çȸ´Â ¿ÏÀüÇÑ °ÍÀ̵ç, ºÒ¿ÏÀüÇÑ °ÍÀ̵ç, ¶È°°ÀÌ Á¤´ç(ÇÕ¹ýÀû)ÇÏ´Ù. ¸ðµç °ÍÀº ´ÜÁö ´õ ³ªÀº °Í¿¡ ³ª¾Æ°¡´Â ´Ü°è°¡ ¾Æ´Ñ, ±× ÀÚüµé·Î¼­ ¸ñÀûµéÀÌ µÈ´Ù.

    In the genius of  Immanuel  Kant, there lingered an uncompromising and intractable opponent of eudaemonism.  According to him man's proper end in life was not the pursuit of happiness but the development of his rational faculty:

Not in a being which has reason and a will, if the proper object of nature were its conservation, its welfare, in a word, its happiness, then nature would have hit upon a very bad arrangement in selection the reason of the creature to carry out this purpose.  For all the actions which the creature has to perform with a view to this purpose, and the whole rule of its conduct would be far more surely prescribed to it by instinct, and that end would have been attained thereby much more certainly than it ever can be by reason. 43

ÀÓ¸¶´©¿¤ Ä­Æ®ÀÇ ÃµÀçÀûÀÎ ¸¶À½¿¡¼­´Â, ´ÜÈ£ÇÏ°í ¾ïô½º·¯¿î Çູ·ÐÀÇ ¹Ý´ëÀڷΠ °í¼öÇß´Ù. ±×¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé Àΰ£ÀÇ º»¿¬ÀÇ »îÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÇູÀÇ Ãß±¸°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í Àΰ£ÀÇ À̼ºÀû ´É·ÂÀÇ °è¹ßÀÌ´Ù.

À̼º°ú ÀÇÁö°¡ ÀÖ´Â Á¸Àç¿¡ À־´Â ÇູÀÇ Ãß±¸°¡ ÀλýÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ º¸Á¸, ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ º¹Áö, ÇÑ ¸¶µð·Î ÇູÀ̶ó¸é, ÀÚ¿¬Àº ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» ¼öÇàÇÏ´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ À̼ºÀ» ¼±ÅÃÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ½ÉÇÑ ³­°ü¿¡ ºÀÂøÇßÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Àΰ£ÀÌ ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» ¿°µÎ¿¡ µÎ°í ¼öÇàÇؾßÇÏ´Â ¸ðµç ÇàÀ§¿Í Àΰ£ÇൿÀÇ ¸ðµç ±ÔÄ¢Àº º»´É¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÈξÀ È®½ÇÇÏ°Ô Àΰ£¿¡ Áö½ÃµÉ °ÍÀ̸ç, ±×·¸°Ô ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ±× ¸ñÀûÀº À̼º¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¼ºÃë µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °Íº¸´Ù ÈξÀ ´õ È®½ÇÇÏ°Ô ¼ºÃëµÇ¾úÀ» °ÍÀ̱⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.

     To  Kant the foundation of progress lay in ethical progress, moral amelioration.  To act in an ethical fashion was for  Kant an absolute obligation founded in reason.  Kant believed there had actually been some progress in that direction.
     The great  German poet and philosopher,  Johann  Wolfgang von  Goethe, 1749-1832, on the other hand, was extremely skeptical of the idea of progress.  Obstacles to progress were everywhere to be found.  Success was not assured.  "The world will not reach its goal as quickly as we think or wish.  The retarding demons are always there, intervening and resisting everywhere, so that although there is progress, it is very slow.  Live longer and you will discover that  I am right."44
     Goethe further believed that the development of humanity might take hundreds of years even millions.  Human beings may become cleverer and more prudent, but not happier nor more energetic, except for brief periods.  In fact, says  Goethe rather ominously, "I see the time coming when  God will no longer have any more pleasure in humanity, and has to destroy everything once more for a rejuvenated creation."45

Ä­Æ®¿¡°Ô´Â Áøº¸ÀÇ ±âÃÊ´Â À±¸®Àû Áøº¸, Áï µµ´öÀû °³¼±¿¡ µÎ°í ÀÖ´Ù. Ä­Æ®¿¡°Ô´Â À±¸®Àû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ÇൿÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº À̼º¿¡ ±Ù°ÅÇÑ Àý´ëÀû Àǹ«ÀÌ´Ù. Ä­Æ®´Â ½ÇÁ¦·Î ±× ¹æ¸é¿¡  ¾ó¸¶ÀÇ Áøº¸°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¹Ï¾ú´Ù. ¹Ý¸é¿¡ À§´ëÇÑ µ¶ÀÏ ½ÃÀÎÀ̸ç öÇÐÀÚÀÎ ¿äÇÑ º¼ÇÁ °­ Æù ±«Å×(1749-1832)´Â ±Ø´ÜÀûÀ¸·Î Áøº¸ÀÇ °ü³ä¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ȸÀÇÀûÀ̾ú´Ù. Áøº¸ÀÇ Àå¾Ö´Â µµÃ³¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ß µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¼º°øÀº º¸ÀåµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.
"¼¼°è´Â ¿ì¸®°¡ »ý°¢Çϰųª ¼Ò¿øÇÏ´Â ¸¸Å­ »¡¸® ±×ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ µµ´ÞÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¹æÇØÇÏ´Â ¾Ç¸¶µéÀº µµÃ³¿¡¼­, °£¼·Çϸ鼭, ¹æÇØÇϸ鼭, Ç×»ó ±×°÷¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.  ±×·¡¼­ Áøº¸°¡ ÀÖ¾úÀ»Áö¶óµµ, ±×°ÍÀº ¸Å¿ì ´À·È´Ù. ´õ ¿À·¡ »ç½Ã¿À ±×·¯¸é ±×´ë´Â ³»°¡ ¿Ç´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù."  ±«Å״  ÀηùÀÇ ¹ßÀüÀº ¼ö ¹é ³â,  ½ÉÁö¾î ¼ö ¹é¸¸ ³âÀÌ °É¸± °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀ» ´õ¿í ´õ ¹Ï¾ú´Ù. Àΰ£Àº ´õ Çö¸íÇØÁö°í, ´õ ½ÅÁßÇØÁúÁöµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Àá½Ã µ¿¾ÈÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÏ°í´Â ´õ ÇູÇØÁöÁöµµ ¾Ê°í, ´õ È°·ÂÀÌ ³ÑÄ¡Áöµµ ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
»ç½Ç ±«Å×´Â "³ª´Â Çϳª´ÔÀº ´õ ÀÌ»ó Àΰ£¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áñ°Å¿òÀ» °®Áö ¾ÊÀ¸½Ç °ÍÀÌ°í, ÀçâÁ¶¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Çѹø ´õ ¸ðµç °ÍÀ» Æı«ÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù."°í ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ºÒ±æÇÏ°Ô ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

     The search for a law of progress was conducted in the nineteenth century by other such distinguished  Frenchmen as  Fourier,  Saint-Simon, and  Augustus  Comte.  Due to the far-reaching effects of  Newton's  Newton's discoveries,  Fourier engaged in a search for a law which would coordinate the facts to be found in the realm of morality, in the same way that the law of gravity had coordinated the facts of the physical world.  His efforts bore fruit in the form of a law called  Passional  Attraction.  It proved to be valueless.
     For  Saint-Simon the golden age lay ahead of us and was one in which the social order would be perfected.  Saint-Simon, rejecting the watchwords of democracy, saw the future well-being of society taking the form of socialism,  As a diviner of the future,  Comte failed just as miserably as had  Fourier and  Saint-Simon.  The era of peace which he claimed to have foreseen never arrived.  He died in 1857.
     The best known work of another great  Frenchman of this era,  Ernest  Renan,  L' avenir de la science,  1848, was not published until forty years later.  At the time of writing,  Renan believed that reason, the scientific spirit, would ultimately enable men to reach an ideal state of civilization in which all would be equal.  Said he: "The goal of humanity is not tranquillity; it is intellectual and moral perfection.  The most dangerous state for humanity will be that where the majority finds itself at ease and not wishing to be disturbed will maintain its repose at the expense of thought and an oppressed minority."46

Áøº¸ÀÇ ¹ýÄ¢¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ãß±¸´Â 19¼¼±â¿¡ Ǫ¸®¿¡¸£, ½ß ½Ã¸ù, ±×¸®°í ¾î±Í½º¶Ù ²Ç¶ß¿Í °°Àº ´Ù¸¥ Àú¸íÇÑ ÇÁ¶û½º »ç¶÷µé¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù.  ´ºÅæÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀÇ ¿ø´ëÇÑ È¿°ú ¶§¹®¿¡ Ǫ¸®¿¡¸£´Â Áß·ÂÀÇ ¹ýÄ¢ÀÌ ÀÚ¿¬°èÀÇ »ç½Ç°ú Á¶È­(ÀÏÄ¡)ÇÏ´Â °Í°ú °°Àº ÀÌÄ¡·Î µµ´öÀû ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÇ´Â »ç½Ç°ú Á¶È­ÇÏ´Â ¹ýÄ¢ÀÇ Á¶»ç¿¡ Á¾»çÇß´Ù. ±×ÀÇ ³ë·ÂÀº 'Á¤¿åÀÇ ÀηÂ'À̶ó°í ºÒ¸®´Â ¹ýÄ¢ÀÇ ÇüÅ·Π¿­¸Å¸¦ ¸Î¾ú´Ù.  ±×·¯³ª ±×°ÍÀº °¡Ä¡ ¾ø´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆǸíµÇ¾ú´Ù. ½ß ½Ã¸ù¿¡°Ô À־ Ȳ±Ý½Ã´ë´Â ¿ì¸®(Àηù)¾Õ¿¡ ³õ¿© ÀÖ¾ú°í, »çȸÀÇ Áú¼­°¡ ¿ÏÀüÇÏ°Ô µÇ´Â ½Ã´ë¿´´Ù. ½ß ½Ã¸ùÀº ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀǶó´Â Ç¥¾î(¸ðÅä)¸¦ °ÅºÎÇϸ鼭, »çȸÀÇ Àå·¡º¹Áö°¡ »çȸÁÖÀÇÀÇ ÇüŸ¦ ¶ì´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸¾Ò´Ù. Àå·¡¿¡ °üÇÑ Á¡ÀïÀ̷μ­ ²Ç¶ß´Â Ǫ¸®¿¡¸£¿Í ½ß ½Ã¸ùÀÌ ½ÇÆÐÇß´ø °Í°ú ¶È°°ÀÌ ºÒ»ó ÇÏ°Ô ½ÇÆÐÇß´Ù. ±×°¡ ¿¹°ßÇß´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇß´ø ÆòÈ­ÀÇ ½Ã´ë´Â °áÄÚ ¿ÀÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ±×´Â 1587³â¿¡ Á×¾ú´Ù.  ÀÌ ½Ã´ëÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ À§´ëÇÑ ÇÁ¶û½º »ç¶÷ ¿¡¸£³× ¸£³¶ÀÇ Àú¼­ÀÎ '°úÇÐÀÇ ¹Ì·¡'(1848)´Â 40 ³â ÈÄ ±îÁö ÃâÆǵÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. Àú¼ú´ç½Ã¿¡ ¸£³¶Àº °úÇÐÀû Á¤½ÅÀÎ À̼ºÀº ±Ã±ØÀûÀ¸·Î »ç¶÷µéÀ» ¸ðµç »ç¶÷ÀÌ ÆòµîÇØÁö´Â ÀÌ»óÀûÀÎ ¹®¸í»óÅ¿¡ µµ´ÞÇÒ ¼ö  ÀÖ°Ô ÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í ¹Ï¾ú´Ù. ±×´Â "ÀηùÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â Æò¿ÂÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ÁöÀû, µµ´öÀû ¿Ï¼º(¿ÏÀü)ÀÌ´Ù. Àηù¿¡°Ô °¡Àå À§Çè ÇÑ »óÅ´ ´Ù¼ö°¡ Æí¾ÈÀ» ´©¸®¸é¼­, ¹æÇØ¹Þ°í ½ÍÁö ¾Ê±â ¶§¹®¿¡ »ç°í(»ý°¢)¿Í ¾ï¾Ð¹Þ´Â ¼Ò¼ö¸¦ Èñ»ý½ÃÄѼ­ ±×(´Ù¼ö)ÀÇ Æò¾ÈÀ» À¯ÁöÇÏ·Á°í ÇÏ´Â »óÅÂÀÏ °ÍÀÌ´Ù."¶ó°í ¸»Çß´Ù.

     In his  Dialogues, 1871,  Renan again began to speculate on the future of humanity and the world:

What will humanity be in ten thousand years, in one hundred thousand years? What will the world be in one thousand million years?  Perhaps the  Earth did not exist one billion years ago; it was drowned in the atmosphere of the sun, and the moon had not yet been separated from it.  What will have become of it in a billion years?  Impossible to say, and yet the day will come, nothing is more certain.  We can no longer pretend to have any idea of the state of the material in the interior of the earth and yet this inconceivable state of things exists five hundred leagues from us.47

±×ÀÇ '´ëÈ­·Ð'(1871)¿¡¼­, ¸£³¶Àº Àηù¿Í ¼¼°èÀÇ Àå·¡¸¦ ´Ù½Ã »ç»öÇϱ⠽ÃÀÛÇß´Ù.

Àηù´Â ¸¸ ³â ÈÄ, ½Ê ¸¸ ³â ÈÄ¿£ ¾î¶»°Ô µÉ °ÍÀΰ¡?
¼¼°è´Â 10 ¾ï ³â ÈÄ¿£ ¾î¶»°Ô µÉ °ÍÀΰ¡?
¾Æ¸¶ Áö±¸´Â 10 ¾ï ³â Àü¿¡´Â Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
Áö±¸´Â žçÀÇ ´ë±â ¼Ó¿¡ Àá°åÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
±×¸®°í ´ÞÀº ¾ÆÁ÷ Áö±¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ºÐ¸®µÇÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
½Ê ¾ï ³â ÈÄ¿¡´Â Áö±¸´Â ¾î¶»°Ô µÇ¾î ÀÖÀ»±î?
¸»ÇÒ ¼ö ¾øÁö¸¸, ±×·¯³ª °¡Àå È®½ÇÇÑ °ÍÀº ±× ³¯Àº ¿Ã °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
¿ì¸®´Â Áö±¸ÀÇ ³»ºÎÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀÇ »óŸ¦ ´õ ÀÌ»ó ¾Æ´Â ü ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.
±×·¯³ª ¾ÆÁ÷Àº ÀÌ »ó»óÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â ¹°ÁúÀÇ »óÅ´ ¿ì¸®·ÎºÎÅÍ 500 ¸®±× °Å¸®¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.

     Later on his pessimism is displaced by the optimism inspired in him by the feats of the scientist.  No longer subscribing to the socialist's belief in equality, his mind has changed to accommodate the view that the goal of humanity is the production of great men.  "Finally, the goal of humanity is to produce great men; the great work will be accomplished by science not by democracy.  Nothing is accomplished without great men; salvation will be created by great men."48
     Renan's optimism and his true perception of the human condition, something which no amount of material progress, capital accumulation or economic growth can alter, are revealed again in his announcement of man's constant need to philosophize: "And what does it matter after all if tomorrow be sure or uncertain?  What does it matter whether the future belong or not to us?  Is the sky less blue, is Beatrice less beautiful, is God less great?"49

±× ÈÄ¿¡ °úÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¾÷Àû¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© °í¹«µÈ ¸£³¶Àº ±×ÀÇ ºñ°ü·ÐÀ» ³«°ü·ÐÀ¸·Î ¹Ù²Ù¾ú´Ù. »çȸÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÇ Æòµî½Å¾ÓÀº ´õ ÀÌ»ó µ¿ÀÇÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é¼­, ±×ÀÇ ¸¶À½Àº º¯Çؼ­ ÀηùÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â À§ÀεéÀÇ »ý»êÀ̶ó´Â °ßÇظ¦ ¼ö¿ëÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù.
"°á±¹ ÀηùÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â À§ÀεéÀ» »ý»êÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. À§´ëÇÑ ¿ª»ç(æµÞÀ)´Â ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í, °úÇп¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¼ºÃëµÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. À§ÀεéÀÌ ¾øÀÌ´Â ¾Æ¹«°Íµµ ¼ºÃë µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ±¸¿øÀº À§Àε鿡 ÀÇÇÏ¿© âÁ¶µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù."
¸£³¶ÀÇ ³«°üÁÖÀÇ¿Í ¾î¶² Å©±âÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸³ª, ÀÚº»ÃàÀû°ú °æÁ¦¼ºÀåµµ °³Á¶ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â Àΰ£»óÅ¿¡ °üÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ ÀνÄÀº Àΰ£ÀÇ °è¼ÓÀûÀΠöÇÐÀû »ç°íÀÇ ÇÊ¿ä¿¡ °üÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ¹ßÇ¥¿¡¼­ ´Ù½Ã µé¾î³Â´Ù.

"±×¸®°í ³»ÀÏÀÌ È®½ÇÇϵç, ºÒÈ®½ÇÇϵç, °á±¹ ±×°ÍÀÌ ¹«½¼ ´ë¼ö(Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÏ)Àΰ¡?
Àå·¡°¡ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ¼ÓÇÏ´øÁö, ¸»´øÁö, ±×°ÍÀÌ ¹«½¼ ´ë´ÜÇÑ ÀÏÀΰ¡?
ÇÏ´ÃÀÌ ´ú Ǫ¸¥°¡, »¾¾Æ¶ß¸®Ã¼[¿ªÀÚ¼³¸í: ÀÌÅ»¸®¾Æ ½ÃÀÎ (Dante A. 1265-1321)ÀÇ ¿¬ÀÎÀÇ À̸§)] °¡ ´ú ¾Æ¸§´Ù¿î°¡, Çϳª´ÔÀÌ ´ú À§´ëÇϽŰ¡?" (¿ªÀÚ¼³¸í: ÀÌ ¹®´ÜÀÇ ±ÛÀº ¹Ý¾îÀû Àǹ®¹®ÀÌ´Ù.)

£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª

     The argument from evolution to progress was best developed by the  Englishman,  Herbert  Spencer, when he extended the principle of evolution to sociology and ethics.  In keeping with  Darwin's view that the principle of natural selection work for the good of each being and will therefore provide the impetus to perfection,  Spencer believed that evil must disappear and man must become perfect.  Thus, in a chapter in  Social Statics  entitled  "What is  Morality?" he begins by saying that  "the moral law must be the law of the perfect man --- the law in obedience to which perfection consists."50
     The moral law, moreover, and according to  Spencer, prescribes the conduct of an ideal humanity.  "Pure rectitude can alone be its subject matter.  Its object must be to determine the relations in which men ought to stand in a normal society ¡¦ it requires ¡¦  that such human beings be perfect."51  Where the question of the disappearance of evil is concerned,  Spencer must be the optimist par excellence, for he says: "Progress, therefore, is not an accident but a necessity ¡¦ as surely as a disregarded conscience becomes inert, and one that is obeyed active, ¡¦ so surely must evil and immorality disappear; so surely must man become perfect."52

ÁøÈ­Çؼ­ Áøº¸ÇÑ´Ù´Â ÁÖÀåÀº ¿µ±¹ »ç¶÷ÀÎ Çã¹öÆ® ½ºÆæ¼­¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© °¡Àå ¹ßÀüµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×¶§ ½ºÆæ¼­´Â ÁøÈ­ÀÇ ¿ø¸®¸¦ »çȸÇаú À±¸®ÇÐ ºÐ¾ß¿¡ È®ÀåÇß´Ù.  ÀÚ¿¬¼±ÅÃÀÇ ¿ø¸®´Â °¢ Á¸ÀçÀÇ À¯ÀÍÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ÀÛ¿ëÇϸç (À̹ÙÁöÇϸç), µû¶ó¼­ ¿ÏÀü¿¡ÀÇ µ¿·ÂÀ» Á¦°øÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â ´ÙÀ©ÀÇ °ßÇظ¦ µ¿ÀÇÇϸ鼭, ½ºÆæ¼­´Â ¾ÇÀº ¹Ýµå½Ã »ç¶óÁú °ÍÀ̸ç Àΰ£Àº ¹Ýµå½Ã ¿ÏÀüÇØÁü¿¡ Ʋ¸²¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¹Ï¾ú´Ù. ±×¸®ÇÏ¿© "¹«¾ùÀÌ µµ´öÀΰ¡?"¶ó´Â Á¦¸ñÀ» °®´Â "»çȸÁ¤Å·Ð"ÀÇ ÇÑ Àå(íñ)¿¡¼­  ±×´Â "µµ´ö¹ýÀº ¿ÏÀüÇÑ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹ýÀ̾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù......¿ÏÀüÀº ±× µµ´ö¹ýÀ» µû¸¦ ¶§ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù."´Â ¸»·Î ½ÃÀÛÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
µµ´ö¹ýÀº, ±× À§¿¡, ±×¸®°í ½ºÆæ¼­¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé, ÀÌ»óÀûÀÎ Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇàÀ§¸¦ ¸í·É(±ÔÁ¤)ÇÑ´Ù. "¼øÀüÇÑ Á¤Á÷¸¸ÀÌ µµ´ö¹ýÀÇ º»ÁúÀû ³»¿ë(ÁÖÁ¦)ÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. µµ´ö¹ýÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Àΰ£µéÀÌ Á¤»ó(Ç¥ÁØ)»çȸ¿¡ ÀÖ¾î¾ßÇÏ´Â °ü°è¸¦ °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù......±×°ÍÀº.....  ±×·¯ÇÑ Àΰ£µéÀº ¿ÏÀüÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÑ´Ù. ¾ÇÀÇ ¼Ò¸êÀÇ ¹®Á¦¿¡ °üÇؼ­´Â, ½ºÆæ¼­´Â À¸¶ä°¡´Â ³«°üÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÓ¿¡ Ʋ¸²¾ø´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ±×´Â "±×·¯¹Ç·Î, Áøº¸´Â ¿ì¿¬ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í ÇÊ¿¬ÀÌ´Ù......¹«½ÃµÈ ¾ç½ÉÀÌ È°·ÂÀÌ ¾ø¾îÁö°í, ¼øÁ¾µÈ ¾ç½ÉÀÌ È°µ¿ÇÏ°Ô µÇ´Â °Í°°ÀÌ È®½ÇÈ÷,....  ±× Á¤µµ·Î È®½ÇÇÏ°Ô ¾Ç°ú ºÎµµ´öÀº »ç¶óÁú °ÍÀÌ Æ²¸²¾ø´Ù. ±× Á¤µµ·Î Àΰ£Àº ¿ÏÀüÇÏ°Ô µÉ °ÍÀÓÀÌ Æ²¸²¾ø´Ù."¶ó°í ¸»ÇÏ°í Àֱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.

     The origin of the idea of civilization and progress is rooted in the minds and hearts of many people in many different countries.  In the twentieth century, in spite of the malaise --- of which the world wars are a symptom --- the belief in progress is nothing more than a belief that the problems of society will be solved simply by an improvement in the material well-being of the people.  In this belief, we assume the role of the escapist.  We fail to direct ourselves to the questions which  Condorcet, friend and admirer of his fellow  Encylopaedist,  Turgot, tried to answer:

Is the human race to better itself, either by discoveries in the sciences and the arts, and so in the means to individual welfare and general prosperity; or by progress in the principles of conduct or practical morality; or by a true perfection of the intellectual, moral, or physical faculties of man, an improvement which may result from a perfection of the instruments used to heighten the intensity of these faculties and to direct their use or of the natural constitution of man.53

¹®¸í°ú Áøº¸ÀÇ °³³äÀÇ ±â¿øÀº ´Ù¸¥ ¸¹Àº ³ª¶óÀÇ ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µéÀÇ Á¤½Å°ú ¸¶À½¿¡ »Ñ¸®¹Ú°í ÀÖ´Ù. 20¼¼±â¿¡¼­´Â ÀÌ º´-¼¼°èÀÇ ´ë¼ÒÀÇ ÀüÀïµéÀÌ ÀÌ º´ÀÇ Áõ»óÀÌ´Ù-¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í Áøº¸½Å¾ÓÀº ´ÜÁö »çȸÀÇ ¹®Á¦µéÀÌ »ç¶÷µéÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹ÁöÀÇ °³¼±¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÇØ°á µÉ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â ½Å³ä¿¡ ºÒ°úÇÏ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ½Å³ä¿¡¼­, ¿ì¸®´Â µµÇÇÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ¸Ã´Â´Ù. ¿ì¸®´Â ¿ì¸® ÀÚ½ÅÀ» ±×ÀÇ µ¿·á  ¹é°ú»çÀü ÆíÁýÀÚ  ¶Ù¸£°íÀÇ Ä£±¸ÀÌ°í ¼þ¹èÀÚÀΠ ²Çµµ¸£½ê°¡ ´ë´äÇÏ·Á°í Çß´ø Áú¹®¿¡ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ÁÖÀǸ¦ µ¹¸®´Âµ¥ ½ÇÆÐÇÑ´Ù.

Àηù´Â ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀ» °³¼±ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀΰ¡,
°úÇаú ±â¼úÀÇ ¹ß°ß(¶Ç´Â ¹ß¸í)À¸·Î ÀÎÇÑ °³ÀÎÀÇ º¹Áö¿Í Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ¹ø¿µÀÇ ¼ö´Ü¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­, ¶Ç´Â ÇൿÀÇ ¿ø¸®³ª ½Çõµµ´öÀÇ Áøº¸¿¡ ÀÇÇϰųª, ¶Ç´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ ÁöÀû, µµ´öÀû, ȤÀº À°Ã¼Àû ´É·ÂµéÀÇ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ ¿Ï¼º, Áï ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ´É·ÂµéÀÇ °­µµ¸¦ Çâ»ó½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÇ´Â µµ±¸µé°ú ±× ´É·ÂµéÀÇ »ç¿ëÀ» ÁöµµÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÇ´Â µµ±¸µéÀ̳ª Àΰ£ÀÇ ÀÚ¿¬Àû üÁúÀÇ ¿Ï¼º¿¡¼­  °á°úÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °³¼±¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿©¼­....Àηù´Â ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀ» °³¼±ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀΰ¡.

    The second question here posed by  Condorcet concerning  "progress in the principles of conduct or practical morality," calls stridently today for attention.  The human race has bettered itself by discoveries in the sciences.  Scientific discoveries with equal ease could be used to obliterate all of mankind.  Deference to high ethical principles, for example, "It is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being."  could prevent such a catastrophe.  Such deference on a global scale not only requires agreement on the principles of morality, it also requires that individuals and groups do nothing to jeopardize their status as "innocent" human beings.  The last requirement can only be met by the perfecting of human behavior, a rather tall order.  The almost insuperable obstacle to agreement on principles of morality is to be found in moral relativism.  Nevertheless, the solution must be sought.

"ÇàÀ§ÀÇ ¿øÄ¢µéÀ̳ª ½ÇõÀû µµ´ö"¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ²Çµµ¸£½ê¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿©±â¿¡ Á¦ÃâµÈ µÎ ¹ø° Áú¹®Àº ¿À´Ã³¯ ±Í¿¡ °Å½½¸®°Ô ¼Ò¸®³»¸ç ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ÁÖÀǸ¦ ¿ä±¸ÇÑ´Ù. Àηù´Â °úÇлóÀÇ ¹ß°ß(¹ß¸í)µé¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀ» °³¼±Çß´Ù. °úÇÐÀû ¹ß°ß(¹ß¸í)µéÀº ¶È°°ÀÌ ¿ëÀÌÇÏ°Ô (ÁÁÀº ÀÏ¿¡³ª ³ª»Û ÀÏ¿¡) ¿Â Àηù¸¦ ¸»»ìÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© (ÀüÀï µî¿¡)  »ç¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¿¹ÄÁ´ë, "¹«°íÇÑ Àΰ£ÀÇ »ý¸íÀ» »©¾Ñ´Â °ÍÀº Ç×»ó ¾ÇÀÌ´Ù."¶ó´Â ³ôÀº À±¸®Àû ¿øÄ¢µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¸°æÀº ±×·¯ÇÑ Àç¾ÓÀ» ¿¹¹æÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. Áö±¸Àû ±Ô¸ð¿¡¼­ÀÇ ±×·¯ÇÑ Á¸°æÀº µµ´öÀÇ ¿øÄ¢µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÏÄ¡¸¦ ¿ä±¸ÇÒ »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, ¶ÇÇÑ ±×°ÍÀº °³Àεé°ú Áý´ÜµéÀÌ "¹«°íÇÑ" Àΰ£µé·Î¼­ÀÇ ±×µéÀÇ ÁöÀ§¸¦ À§ÇèÇÏ°Ô ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÑ´Ù. ¸¶Áö¸· ¿ä±¸´Â Àΰ£ÇൿÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÇÔ¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ ÃæÁ·µÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» »ÓÀÌ´Ù.  ÀÌ°ÍÀº ³­Á¦(°ï¶õÇÑ ÀÏ)ÀÌ´Ù. µµ´öÀÇ ¿øÄ¢µéÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡¿¡ °üÇÑ °ÅÀÇ À̰ܳ»±â ¾î·Á¿î Àå¾Ö(î¡äô)´Â µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ß µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, ÇØ´äÀº Ãß±¸µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

¥².  THE  LION  IN  THE  PATH(Áøº¸ÀÇ ¾Õ±æ¿¡ °¡·Î³õÀÎ ³­°ü)

     The same  Western world in which economic growth and material progress have been such that it is true to say that the economic problem has been solved has always been confronted by what appears to be an insoluble problem, a lion in the path leading to progress and civilization.  Evil is the lion in the path.  Economic progress has not seen fit to remove it.
     Events of the twentieth century put paid to any belief in the idea of a law of progress, for progress was far from assured.  Destruction on a massive scale lurked in the offing.  The danger lies in the failure fully to grasp the evil nature of war.  "War itself."  says  Immanuel  Kant, "requires no special motive but appears to be engrafted on human nature; it passes even for something noble, to which the love of glory impels men quite apart from any selfish urges." 54
     History, the litany of evil, identifies today's culprit as moral relativism, an evil eagerly embraced by unregenerate human nature.  Moral relativism is the enemy of moral progress.

°æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸°¡ ¸Å¿ì Ä¿¼­ °æÁ¦¹®Á¦°¡ ÇØ°áµÇ¾ú´Ù°í ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ »ç½ÇÀ̾ú´ø ±× °°Àº ¼­±¸ ¼¼°è´Â Áøº¸¿Í ¹®¸íÀ¸·Î °¡´Â ¾Õ±æÀÇ ³­°üÀÎ, ÇØ°áÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â ¹®Á¦·Î º¸ÀÌ´Â °Í¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ´Ã Á÷¸éµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¾ÇÀº ¾Õ±æ¿¡ °¡·Î³õÀÎ ³­°üÀÌ´Ù. °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀº ±×°ÍÀ» Á¦°ÅÇϴµ¥ Àû´çÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÇ¾ú´Ù.  20¼¼±âÀÇ »ç°ÇµéÀº Áøº¸ÀÇ °³³ä¿¡ °üÇÑ ¾î¶² ½Å³äµµ ³¡³­ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢ÇÏ°Ô Çß´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Áøº¸´Â º¸ÀåµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò±â ¶§¹®À̾ú´Ù.  ´ë±Ô¸ðÀÇ Æı«´Â ¾ÆÁÖ °¡±îÀÌ¿¡ ÀẹÇØ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. À§ÇèÀº ¾ÇÇÑ ÀüÀïÀÇ ¼º°ÝÀ» ÃæºÐÈ÷ ÀÌÇØÇÏÁö ¸øÇѵ¥ ÀÖ´Ù.
ÀÓ¸¶´©¿¤ Ä­Æ®´Â, "ÀüÀï ÀÚü´Â ¾î¶² Ưº°ÇÑ µ¿±â¸¦ ¿ä±¸ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Àΰ£¼º¿¡ Á¢ºÙ¿© Áø °Í °°ÀÌ º¸ÀδÙ. ÀüÀïÀº ½ÉÁö¾î °í»óÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÅëÇϴµ¥, ¿µ±¤À» »ç¶ûÇÏ´Â ¸¶À½ÀÌ ¾î¶² À̱âÀû Ã浿°ú »ó°ü¾øÀÌ »ç¶÷µéÀ» ÀÌ °í»óÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¸ô¾Æ°£´Ù.(Áï ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ÀüÀïÀ» ¹ÌÈ­ÇÏ°í Âù¾çÇÏ°Ô µÈ´Ù.) ¾ÇÀÇ ¿¬µµ(ææÔª, ¿ªÀÚÇؼ³: ±âµ¶±³È¸ÀÇ ¿¹¹è Áß¿¡¼­ ¼ºÁ÷ÀÚ°¡ ¸ÕÀú À¼Àº ±âµµ¹®À» µû¶ó ½Åµµµéµµ À¼´Â Çü½Ä)ÀÎ ¿ª»ç´Â ¿À´Ã³¯ÀÇ ¹üÁËÀÚ¸¦ Áß»ýÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº (°Åµì³ªÁö ¾ÊÀº) Àΰ£¼º¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿­·ÄÈ÷ Æ÷¿ËµÈ ¾Ç(äÂ)ÀÎ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÓÀ» È®ÀÎÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ´Â µµ´öÀû Áøº¸ÀÇ ¿ø¼ö(Àû)ÀÌ´Ù.

     (1)  Moral  Progress (µµ´öÀû Áøº¸)

     Early in the eighteenth century the  Abbe de  Saint  Pierre bemoaned the fact that the mediocre savants of the day were far superior in knowledge to  Socrates or to  Confucius but that virtuous men had not surpassed the ancients in virtue.  Nor does the quality of mankind today appear to have improved with the advancement of the industrial state.

The economic experience of the hundred years from 1815 to 1914, great though these years were in material achievement, has not lifted man above the guidance of past knowledge and wisdom ¡¦  For all the material comfort that industrialism has generated it has not succeeded in creating a new find of being, so superior in moral and intellectual qualities to the human beings of the past, that he can get along without moral and intellectual training.55

     In spite of our greater knowledge of science and technology,  Professor  Nef believes we need more guidance, not less, from the saints and wise men of the past if we are to survive the storms that the twentieth century has provided for us.  Lord  Clark goes further than  Dr. Nef when he says: "I believe that in spite of recent triumphs of science, men haven't changed much in the last two thousand years, and in consequence we much in the last two thousand years, and on consequence we must learn from history."56

ÀÏÂïÀÌ 18¼¼±â¿¡ ¾Æº£ µå ½ß »ß¿¡¸£´Â ´ç´ëÀÇ º¸ÅëÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ Áö½Ä¿¡ À־´Â ¼ÒÅ©¶óÅ×½º³ª °øÀÚº¸´Ù ÈξÀ ¿ì¼öÇßÀ¸³ª  µµ´ö ÀεéÀÇ ´ö¼º¿¡¼­´Â °í´ëÀεéÀ» ´É°¡ÇÏÁö ¸øÇß´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» °³ÅºÇß´Ù. ¿À´Ã³¯ ÀηùÀÇ ÀÚÁúÀº »ê¾÷±¹°¡ÀÇ Áøº¸¿Í ´õºÒ¾î °³¼±µÇÁö ¾ÊÀº °Í °°´Ù.

1815³âºÎÅÍ 1914³â±îÁö ¹é³âµ¿¾ÈÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû °æÇèÀº, ºñ·Ï ÀÌ ¼¼¿ùµ¿¾È ¹°ÁúÀûÀÎ ¼ºÃë´Â À§´ëÇßÁö¸¸, °ú°ÅÀÇ Áö½Ä°ú ÁöÇýÀÇ °¡¸£Ä§ ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î Àΰ£À» °í»óÇÏ°Ô ÇÏÁö ¸øÇß´Ù. »ê¾÷ÁÖÀÇ°¡ ÀÏÀ¸Ä×´ø ¹°ÁúÀû ÆíÀÇ¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í ±×°ÍÀº, °ú°ÅÀÇ Àΰ£µéº¸´Ù µµ´öÀû, ÁöÀû ÀÚÁúÀÌ ¿ì¼öÇؼ­ ±×°¡ µµ´öÀû ÁöÀû ÈÆ·Ã ¾øÀÌ Àß »ì¾Æ°¥ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »õ·Î¿î Àΰ£Á¸À縦 âÁ¶Çϴµ¥ ¼º°øÇÏÁö ¸øÇß´Ù.

°úÇаú ±â¼ú¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ´õ Å« Áö½Ä¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, ³×ÇÁ ±³¼ö´Â 20 ¼¼±â°¡ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô Á¦°øÇß´ø Æødz¿¡¼­ »ì¾Æ³²À¸·Á¸é °ú°ÅÀÇ ¼ºÀεé°ú ÇöÀÚµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ¿ì¸®´Â ÀûÁö ¾ÊÀº °¡¸£Ä§, ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ´õ ¸¹Àº °¡¸£Ä§À» ÇÊ¿ä·Î ÇÑ´Ù°í ¹Ï´Â´Ù. Ŭ¶óÅ© °æÀº ³×ÇÁ ¹Ú»çº¸´Ù ÇÑ ¼ú ´õ ¶ß¸é¼­, ±×´Â "³ª´Â ±Ù·¡ÀÇ °úÇÐÀÇ ½Â¸®¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, Àΰ£Àº Áö³­ 2000³â µ¿¾È º°·Î º¯ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±× °á°ú·Î ¿ì¸®´Â ¿ª»ç·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹è¿ö¾ßÇÑ´Ù."°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

    Earlier, the great defender of evolution,  Thomas  Huxley, had shown himself substantially in agreement with both  Dr. Nef and  Lord  Clark.  In his refutation of the view that the evolution of society is to be compared to the evolution of the species,  Huxley admitted his failure to find a particle of evidence to show that the evolutionary process modified the physical and mental characteristics of man.  According to him, he had  "not met any grounds for suspecting that the average  Englishmen of today are sensibly different from those that  Shakespere knew and drew."57
     Due to the fact that the struggle for existence has had little or no selective operation,  Mr. Huxley says: "In my belief the innate qualities, physical intellectual and moral of our nation have remained substantially the same for the last four or five centuries."58

ÀÏÂïÀÌ ÁøÈ­·ÐÀÇ À§´ëÇÑ ÁöÁöÀÚÀÎ Å丶½º Ç佺¸®´Â ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ´ëü·Î ³×ÇÁ ¹Ú»ç¿Í Ŭ¶óÅ© °æ°ú ÀÏÄ¡ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. »çȸÀÇ ÁøÈ­´Â Á¾ÀÇ ÁøÈ­¿¡ ºñ±³µÇ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ßÇØ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ³í¹Ú¿¡¼­, Ç佺¸®´Â ÁøÈ­°úÁ¤ÀÌ Àΰ£ÀÇ ½ÅüÀû, Á¤½ÅÀû Ư¡À» º¯È­½ÃÄ×´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸À̴ Ƽ²ø¸¸Å­ÀÇ Áõ°Åµµ ¹ß°ßÇÏÁö ¸øÇß´ø °ÍÀ» ½ÃÀÎÇß´Ù. ±×¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé, ±×´Â ¿À´ÃÀÇ Æò±ÕÀÇ ¿µ±¹ÀεéÀÌ ¼½½ºÇǾ ¾Ë¾Ò°í ¹¦»çÇß´ø »ç¶÷µé°ú ÇöÀúÇÏ°Ô ´Ù¸£´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÒ ¾î¶² ±Ù°Åµµ ¸¸³ªÁö ¸øÇß´Ù.
»ýÁ¸°æÀïÀÌ °ÅÀÇ ¶Ç´Â ÀüÇô ¼±ÅÃÀÛ¿ëÀ» ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù´Â »ç½Ç ¶§¹®¿¡  Çä½½¸® ¼±»ýÀº, "³»°¡ ¹Ï±â·Î´Â  ¿ì¸® ±¹¹ÎÀÇ ¼±ÃµÀûÀÎ - ½ÅüÀû, ÁöÀû, µµ´öÀû- ÀÚÁúÀº  ½ÇÁúÀûÀ¸·Î Áö³­  4-5¼¼±â µ¿¾È µ¿ÀÏÇÑ »óÅ¿´´Ù."°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

     The failure to progress morally may exact from us a price too high.  It may render our material gains valueless.  In modern times the failure to develop morally may be due to a widespread moral relativism arising out of the belief that there were no such things as moral or ethical truths.  The result was a neglect of the study of ethics.

µµ´öÀûÀÎ Áøº¸ÀÇ ½ÇÆд ¿ì¸®·ÎºÎÅÍ ³Ê¹« ³ôÀº ´ë°¡¸¦ °­¿äÇÒÁöµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû ÀÌÀÍÀ» ¹«°¡Ä¡ÇÏ°Ô ÇÒÁöµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù. Çö´ë¿¡ À־ µµ´öÀûÀÎ ¹ßÀüÀÇ ½ÇÆд µµ´öÀû ¶Ç´Â À±¸®Àû Áø¸® °°Àº °ÍÀº Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù´Â ½Å³ä¿¡¼­ ÀϾ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ È®»ê ¶§¹®ÀÎ °Í °°´Ù.±× °á°ú´Â À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ °æ½Ã(¹«½Ã)¿´´Ù.
     To trace the path leading to the erosion of our moral code and the subsequent neglect of ethics is not a simple task.  Certain historians note a decline in morals before the  Reformation, a decline in those moral standards which reach back to the early days of  Christianity and ancient  Greek thinkers.  Their virtual obliteration is a recent phenomenon and is linked to the advance in natural science, as well as the development of economics as a science.  All values are measured by the dollar, whether it be the  Mona  Lisa or the  Golden  Gate Bridge is of no consequence.

¿ì¸®ÀÇ µµ´öÀû ±Ô¹üÀÇ ºÎ½Ä(ħ½Ä)°ú ±× °á°ú·Î ÀÎÇÑ À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ °æ½ÃÀÇ ±æÀ» ´õµë¾î ¹àÈ÷´Â °ÍÀº ÇÏÂúÀº ÀÏÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù.(Áï ½É°¢ÇÑ ÀÏÀÌ´Ù.)  ¾î¶² ¿ª»ç°¡´Â Á¾±³°³Çõ ÀüÀÇ µµ´öÀÇ Å¸¶ôÀ» ÁÖ¸ñÇÑ´Ù.  ÀÌ°ÍÀº ÃʱâÀÇ ±âµ¶±³¿Í  °í´ëÀÇ Èñ¶ø»ç»ó°¡(µµ´ö öÇÐÀÚ)µéÀÌ Áö³æ´ø µµ´öÀû ¼öÁØÀÇ ÇöÀúÇÑ Å¸¶ôÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù. °í´ëÀÇ µµ´öÀû ¼öÁØÀÇ ½ÇÁúÀû ¼Ò¸êÀº ±Ù´ëÀÇ Çö»óÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í °úÇÐÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¹ß´Þ»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÀÚ¿¬°úÇÐÀÇ Áøº¸¿Í ¿¬°áµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù. ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡´Â ´Þ·¯(È­Æó°¡Ä¡)¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤µÈ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ¸ð³ª¸®ÀÚ(¸íÈ­)À̵ç, ±Ý¹®±³À̵ç, ¹®Á¦°¡ µÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.
     As the zeal of the humanitarians increased, the influence of the church, the school and the family on the behavior of the individual began to decline.  With the decline of  Christianity and its influence in the realm of morality, there was a movement away from any framework of values  which admitted the absolute.  All values were relative, fleeting and ephemeral.  With the rise of the sciences and the pervasiveness of the scientific method, the existence of permanent values was denied more and more.

ÀεµÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀÇ ¿­Á¤ÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇßÀ» ¶§, °¢ °³ÀεéÀÇ Çൿ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ±³È¸¿Í Çб³¿Í °¡Á¤ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÌ ¼èÅðÇϱ⠽ÃÀÛÇß´Ù. ±âµ¶±³¿Í µµ´öÀû ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ÀÇ ±âµ¶±³ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÇ ¼è¹Ì(áñÚ°)·Î, Àý´ëÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ» ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡Ã¼°è·ÎºÎÅÍ ¸Ö¾îÁö·Á´Â ¿îµ¿ÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡´Â »ó´ëÀûÀÌ°í, ¹«»óÇÏ°í, ÇÏ·ç »ìÀ̾ú´Ù.  °úÇÐÀÇ »ó½Â°ú  °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¸¸¿¬(º¸±Þ)À¸·Î ¿µ±¸Àû °¡Ä¡µéÀÇ Á¸Àç´Â ´õ¿í ´õ ºÎÀεǾú´Ù.

The emphasis on the scientific method as the only vehicle leading to truth brought forth these notorious remarks from the  American philosopher,  John  Dewey:

To generalize the recognition that the true means the verified and means nothing else places upon men the responsibility for surrendering political and moral dogmas, and subjecting to the test of consequences their most cherished prejudices.  Such a change involves a great change in the seat of authority and the methods of decision in society ¡¦ 59

Áø¸®¿¡·Î ÀεµÇÏ´Â À¯ÀÏÇÑ ¼ö·¹(¿î¹Ý¼ö´Ü)·Î¼­ °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ý¿¡ °üÇÑ °­Á¶´Â ¹Ì±¹ öÇÐÀÚ  Á¸ µàÀ̷κÎÅÍ ÀÌ·± À¯¸íÇÑ ¸»À» »ý±â°Ô Çß´Ù.

Áø¸®´Â È®ÁõµÈ °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù, ±×¸®°í ±× ¿Ü ¾î¶² °Íµµ ÀǹÌÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù´Â ÀνÄÀ» ÀϹÝÈ­ÇÏ´Â °Í (¹ýĢȭ ÇÏ´Â °Í)Àº Àΰ£¿¡°Ô Á¤Ä¡Àû, µµ´öÀû µ¶´ÜÀ» ¹ö¸®°í, ±×µéÀÇ °¡Àå ¼ÒÁßÇÑ Æí°ßÀ» °á°úÀÇ Å×½ºÆ®¿¡ º¹Á¾½ÃÅ°´Â Ã¥ÀÓÀ» ºÎ°úÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ º¯È­´Â ±ÇÀ§ÀÇ ÀÚ¸®¿Í »çȸÀÇ Á¤Ã¥ °áÁ¤ÀÇ ¹æ¹ýµé¿¡ À־ÀÇ Å« º¯È­¸¦ ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù.

     All truths, if there are any, are today derived from the facts of experience.  The truths of the intellect are no longer acceptable to the progressive, scientific man, and in their place were substituted as virtue an extreme form of nationalism, materialism and selfishness.  Yet, says a well-known  American economist,  Professor  Taylor:

I do not share the positivistic point of view, widely prevalent today in our culture and among economists and other scholars, which leads them to value, as intellectual productions,  only  the strict sciences, and despise, as sterile and illusory, all efforts  to think or inquire, as rationally as possible, about all the great questions of vital moment for human civilization, which do not admit of or cannot be given scientific answers.  I am convinced that civilizations, and civilized men, cannot live by or upon scientific knowledge alone, ¡¦¡¦ 60

¿À´Ã³¯ ¾î¶² Áø¸®°¡ ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ¸ðµç Áø¸®´Â °æÇèÀÇ »ç½Ç¿¡¼­ ¾ò´Â´Ù.(²ø¾î³½´Ù.) Áö¼ºÀÇ Áø¸®µéÀº ÀÌ¹Ì Áøº¸ÀûÀÌ°í, °úÇÐÀûÀÎ »ç¶÷¿¡°Ô´Â ¿ë³³µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ±× ÀÚ¸®¿¡ ±Ø´ÜÀû ÇüÅÂÀÎ ±¹°¡ÁÖÀÇ, ¹°ÁúÁÖÀÇ¿Í À̱âÁÖÀÇ°¡ ¹Ì´öÀ¸·Î ´ëüµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Àß ¾Ë·ÁÁø ¹Ì±¹ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÎ Å×ÀÏ·¯ ±³¼ö´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

¿À´Ã³¯ ¿ì¸® ¹®È­ ¼Ó¿¡ ±×¸®°í °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚµé°ú ´Ù¸¥ ÇÐÀÚµé Áß¿¡ ³Î¸® À¯ÇàÇÏ´Â ½ÇÁõÁÖÀÇÀû °üÁ¡À» ³ª´Â µ¿ÀÇÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ½ÇÁõÁÖÀÇÀû °üÁ¡Àº ±×µéÀ» ¾ö¹ÐÇÑ °úÇи¸À» ÁöÀû »ý»ê¹°·Î¼­ °¡Ä¡ ÀÖ°Ô ¿©±âµµ·Ï ÀεµÇÑ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±×µéÀÌ Àηù¹®¸í¿¡ ¸Å¿ì Áß¿äÇÑ ¸ðµç À§´ëÇÑ Áú¹®, Áï °úÇÐÀû ´äº¯ÀÇ ¿©Áö°¡ ¾ø°Å³ª °úÇÐÀû ´äº¯À» ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ¾ø´Â Áú¹®¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©, °¡´ÉÇÑ ÇÑ  À̼ºÀû(ÇÕ¸®Àû)À¸·Î »ý°¢Çϰųª Áú¹®ÇÏ´Â ¸ðµç ³ë·ÂÀ» Ç㹫ÇÏ°í Âø°¢ ÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î °æ¸êÇϵµ·Ï ÇÑ´Ù. ³ª´Â ¹®¸í°ú ¹®¸íÀεéÀº °úÇÐÀû Áö½Ä¸¸¿¡ ÀÇÇϰųª °úÇÐÀû Áö½Ä¸¸¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© »ì ¼ö ¾ø´Ù°í ¹Ï´Â´Ù.........

     The decline in the study of ethics, especially an ethics which pointed to the existence of absolute values, was hastened by the growing influence of the philosophies of naturalism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and the zeal of the secular humanists.  The chameleon character of moral relativism enables it to dominate everywhere.  There was a different form for every taste and motive.  It was also eagerly embraced by those individuals who wished to rationalize their failure to abide by a code of constant ethical norms.  Such a task was much too demanding.
     The naturalist of today considers the universe as self-contained: the answer to all man's problems is to be found in nature, and  God is either non-existent or irrelevant to ethical norms.  Naturalism is closely allied to science and accepts the doctrine of evolution as if it contained demonstrable proofs.  Unaware of an ultimate end for man, the naturalist has dedicated himself to progress and looks for continual improvement in the human condition.  There are therefore, no established values.  All values are relative.  With the discoveries of science and technology there come changes in our way of life.  Old values are set aside; new ones take the place of the old.

À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¼èÅð(áñ÷Ü), ƯÈ÷ Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡ÀÇ Á¸À縦 Áö½ÃÇÏ´Â À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¼èÅð´Â ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ, ½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇ, °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇ¿Í ¼¼¼ÓÀû Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÇ Áõ´ë·Î ÃËÁøµÇ¾ú´Ù.(Çؼ³2) µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ °¡º¯Àû ¼º°ÝÀº µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀǸ¦ µµÃ³¿¡¼­ Áö¹èÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¸ðµç ÃëÇâ°ú µ¿±â¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ´Ù¸¥ ÇüÅ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ºÒº¯ÇÏ´Â À±¸®Àû Ç¥ÁØÀÇ ±Ô¹ü¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© »ìÁö ¸øÇÑ ±×µéÀÇ ½ÇÆи¦ ÇÕ¸®È­Çϱ⸦ ¿øÇß´ø °³Àε鿡 ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¶ÇÇÑ ¿­·ÄÈ÷ äÅõǾú´Ù.  ±×·¯ÇÑ ÀÏÀº ³Ê¹« Èû°Ü¿ü´Ù.(¸Å¿ì °úµµÇÑ ÀÏÀ̾ú´Ù.)
¿À´Ã³¯ÀÇ ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇÀÚ´Â ¿ìÁÖ¸¦ ÀÚÁ·ÀûÀÎ °Í(±× ÀÚü¸¸À¸·Î ¿Ïºñ µÈ °Í)À¸·Î »ý°¢ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¸ðµç Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´ë´äÀº ÀÚ¿¬¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Çϳª´ÔÀº Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê°Å³ª À±¸®Àû Ç¥ÁØ¿¡ °ü°è°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ´Â °úÇп¡ ¹ÐÁ¢ÇÏ°Ô Á¦È޵Ǿî ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÁøÈ­·ÐÀÌ ¸¶Ä¡ ³íÁõ ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Áõ°Å¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Íó·³ ¼ö¿ëÇÑ´Ù. Àΰ£À» À§ÇÑ ±Ã±ØÀû ¸ñÀûÀ» ¾ËÁö ¸øÇÑ Ã¤, ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇÀÚ´Â Áøº¸¿¡ »ý¾Ö¸¦ ¹ÙÃÆ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Àΰ£»óÅÂÀÇ °è¼ÓÀûÀÎ °³¼±À» ã´Â´Ù.  ±×·¯¹Ç·Î È®Á¤µÈ °¡Ä¡µéÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡µéÀº »ó´ëÀûÀÌ´Ù. °úÇаú ±â¼úÀÇ ¹ß¸í(¹ß°ß)°ú ´õºÒ¾î ¿ì¸®ÀÇ »îÀÇ ¹æ¹ý¿¡ º¯È­°¡ ¿Â´Ù. ¿¾ °¡Ä¡µéÀº ÆóÁöµÇ°í, »õ °¡Ä¡µéÀÌ ¿¾ °¡Ä¡µéÀ» ´ë½ÅÇÑ´Ù.

Çؼ³2: ¸î °¡Áö "ÁÖÀÇ(ñ«ëù)"µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °³³ä
¨çÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ(naturalism)
ÀÚ¿¬À» À¯ÀÏ(êæìé) Àý´ë(ï¾Óß) ¶Ç´Â ±Ùº»ÀÇ ¿ø¸®·Î º¸°í, Á¤½Å Çö»ó±îÁöµµ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© ÀÏüÀÇ Çö»ó.°úÁ¤À» ÀÌ¿Í °°Àº ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ ¼Ò»ê.¼ÒÀ§·Î »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÔÀå. À±¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î´Â µµ´öÇö»óÀ» ¼øÀÚ¿¬Àû ¿ä¼Ò °ð º»´É.¿å¸Á.¼ÒÁú µîÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¼³¸íÇÏ´Â ÀÔÀå. ¶Ç´Â ÀÚ¿¬¿¡ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´Â »ýÈ°À» ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ´Â ÁÖÀÇ.
¨è½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇ(pragmatism)
Áö(ò±)¿Í Çà(ú¼), À̷аú ½ÇõÀ» ºÐ¸®ÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í, ÀνÄÀ» ÇàÀ§ÀÇ ÇÑ °¡Áö·Î ¶Ç´Â ÇàÀ§¸¦ À§ÇÑ µµ±¸·Î º¸°í, ½ÇÁö·Î º£Ç®¾î¼­ À¯¿ëÇÑ °ÍÀ» Âü(òØ)À̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÔÀå, °ð Áø¸®¸¦ ±× ÀÚü·Î¼­ÀÇ ¼ø ÀÌ·ÐÀû °¡Ä¡·Î¼­°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í, Àλý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ½Ç¿ë¼º, ÇÕ¸ñÀû¼ºÀ̶õ ±Ùº»Àû °ßÁö¿¡¼­ ±ÔÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ÀÔÀåÀÓ. ¿µ±¹ÀÇ °æÇè·Ð °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ±Ù¿øÀ» µÎ°í ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ Á¦ÀÓ½º Àª¸®¾Ï(James William), Á¸ µàÀÌ(J. Dewey)¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¿Ï¼ºÀ» º¸¾ÒÀ½.
¨é°ø¸®ÁÖÀÇ(utilitarianism)
Äè¶ôÁÖÀÇÀÇ ÇÑ °¡Áö. °ð °ø¸®¸¦ ÁõÁø½ÃÅ°´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î½á ÇàÀ§ÀÇ ¸ñÀû°ú ¼±¾Ç ÆÇ´ÜÀÇ Ç¥ÁØÀ» »ï´Â ÁÖÀÇ. ÀÚ±âÀÇ ÀÌÀÍ, ÇູÀ» ÁÖ·Î ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿Í ³²ÀÇ ÀÌÀÍÀ» ÁÖ·Î ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ°¡ ÀÖÀ¸³ª ±× Áß¿¡¼­µµ ¿µ±¹ÀÇ º¥´ã(Bentham)ÀÌ ÁÖÀåÇÑ "ÃÖ´ë ´Ù¼öÀÇ ÃÖ´ëÇູ"À» ÁÖÀÇ·Î ÇÏ´Â ÀÏÆÄ°¡ À¯¸íÇÔ.
¨êÀι®ÁÖÀÇ(humanism)
Áß¼¼ ¹®¿¹ ºÎÈï±â¿¡ ½ºÄݶó ÀûÀÌ¸ç ±³È¸ ÀûÀÎ ¼¼°è°ü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ýµ¿À¸·Î¼­ ÀϾ´ø Á¤½Å¿îµ¿. Àΰ£¼ºÀÇ Á¸Áß°ú ¹®È­Àû ±³¾çÀÇ ¹ßÀüÀ» ÁÖÀåÀ¸·Î »ï¾ÒÀ½.
¨ë±¹°¡ÁÖÀÇ(nationalism)
±¹°¡¸¦ Àΰ£ »çȸ Áö»óÀÇ Á¶Á÷ü·Î »ý°¢ÇÏ°í, ±¹°¡±Ç·ÂÀÌ »çȸ»ýÈ° Àü¿ª¿¡ °ÉÃÄ ÅëÁ¦·ÂÀ» ¹ßÈÖÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ÁÖÀÇ.

(ÀÚ·á: ÀÌ Èñ½Â Æí, ±¹¾î ´ë»çÀü, ¼­¿ï, ¹ÎÁß¼­°ü, 1975.

    Due to his failure to discover an ultimate end for man,  John Dewey settled for growth as the aim in life, growth into an ambiguous self-fulfillment.  An act is good if it contributes to the growth of the individual.  What is good for that end today may not be good for that same end tomorrow.  Since we cannot foresee the future, we cannot set up an absolute end for man.  Naturalism, therefore, would appear to take away the reason for living.  A life lived in the pursuit of utility, in the performance of actions to promote growth to an ambiguous end, seems worthless and without purpose.
     Secular humanism, the religion of the naturalist, is singularly blunt in its rejection of religion and absolute values.  Not only does it banish the Christian ethic from society, it actually condemns religion as a barrier to progress.  "We believe, however,"  say these secular humanists, "that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species."61  Of the worthlessness of the ethics of  Christianity, or any other ethics finding its source and inspiration in religion, the secular humanists are no less dogmatic:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.  Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.  Ethics stems from human need and interest.  To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.  Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures.62

Àΰ£ÀÇ ±Ã±ØÀû ¸ñÀûÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÏ´Â ÀÏ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ½ÇÆÐ ¶§¹®¿¡ Á¸ µàÀÌ´Â ÀλýÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î¼­, ¸ðÈ£ÇÑ Àڱ⼺Ãë¿¡·ÎÀÇ ¼ºÀåÀ» °áÁ¤Çß´Ù.(¼ºÀåÀ¸·Î ¸¸Á·Çß´Ù.) ¾î¶² ÇൿÀÌ  °³ÀÎÀÇ ¼ºÀå¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇÑ´Ù¸é ¼±(à¼)ÀÌ´Ù. ¿À´Ã ±× ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¼±ÇÑ °ÍÀº ±× °°Àº ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ³»ÀÏ ¼±ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ»Áöµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù. ¿ì¸®´Â Àå·¡¸¦ ¿¹°ßÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø±â ¶§¹®¿¡, ¿ì¸®´Â Àΰ£À» À§ÇÑ Àý´ëÀû ¸ñÀûÀ» ¼¼¿ï ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ´Â »îÀÇ Àǹ̸¦ °¡Á®°¡´Â °Íó·³ º¸ÀÏ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¸ðÈ£ÇÑ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼ºÀåÀ» ÁõÁøÇÏ´Â ÇൿÀÇ ½ÇÇà ¼Ó¿¡¼­, °ø¸®Ãß±¸¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç´Â »îÀº °¡Ä¡ ¾ø°í ¸ñÀûÀÌ ¾ø´Â °Íó·³ »ý°¢µÈ´Ù. ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÇ Á¾±³ÀÎ, ¼¼¼ÓÀû Àι®ÁÖÀÇ´Â Á¾±³¿Í Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡µé¿¡ °üÇÑ ±×ÀÇ °ÅºÎ¹ÝÀÀÀÌ ¸Å¿ì Åü¸í½º·´´Ù.(Áï ´ÙÂ¥°íÂ¥·Î °ÅºÎÇÑ´Ù.)
¼¼¼ÓÀû Àι®ÁÖÀÇ´Â »çȸ·ÎºÎÅÍ ±âµ¶±³ À±¸®¸¦ Ãß¹æÇÒ »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ±×°ÍÀº ½ÇÁ¦·Î Á¾±³¸¦ Áøº¸ÀÇ ÀåÇطμ­ ºñ³­ÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌµé ¼¼¼ÓÀû Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀº, "±×·¯³ª ¿ì¸®´Â ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ µ¶¼±Àû Á¾±³³ª Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇÊ¿äµé°ú °æÇ躸´Ù À§¿¡, °è½Ã, Çϳª´Ô, Á¾±³ÀǽÄÀ̳ª ½Å°æ(ãáÌè)À» µÎ´Â ±ÇÀ§ÀûÀÎ Á¾±³µéÀº Àηù¿¡°Ô Çظ¦ ÀÔÈ÷´Â °ÍÀ» ¹Ï´Â´Ù"°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±âµ¶±³ À±¸®ÀÇ ¹«°¡Ä¡¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©, ¶Ç´Â ±×ÀÇ ±Ù¿ø°ú ¿µ°¨À» Á¾±³¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßÇÏ´Â ¸ðµç ´Ù¸¥ À±¸®¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©, ¼¼¼ÓÀûÀÎ Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀº ¶È°°ÀÌ µ¶´ÜÀûÀÌ´Ù.(±× µ¶´ÜÀûÀÎ ¸»À» ´ÙÀ½ ±Û¿¡¼­ ÀÐÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.)

¿ì¸®´Â µµ´öÀû °¡Ä¡µéÀº ±×µéÀÇ ±Ù¿øÀ» Àΰ£ÀÇ °æÇèÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾ò´Â´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ´Ü¾ðÇÑ´Ù. À±¸®´Â ¾î¶² ½ÅÇÐÀû, °ü³äÇÐÀû Âù¼ºÀ» ÇÊ¿ä·Î ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é¼­, ÀÚÀ²°ú »óȲ¿¡ µû¸£´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀ» ºÎÀÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¿Â »îÀÇ ±âÃʸ¦ ¿Ö°îÇÑ´Ù. ÀλýÀº ¿ì¸®°¡ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Àå·¡¸¦ âÁ¶ÇÏ°í °è¹ßÇϱ⠶§¹®¿¡ Àǹ̸¦ °®´Â´Ù.

   In one good breath, the late Sir Julian  Huxley, numero uno among the secular humanists, destroys forever the belief in any absolute values, and reiterates the view that religion is an obstacle to progress:

Any belief in  Absolutes, whether the absolute validity of moral commandments, of authority of revelation, of inner certitude, or of divine inspiration, erects a formidable barrier against progress and the possibility of improvement, moral, rational, or religious. And the all-too-frequent combination of the two constitutes a grave brake on human advance, and, by obfuscating all the major problems of existence, prevents the attainment of a full and comprehensive vision of human destiny.63

¼¼¼ÓÀûÀÎ Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÚ Áß¿¡ À¸¶ä(Á¦1ÀÎÀÚ)ÀÎ °í(ͺ) ÁÖ¸®¾È Ç佺¸® °æÀº ¾î¶² Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÏÀ½µµ ¿µ¿øÈ÷ Æı«ÇÑ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Á¾±³´Â Áøº¸¿¡ ÀåÇضó´Â °ßÇظ¦ µÇÇ®ÀÌÇÑ´Ù.

Àý´ëÀûÀÎ °Í¿¡ -µµ´öÀû °èÀ²ÀÇ Àý´ëÀû Ÿ´ç¼ºÀ̵ç, °è½ÃÀÇ ±ÇÀ§ÀÇ Àý´ëÀû Ÿ´ç¼ºÀ̵ç, ³»¸éÀû È®½ÅÀÇ Àý´ëÀû Ÿ´ç¼ºÀ̵ç, ¶Ç´Â ½Å¼ºÇÑ ¿µ°¨ÀÇ Àý´ëÀû Ÿ´çÀÌµç °£¿¡- ´ëÇÑ ¾î¶² ¹ÏÀ½µµ Áøº¸¿Í µµ´öÀû, À̼ºÀû, ¶Ç´Â Á¾±³Àû ¹ßÀüÀÇ °¡´É¼º¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¹æ´ëÇÑ À庮À» ¼¼¿î´Ù. ±×¸®°í ³Ê¹« ºó¹øÇÑ µÎ °¡Áö(¿ªÀÚÀÇ°ß: ¾Æ¸¶ Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡°ü°ú Á¾±³¸¦ ÁöĪÇÏ´Â °Í °°´Ù)ÀÇ °áÇÕÀº Àΰ£Áøº¸¿¡ ½É°¢ÇÑ Á¦µ¿À» °É°í, ¸ðµç ÁÖ¿äÇÑ Á¸ÀçÀÇ ¹®Á¦µéÀ» È帮°Ô ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á Àΰ£¿î¸íÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÇÏ°í ³ÐÀº ºñÁ¸(vision)ÀÇ ¼ºÃ븦 ¹æÇØÇÑ´Ù.

     Naturalists and secular humanists have enjoyed singular success in their efforts to destroy the  Christian religion and its ethical norms.  In alliance with the pragmatists, their success has been even more far-reaching than otherwise.  The pragmatist, too, is committed to the proposition that all values are relative.  An act is good if it works --- for us.  There is no such thing as truth: everything is a matter of opinion and truth changes as fast as opinions change.  The view that one theory solves a problem better than another, says  William  James,  "means more satisfactorily to ourselves, and individuals will emphasize their points of satisfaction differently.  To a certain degree, therefore, everything is plastic."64
     In a world where everything is plastic, there is obviously no reason for believing steadfastly in anything.  One is without convictions.  Society is without a goal.  Whither economics?  Skepticism flourishes.

ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇÀÚµé°ú ¼¼¼ÓÀû Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀº ±âµ¶±³¿Í ±×ÀÇ À±¸®Àû ±Ô¹üµéÀ» Æı«Çϱâ À§ÇÑ ±×µéÀÇ ³ë·Â¿¡¼­ ºñ¹üÇÑ ¼º°øÀ» ´©·È´Ù. ½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇÀÚµé°ú ¿¬ÇÕÇÏ¿©, ±×µéÀÇ ¼º°øÀº ±×·¸Áö ¾ÊÀº °Íº¸´Ù ´õ¿í ´õ ¸Ö¸® ¹ÌÄ¡°í ÀÖ´Â ÁßÀÌ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇÀÚ´Â ¸ðµç °¡Ä¡µéÀº »ó´ëÀûÀ̶ó´Â ¸íÁ¦¸¦ °®°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¾î¶² ÇൿÀÌ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô À¯¸®ÇÑ È¿°ú°¡ ÀÖ´Ù¸é ¼±(à¼)ÀÌ´Ù. Áø¸®¿Í °°Àº °ÍÀº  ¾ø´Ù. ¸ðµç °ÍÀº ÀÇ°ßÀÇ ¹®Á¦ÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Áø¸®´Â ÀÇ°ßµéÀÌ º¯ÇÏ´Â ´ë·Î »¡¸® º¯ÇÑ´Ù.
Àª¸®¾Ï Á¦ÀÓ½º´Â, ÇϳªÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ ´Ù¸¥ À̷к¸´Ù ¾î¶² ¹®Á¦¸¦ ´õ ³´°Ô ÇØ°áÇÑ´Ù´Â ÀÇ°ßÀº "¿ì¸®µé¿¡°Ô ´õ ¸¸Á·½º·´´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù. ±×¸®°í °³ÀεéÀº ±×µéÀÇ ¸¸Á· Á¡À» ´Ù¸£°Ô ¿ª¼³ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù."¶ó°í ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î, ¾î¶² Á¤µµ·Î ¸ðµç °ÍÀº °¡¼Ò¼º(ʦá±àõ)ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ¸ðµç °ÍÀÌ °¡¼Ò¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ¼¼°è¿¡¼­´Â ¾î¶² °Íµµ È®°íÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¹ÏÀ» ÀÌÀ¯°¡ ¾ø´Ù. Àΰ£Àº È®½ÅÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. »çȸ´Â ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ±×·¯¸é °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº ¾îµð·Î °¡¾ß Çϴ°¡? ȸÀÇ·ÐÀÌ ¹øâÇÑ´Ù.

     (2) Moral  Relativism (µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ)

     The dangers of moral codes which are relative to time and place, which are based on the "facts of experience" rather than the truths of the intellect, are devastating in their magnitude.  The philosophy of utilitarianism which lies at the roots of naturalism and pragmatism --- an act is good if it promotes growth, if it works --- is anti-intellectual, indeed, it is anti-rational.  The goodness of an act is not apprehended in advance by the rational faculty.  Rather, one waits until the act has been performed in order to review the consequences.
     On the assumption that the anti-rationalism of the  National  Socialists led to  Belsen and  Dachau, a distinguished  English scholar writes:

In most cases the rejection of an objective code of morality is the cause of atrocities so infamous that their cumulative effect has been to destroy one great heresy of the nineteenth century, the belief in the perfectibility of man and the inevitability of human progress. 65

½Ã°£°ú °ø°£¿¡ »ó´ëÀûÀÌ°í, Áö¼ºÀÇ Áø¸®º¸´Ù ¿ÀÈ÷·Á "°æÇèÀÇ »ç½Çµé"¿¡ ±âÃʸ¦ µÐ µµ´ö±Ô¹üÀÇ À§ÇèµéÀº  ±× ±Ô¸ð°¡ Æı«ÀûÀÌ´Ù. ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ¿Í ½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ »Ñ¸®ÀÎ °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀº -¾î¶² ÇൿÀÌ ¼ºÀåÀ» ÁõÁøÇÑ´Ù¸é, Áï ±× ÇൿÀÌ È¿°ú°¡ ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ¼±(¹Ì´ö)ÀÌ´Ù.-¹ÝÁö¼ºÀûÀÌ°í, ÂüÀ¸·Î ¹ÝÀ̼ºÀûÀÌ´Ù. ÇàÀ§ÀÇ ´ö(Óì)Àº À̼ºÀÇ ´É·Â¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¹Ì¸® ÆľǵÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ¿ÀÈ÷·Á, »ç¶÷Àº  ÇàÀ§ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ °üÂûÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ±× ÇàÀ§°¡ ¿Ï¼öµÉ ¶§±îÁö(±× ÇàÀ§ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ º¸±â±îÁö) ±â´Ù¸°´Ù. µ¶ÀÏÀÇ ±¹°¡»çȸÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀÇ ¹ÝÀ̼º ÁÖÀÇ°¡ º§Á¨°ú ´ÙÂ÷¿ì(¿ªÀÚº¸Ãæ: ¾Ç¸í ³ôÀº ³ªÄ¡ µ¶ÀÏÀÇ  Æ÷·Î¼ö¿ë¼Ò)·Î ÀεµÇß´Ù´Â °¡Á¤¿¡¼­, Àú¸íÇÑ ¿µ±¹ ÇÐÀÚ´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¾²°í ÀÖ´Ù.

´ëºÎºÐÀÇ °æ¿ì¿¡ µµ´öÀÇ °´°üÀû ±Ô¹üÀÇ Æó±â´Â ¾Ç¸í ³ôÀº Æ÷ÇÐ(øÛùË)µéÀÇ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ ¿øÀÎÀε¥ ±× Æ÷ÇеéÀÇ  ´©ÀûÀû È¿°ú´Â 'Àΰ£ÀÇ ¿ÏÀü°¡´É¼ºÀÇ ½Å³ä°ú Àΰ£Áøº¸ÀÇ ÇÊ¿¬¼º'À̶ó´Â 19¼¼±âÀÇ ÇÑ Å« À̼³(ì¶àã)À» Æı«ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾ú´Ù.

     Sir  Arnold  Lunn here offers also the view that  "it is reason alone which can guarantee the integrity of on objective code of morals, which fallen man is always tempted to adapt and remould in accordance with his subjective desires."66
     The relationship between two fundamental but relative principles of morality --- their application produces the same awful unethical effect although their ends are different --- in  Nazi  Germany and  Soviet  Russia is plain to be seen:
     (a) Whatever promotes the well-being of Nazi
                     Germany is moral;
     (b) Whatever promotes the well-being of the
                     proletariat is moral.
     In keeping with Nazi  Germany's fundamental principle of morality,  Hans Frank, a leader of a German  Lawyer's  Guild in that era, wrote that it is not the task of the judge "¡¦ to help to apply a legal order that is higher than a racial community, or to enforce some system of universal values.  What he must do, rather, is to safeguard the concrete order of the racial community, to exterminate those who undermine it ¡¦ "67

¿©±â¿¡¼­ ¾Æ³îµå ·é °æÀº "°´°üÀûÀÎ µµ´ö±Ô¹üÀÇ º¸ÀüÀ» º¸ÀåÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀº À̼º»ÓÀÌ´Ù. Ÿ¶ôÇÑ Àΰ£Àº ±×ÀÇ ÁÖ°üÀûÀÎ ¿å±¸¿¡ µû¶ó¼­ ±× °´°üÀû ±Ô¹üÀ» ¹ø¾ÈÇÏ°í °³Á¶Çϵµ·Ï ¾ðÁ¦³ª À¯È¤À» ¹Þ´Â´Ù.  ³ªÄ¡ µ¶ÀÏ°ú ¼Òºñ¿¡Æ® ·¯½Ã¾Æ¿¡ À־ µÎ ±Ùº»ÀûÀ̳ª »ó´ëÀûÀÎ µµ´öÀÇ ¿øÄ¢µé-±×µéÀÇ Àû¿ëÀº ±×µéÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ´Ù¸¦Áö¶óµµ °°Àº ¹«¼­¿î ºñÀ±¸®Àû È¿°ú¸¦ ³º´Â´Ù-°£ÀÇ °ü°è´Â ´ÙÀ½¿¡¼­ ¸í¹éÈ÷ º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
(a) ³ªÄ¡ µ¶ÀÏÀÇ º¹Áö¸¦ ÁõÁøÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¾ùÀ̵çÁö µµ´öÀûÀÌ´Ù.
(b)ÇÁ·Ñ·¹Å¸¸®¾Æ(¹«»ê ³ëµ¿°è±Þ)ÀÇ º¹Áö¸¦ ÁõÁøÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¾ùÀ̳ª µµ´öÀûÀÌ´Ù.
³ªÄ¡ µ¶ÀÏÀÇ ±Ùº»ÀûÀÎ µµ´ö¿ø¸®¿Í °°Àº ¸Æ¶ô¿¡¼­, ±× ½Ã´ëÀÇ µ¶ÀÏ ¹ý·ü°¡Á¶ÇÕÀÇ ÁöµµÀÚÀÎ Çѽº ÇÁ·£Å©´Â ".....ÀÎÁ¾°øµ¿Ã¼º¸´Ù ´õ ³ôÀº ¹ýÀû Áú¼­¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» µ½´Â °ÍÀ̳ª, ¾î¶² º¸ÆíÀû °¡Ä¡µéÀÇ Ã¼Á¦¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹ý°üÀÇ ÀÏÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ±×°¡ ÇØ¾ß ÇÒ ÀÏÀº ÀÎÁ¾ °øµ¿Ã¼ÀÇ ±¸Ã¼Àû Áú¼­¸¦ º¸È£ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ°í, ±×°ÍÀ» ¸ô·¡ ÇØÄ¡´Â ÀÚµéÀ» ±ÙÀýÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù."

     In the face of such relativism, individual rights are nowhere to be recognized.  Human life, which gives meaning to the universe, is of little value in a society where the overriding aim is "to safeguard the concrete order of the racial community."
     In  Soviet  Russia, individual rights may not always be inviolable since a moral relativism is to be found there, too.  In response to the question:  "What is the criterion of good or bad in the conduct of the member of the Communist  Party?" put to a widely respected  Bolshevik leader,  Sidney and  Beatrice  Webb were told  "that whatever conduced to the building of the classless society was good, and whatever impeded it was bad."68
Such moral relativism is a correlative of the loss of the sense of sin against  God, and  "the abandonment of the idea that there is anything absolute, fundamental, universal or everlasting, about a scale of values."69  Said  Emelyan  Yaroslavsky, an  Old Bolshevik and author of many books and pamphlets:  "We communists don's believe eternal moral truths exist.  Bourgeois morals are expressed in the laws of the bourgeoisie.  The proletariat will have its own morality, which will arise out of its own life.  The morals that have existed in the past have always been class morals."70

±×·¯ÇÑ »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ ¾Õ¿¡¼­´Â, °³ÀÎÀÇ ±Ç¸®µéÀº ¾îµð¿¡¼­µµ ÀÎÁ¤µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ¸¸À¯(Ø¿êó)¿¡ Àǹ̸¦ ÁÖ´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ »îÀº ¿ì¼±ÀûÀÎ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ÀÎÁ¾°øµ¿Ã¼ÀÇ ±¸Ã¼Àû Áú¼­¸¦ º¸È£ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÎ »çȸ¿¡¼­´Â °ÅÀÇ °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ¼Òºñ¿¡Æ® ·¯½Ã¾Æ¿¡¼­´Â °³ÀÎÀÇ ±Ç¸®µéÀº ¶ÇÇÑ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ°¡ ±×°÷¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÉ ¼ö Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ ¹Ýµå½Ã ºÒ°¡Ä§ÀÌ µÇÁö ¾ÊÀ» ¼ö µµ ÀÖ´Ù. ³Î¸® Á¸°æ¹Þ´Â º¼¼¼ºñÅ° ÁöµµÀÚ¿¡°Ô Á¦±âµÈ "°ø»ê´çÀÇ ±¸¼º¿øÀÇ Çൿ¿¡ À־ ¼±¾ÇÀÇ Ç¥ÁØÀº ¹«¾ùÀΰ¡?"¶ó´Â Áú¹®¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿©, ½Ãµå´Ï¿Í º£¾ÆÆ®¸®½º À¥Àº "°è±Þ ¾ø´Â »çȸÀÇ °Ç¼³¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¾ùÀ̳ª ¼±(à¼)À̾ú´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±×°ÍÀ» ¹æÇØÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¹«¾ùÀ̳ª ¾Ç(äÂ)À̾ú´Ù."¶ó´Â °ÍÀ» µé¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ´Â Çϳª´Ô¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÁËÀǽÄÀÇ »ó½Ç°ú µ¿¹ÝÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í °¡Ä¡µéÀÇ Ã´µµ¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©, Àý´ëÀûÀÎ °Í, ±Ùº»ÀûÀÎ °Í, º¸ÆíÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ̳ª ¿µ¿øÇÑ °ÍÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù´Â °ü³ä(»ç»ó)ÀÇ Æ÷±âÀÌ´Ù. ±¸ º¼¼¼ºñÅ°(¿ªÀÚº¸Ãæ: ·¯½Ã¾Æ »çȸ¹ÎÁֳ뵿´ç ´Ù¼öÆÄÀÇ ÇÑ »ç¶÷) ÀÌ¸ç ¸¹Àº Ã¥°ú ÆÊÇ÷¿ÀÇ ÀúÀÚÀÎ ¿¡¸Þ¸®¾È ¾ß·Î½º¶ø½ºÅ°´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¸»Çß´Ù.
"¿ì¸® °ø»êÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀº ¿µ¿øÇÑ µµ´öÀû Áø¸®µéÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¹ÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ºÎ¸£Á¶¾Æ(À¯»êÀÚ)ÀÇ µµ´öµéÀº ºÎ¸£Á¶¾ÆÁö(À¯»ê °è±Þ)ÀÇ ¹ý·üµé¿¡ Ç¥ÇöµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù. ÇÁ·Ñ·¹Å¸¸®¾Æ(¹«»ê °è±Þ)´Â ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ µµ´öÀ» °¡Áú °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ »î¿¡¼­ ÀϾ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °ú°Å¿¡ Á¸ÀçÇß´ø µµ´öµéÀº Ç×»ó °è±Þµµ´öÀ̾ú´Ù."¶ó°í.

     Krupskaya,  Lenin's widow, was concerned about the formation of general principles of conduct.71  Lenin himself is said to have taught that "for the sake of gaining the desired ends communists can, and sometimes must 'resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and subterfuge' ¡¦ "72
     In his essay, "Their  Morals and  Ours,"  Leon  Trotsky explains the  Marxist point of view that  "the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of humanity over nature, and to the abolition of the power of one person over another,"73
     In response to the question put to him by an imaginery, sarcastic philistine: "We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?"  Trotsky answers: "That is permissible ¡¦ which really leads to the liberation of humanity."74
     In another essay,  "The  Moralists and  Sycophants against  Marxism,"  Trotsky wrote that civilization can only be saved by a social revolution in which the proletariat is victorious.  "Above all," he writes, "it must be completely free from the fictions of religion, 'democracy' and transcendental morality --- the spiritual chains forged by the enemy to tame and enslave it.  Only that which prepares the complete and final overthrow of imperialist bestiality is moral, and nothing else.  The welfare of the revolution --- that is the supreme law!"75

·¹´ÑÀÇ ¹Ì¸ÁÀÎÀÎ Å©·ì½ºÄ«¾ß´Â ÇൿÀÇ º¸ÆíÀû ¿ø¸®¿¡ °üÇÑ ±¸¼º(Çü¼º)¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© °ÆÁ¤Çß´Ù. ·¹´Ñ ÀÚ½ÅÀº "Èñ¸ÁÇß´ø ¸ñÀûÀ» ¾ò±â À§ÇÏ¿© °ø»êÁÖÀÇÀÚ´Â ¸ðµç Á¾·ùÀÇ °èÃ¥, Ã¥·«°ú ¼ÓÀÓ¼ö¸¦ ÀÇÁöÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°í, ¶§·Î´Â ÀÇÁöÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù"°í °¡¸£ÃÆ´Ù°í ÀüÇØÁø´Ù. "±×µéÀÇ µµ´ö°ú ¿ì¸®µéÀÇ µµ´ö"À̶ó´Â ±×ÀÇ ³í¹®¿¡¼­, ·¹¿Â Æ®·ÎÃ÷Å°(¿ªÀÚº¸Ãæ: 1879-1940, ·¯½Ã¾ÆÀÇ Çõ¸í°¡ ¹× Àú¼ú°¡)´Â "¾î¶² ¸ñÀûÀÌ ÀÚ¿¬À» Áö¹èÇÏ´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ ÈûÀ» Áõ°¡½ÃÅ°¸é, ±×¸®°í ÇÑ »ç¶÷ÀÌ ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷¿¡ ´ëÇØ °®´Â ±Ç·ÂÀÇ ÈûÀ» ÆóÁöÇÏ°Ô µÇ¸é, ±× ¸ñÀûÀÌ Á¤´çÈ­µÈ´Ù"¶ó´Â ¸¼½ºÁÖÀÇÀÚÀÇ »ç»óÀ» ¼³¸íÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. °¡»óÀûÀΠdzÀÚÀû ¼¼¼Ó Àο¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ±×¿¡°Ô Á¦±âµÈ Áú¹®¿¡ ´äÇÏ¿©, Áï "±×·¯¸é ¿ì¸®´Â ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» ¼ºÃëÇÔ¿¡ À־ ¾î¶² °Íµµ Çã¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù°í ÀÌÇØÇØ¾ß Çϴ°¡?"¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿©, Æ®·ÎÃ÷Å°´Â"Á¤¸»·Î Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇعæÀ¸·Î ÀεµÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº Çã¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù"¶ó°í ´ë´äÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
"¸¼½ºÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ºñÃ߾ µµ´öÁÖÀÇÀÚµé°ú ¾Æ÷²Ûµé"À̶ó´Â ´Ù¸¥ ³í¹®¿¡¼­, Æ®·ÎÃ÷Å°´Â ¹®¸íÀº ¿ÀÁ÷ ÇÁ·Ñ·¹Å¸¸®¾Æ°¡ ½Â¸®ÇÏ´Â »çȸÁÖÀÇÀÇ Çõ¸í¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ ±¸¿øµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù°í ½è´Ù.
±×´Â, "¹«¾ùº¸´Ù ÇÁ·Ñ·¹Å¸¸®¾Æ´Â Á¾±³, '¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ', ±×¸®°í ÃÊ¿ù(¼±Çè)ÀûÀÎ µµ´öÀÇ Ç㱸(úÈÏ°)¿¡¼­ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ÀÚÀ¯·Ó°Ô µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.---(±×°ÍµéÀº) ÇÁ·Ñ·¹Å¸¸®¾Æ¸¦ ±æµé¿© ³ë¿¹·Î »ï´Â ¿ø¼öµé¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ³¯Á¶µÈ Á¤½ÅÀûÀÎ ¼Ó¹ÚÀÇ »ç½½ÀÌ´Ù. Á¦±¹ÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀÇ ¼ö¼º(â®àõ)À» ÃÖÁ¾ÀûÀ¸·Î, ¿ÏÀüÇÏ°Ô, ŸµµÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ÁغñÇÏ´Â °Í¸¸ÀÌ µµ´öÀÌ°í, ±× ¿Ü´Â ¾î¶² °Íµµ ¾ø´Ù. Çõ¸íÀÇ º¹Áö--±×°ÍÀÌ ÃÖ°íÀÇ ¹ýÀÌ´Ù!"¶ó°í ¾²°í ÀÖ´Ù.

     From these statements it would appear that  Leon Trotsky, the great revolutionary, was committed to the principle that the end justified the means and that in this instance any act which leads to the "overthrow of imperial bestiality" is a good act.  From  Hitler's  standpoint, any means is good if it attains the end of  National  Socialism, namely, the good of the race.  The application of standards of conduct based on such moral relativism can do nothing but leave injustice in its wake.  The events of the first half of the twentieth century leave no doubt of the truth of this assertion.
     Are such examples of moral relativism any different from the fundamental principles of utilitarianism, embodied in the philosophies of naturalism and pragmatism, which hold that an action is good if it has pleasant consequences for the agent?  Are we in the "civilized" world not now at that stage where the relativity of our morals permits us without qualms to violate the rights of the individual in order to obtain our own ends?

ÀÌ Áø¼úµé¿¡¼­ À§´ëÇÑ Çõ¸í°¡ÀÎ ·¹¿Â Æ®·ÎÃ÷Å°´Â ¸ñÀûÀº ¼ö´ÜÀ» Á¤´çÈ­ÇÑ´Ù´Â ¿ø¸®, ±×¸®°í  ÀÌ ¿¹¿¡¼­ "Á¦±¹Àû ¼ö¼º(â®àõ)ÀÇ Å¸µµ"·Î ÀεµÇÏ´Â ¾î¶² Çൿµµ ¼±ÇàÀ̶ó´Â ¿ø¸®¿¡ µû¸£°í ÀÖ¾ú´ø °Í °°´Ù. È÷Ʋ·¯(1889-1945, µ¶ÀÏ ÃÑÅë)ÀÇ °ßÁö¿¡¼­´Â, ¾î¶² ¼ö´Üµµ ±× ÇൿÀÌ µ¶ÀÏÀÇ ±¹¼ö »çȸÁÖÀÇ, Áï ÀÎÁ¾ÀÇ À¯ÀÍÀ» ¼ºÃëÇÑ´Ù¸é ¼±(à¼)ÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ¿¡ ±âÃÊÇÑ ÇൿÀÇ ±âÁØÀÇ Àû¿ëÀº  ±×°ÍÀÌ Áö³ª°£ ÀÚ¸®¿¡ ºÒÀǸ¦ ³²±â´Â °Í¸¸À» ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. 20¼¼±â Àü¹ÝºÎÀÇ ´ë »ç°ÇµéÀº ÀÌ ÁÖÀåÀÇ Áø½Ç¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ÀǽÉÀ» ³²±âÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.
±×·¯ÇÑ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ ¿¹µéÀº ÀÚ¿¬ÁÖÀÇ¿Í ½Ç¿ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ Ã¶Çп¡ ±¸Ã¼È­µÈ, Áï ¾î¶² ÇൿÀÌ ±× ÇàÀ§ÀÚ¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Áñ°Å¿î °á°ú¸¦ °®´Â´Ù¸é ¼±ÀÌ´Ù¶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â °ø¸®ÁÖÀÇ¿Í ¹«¾ùÀÌ ´Ù¸¥°¡? ¹®¸í»çȸ¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ¿ì¸®´Â ¿ì¸®ÀÇ µµ´öÀÇ »ó´ë¼ºÀÌ ¿ì¸®°¡ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ¸ñÀûµéÀ» ¾ò±â À§ÇÏ¿© °³ÀÎÀÇ ±Ç¸®µéÀ» ºÒ¾È ¾øÀÌ  Ä§¹üÇϵµ·Ï ÇÏ´Â ±×·± ´Ü°è¿¡ Áö±Ý ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Â°¡?

    One great weakness of moral relativism follows from its premise that an individual acting in conformity with the mores of his society can do no wrong.  Relative values are in this case being treated as if they were absolute.  The relativists by denying the existence of any objective standards cut the heart out of morality.  In times of war, each side believes "our side is right."  "The relativist, in effect, tells them that this belief is sheer illusion; that there is no objectively valid ideal; that there are only conflicting cultural patterns, each one equally 'right', each one right according to its cultural view point."76
     Given the existence of moral relativism, there is no point in trying to improve one's moral ideals or strive for moral perfectibility.  The moral relativist denies the individual the possibility of ever declaring:  "This is really and truly right."  To deny the truth of such a statement is run counter to the strongest of mankind's convictions.

µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇ¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÇ´Â ÇϳªÀÇ Å« ¾àÁ¡Àº ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ »çȸÀÇ Ç³½À¿¡ µû¸¥ °³ÀÎÀÇ ÇൿÀº ±×¸©µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â ÀüÁ¦¿¡¼­ ³ª¿Â´Ù. ÀÌ °æ¿ì¿¡ »ó´ëÀû °¡Ä¡µéÀº ¸¶Ä¡ ±×°ÍµéÀÌ Àý´ëÀûÀÎ °Íó·³ Ãë±ÞµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. "»ó´ë·ÐÀÚµéÀº ¾î¶² °´°üÀû ±Ô¹üÀÇ Á¸Àçµµ ºÎÁ¤ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á µµ´öÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ±× ÇÙ½ÉÀ» À߶󳽴Ù. ÀüÀï ¶§¿¡, °¢ ÆíÀº ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ÆíÀÌ '¿Ç´Ù'°í ¹Ï´Â´Ù. ¿äÄÁ´ë, »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀڴ  ÀÌ ½Å³äÀº ¿ÏÀüÇÑ È¯»ó(ü³ßÌ)ÀÌ´Ù, °´°üÀûÀ¸·Î´Â È®½ÇÇÑ °ü³äÀÌ ¾ø´Ù, °¢ ÆíÀº ¶È°°ÀÌ '¿Ç°í' , °¢ ÆíÀº ±×ÀÇ ¹®È­Àû °üÁ¡¿¡ µû¶ó ¿Ç´Ù, ´ÜÁö ¹®È­ÇüŵéÀÇ Ãæµ¹ÀÌ ÀÖÀ» »ÓÀÌ´Ù. ¶ó°í ¾çÆí¿¡°Ô ¸»ÇÑ´Ù." µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ Á¸À縦 °í·ÁÇÒ ¶§, ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ µµ´öÀû ÀÌ»óÀ» °³¼±Çϰųª µµ´öÀû ¿ÏÀü¼ºÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ³ë·ÂÇÏ·Á°í ½ÃµµÇϴµ¥ Àǹ̰¡ ¾ø´Ù.(¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Àý´ëÀû °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø±â ¶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.)
µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÚ´Â °³Àο¡°Ô µµ´ëü " ÀÌ°ÍÀº ÂüÀ¸·Î, Áø½Ç·Î ¿Ç´Ù."¶ó´Â ¼±¾ðÀÇ °¡´É¼ºÀ» ÁÖÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¼±¾ðÀÇ Áø¸®¸¦ ºÎÀÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ÀηùÀÇ °¡Àå °­ÇÑ È®½Å(½Å³ä)¿¡ ¿ªÇàÇÑ´Ù.

¥³.  ECONOMIC  SCIENCE  AND  CIVILIZATION(°æÁ¦°úÇаú ¹®¸í)

     (1)  The  Goal of  Economics (°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥)

The prevailing view of economics is that advanced by  Lionel  Robbins, one which holds that there are no economic ends, that the science of economics is entirely neutral with regard to ends.77  Lord  Robbins therefore holds that economics is a speculative or positive science not concerned with ends but simply with the intention only of explaining what is.  John  Elliott  Cairnes, sometimes described as the last of the great classical economists, was emphatic in his belief that economics was a positive science.  Its object was "not to attain tangible results, not to prove any definite thesis, not to advocate any practical plan, but simply to give light to reveal laws of nature, to tell us what phenomena are found together, what effects will follow from what causes."78

°æÁ¦Çп¡ °üÇÑ Áö¹èÀû °ßÇش  ¸®¿À³Ú ·Îºó½º¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© Á¦±âµÈ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×´Â °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº °æÁ¦Àû ¸ñÀûÀÌ ¾ø°í, °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀº ÀüÀûÀ¸·Î ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©´Â Á߸³ÀûÀ̶ó°í ÁÖÀåÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ·Îºó½º °æÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº ¸ñÇ¥¿Í´Â °ü°è°¡ ¾ø°í, ´ÜÁö ¹«¾ùÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇϴ°¡(what is)¸¦ ¼³¸íÇÒ »ÓÀÎ Àǵµ¸¸¿¡ °ü¿©ÇÏ´Â »çº¯(¼ø¼ö ÀÌ·Ð)ÀûÀ̰ųª ½ÇÁõÀûÀÎ °úÇÐÀ̶ó°í ÁÖÀåÇÑ´Ù. ¶§¶§·Î À§´ëÇÑ ÃÖÈÄÀÇ °íÀüÆÄ ÇÐÀÚ·Î ¹¦»çµÇ¾ú´ø, Á¸ ¿¤¸®¿Ê Ä«À̸£³ÝÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº ½ÇÁõ°úÇÐ À̶ó´Â ±×ÀÇ ¼Ò½ÅÀ» °­ÇÏ°Ô Ç¥ÇöÇß´Ù.
°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº "°¡½ÃÀûÀÎ °á°ú¸¦ ´Þ¼ºÇÏ´Â °Íµµ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ¾î¶² È®½ÇÇÑ ÀÌ·ÐÀ» Áõ¸íÇÏ´Â °Íµµ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ¾î¶² ½ÇõÀûÀÎ °èȹ(Ç÷£)À» ÁöÁöÇÏ´Â °Íµµ ¾Æ´Ñ,  ´ÜÁö ¾î¶² Çö»óµéÀÌ ÇÔ²² ¹ß°ßµÇ°í, ¾î¶² °á°úµéÀÌ ¾î¶² ¿øÀεé·ÎºÎÅÍ µû¶ó ³ª¿Ã °ÍÀΰ¡¸¦ ¿ì¸®µé¿¡°Ô ¼³¸íÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ ¹ýÄ¢À» ¹àÇô ÁÙ »Ó ÀÎ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

Nassau  Senior earlier uttered substantially the same view.  It matters not what the conclusions of the economist may be:

¡¦ whatever be their generality and their truth, (they) do not authorize him in adding a single word of advice.  That privilege belongs to the writer or statesman who has considered all the causes which may promote or impede the general welfare of those whom he addresses, not to the theorist who has considered only one, ¡¦¡¦ 79

     A more practical and down-to-earth definition of economics is given by another eminent  English economist,  Walter  Bagehot.  According to him:

The science of political economy, as we have it in  England, may be defined as the science of business --- the "great commerce" by which  England has become rich --- Dealing with matters of "business", it assumes that man is actuated only by motives of business: it assumes that every man who makes anything makes it for money, that he will always make it in the way that will produce most and spend least, ¡¦¡¦ 80

ÀÏÂïÀÌ ³ª½Î¿ì ³ëÀÎÀº ´ëü·Î °°Àº °ßÇظ¦ ¸»Çß´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÇ °á·ÐµéÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÌ µÉÁö´Â Áß¿äÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Ù.

°á·ÐµéÀÇ º¸Æí¼º°ú ±×µéÀÇ Áø½ÇÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀ̵ç, °á·ÐµéÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ¿¡°Ô(him) ´Ü ÇÑ ¸¶µðÀÇ Á¶¾ðÀ» ´õÇϵµ·Ï ±ÇÀ§¸¦ ÁÖÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ±× Ư±ÇÀº¿ÀÁ÷ ÇÑ °¡Áö¸¸À» °í·ÁÇß´ø À̷а¡°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ±×(´ÙÀ½¿¡ ³ª¿À´Â ÀÛ°¡ ¶Ç´Â Á¤Ä¡°¡)°¡ ¸Þ½ÃÁö(¸»)¸¦ º¸³»´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÇ Àü¹ÝÀû º¹Áö¸¦ ÁõÁøÇϰųª ¹æÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¿øÀεéÀ» °í·ÁÇÑ ±× ÀÛ°¡³ª Á¤Ä¡°¡¿¡ ¼ÓÇÑ´Ù.

°æÁ¦Çп¡ °üÇÑ ´õ ½ÇÁ¦ÀûÀÌ°í Çö½ÇÀûÀÎ Á¤ÀÇ´Â ´Ù¸¥ Àú¸íÇÑ ¿µ±¹ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÎ ¿ùÅÍ ¹Ù°ÔȬ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÁÖ¾îÁö°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¿¡ ÀÇÇϸé:

¿ì¸®°¡ ¿µ±¹¿¡¼­ °®°í ÀÖ´Â, ±×·¯ÇÑ Á¤Ä¡°æÁ¦ÇÐÀº »ç¾÷(ÞÀåö)ÀÇ °úÇÐÀ¸·Î Á¤ÀÇµÉ °Í °°´Ù....¿µ±¹À» ºÎÀ¯ÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µç "À§´ëÇÑ »ó¾÷(»ç¾÷)".....»ç¾÷ÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ´Ù·ç¸é¼­, Á¤Ä¡°æÁ¦ÇÐÀº Àΰ£Àº ¿ÀÁ÷ »ç¾÷ÀÇ µ¿±â¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ ÇൿÇÑ´Ù°í °¡Á¤ÇÑ´Ù. Á¤Ä¡°æÁ¦ÇÐÀº ¾î¶² °ÍÀ» ¸¸µå´Â ¸ðµç »ç¶÷Àº ±×°ÍÀ» µ·À» À§Çؼ­ ¸¸µé°í, ¸ðµç »ç¶÷Àº °¡Àå ¸¹ÀÌ »ý»êÇÏ°í, °¡Àå Àû°Ô  ¼Òºñ ÇÒ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ±×°ÍÀ» ¸¸µé °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀ» °¡Á¤ÇÑ´Ù.

     Not everyone claims that these economists are as scientific as they maintain.  The Nobel  Laureate, Gunnar  Myrdal, makes no bones about his belief that economics is not wertfrei:  "Chaos does not organize itself into cosmos.  A "disinterested"  social science is, from this viewpoint pure nonsense.  It never existed and it will never exist.  We can strive to make our thinking rational in spite of this, but only by facing the valuations, not evading them."81
     Protesting that economic theory is not an end in itself --- it must have a goal, an end lying outside of itself --- and that all knowledge does not come from science, one  Harvard economist put it this way:

The sciences alone yield knowledge of the causes of effects  ¡¦ of means to ends ¡¦  not wisdom about values, or to guide and civilize men's choice of their ends.  Hence in the measure in which intellectual life and culture comes to be dominated by the scientific studies only, they make men and societies increasingly efficient and potent but at the same time increasingly barbarous.82

ÀÌµé °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ ±×µéÀÌ ÁÖÀåÇÏ´Â ¸¸Å­ °úÇÐÀûÀ̶ó°í ¸ðµç »ç¶÷ÀÌ ÁÖÀåÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ³ëº§»ó ¼ö»óÀÚ ±º³ª¸£ ¸Ó´úÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº °¡Ä¡·ÎºÎÅÍ Á߸³ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â ±×ÀÇ ½Å³ä¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ÀÔÁõÇÏ·Á°í ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. "È¥µ·Àº ±× ÀÚ½ÅÀ» Á¶Á÷Çؼ­ Áú¼­¸¦ ¸¸µé¾î ³»Áö ¾Ê´Â´Ù." ÀÌ·± °üÁ¡¿¡¼­, "°¡Ä¡¿¡ ¹«°ü°èÇÑ" »çȸ°úÇÐÀº ¼øÀüÇÑ ³­¼¾½º(¹«ÀǹÌÇÑ ÀÏ)ÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ »çȸ°úÇÐÀº °áÄÚ Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò°í, °áÄÚ Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í ¿ì¸®´Â  °¡Ä¡Æò°¡µéÀ» ÇÇÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í, °¡Ä¡Æò°¡¿¡ Á÷¸éÇÔÀ¸·Î½á¸¸, ¿ì¸®ÀÇ »ç°í¸¦ ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î ¸¸µé±â À§ÇÏ¿© ³ë·ÂÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. °æÁ¦ÀÌ·ÐÀº ±× ÀÚü°¡ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù.....±×°ÍÀº ±× ÀÚüÀÇ ¿ÜºÎ¿¡ ³õ¿© ÀÖ´Â ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î¼­ ¾î¶² ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ °¡Á®¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.....±×¸®°í ¸ðµç Áö½ÄÀÌ °úÇÐÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¿ÀÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÁÖÀåÇϸ鼭, ÇÑ ÇÏ¹Ùµå ´ëÇб³ÀÇ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ´Â ±×°ÍÀ» ÀÌ·± ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ¼³¸íÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

°úÇÐÀº °á°úÀÇ ¿øÀÎÀÇ Áö½Ä¸¸À» ÁØ´Ù.....¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀÇ Áö½Ä.....°¡Ä¡¿¡ °üÇÑ ÁöÇý°¡ ¾Æ´Ñ, Àΰ£µéÀÇ ¸ñÀû¿¡ °üÇÑ Àΰ£µéÀÇ ¼±ÅÃÀ» ÁöµµÇÏ°í °³È­Çϱâ À§ÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀÇ Áö½Ä¸¸À» ÁØ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ÁöÀû»ýÈ°°ú ¹®È­(±³¾ç)°¡ °úÇÐÀû ¿¬±¸¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ Áö¹èµÇ´Â Á¤µµ·Î, ±×µéÀº Àΰ£°ú »çȸ¸¦ Á¡Á¡ È¿À²ÀûÀ¸·Î ¸¸µé°í, À¯·ÂÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µç´Ù. ±×·¯³ª µ¿½Ã¿¡ Á¡Á¡ ¾ß¸¸½º·´°Ô ¸¸µç´Ù.

     Professor  Taylor here is concerned about the neglect of philosophy, regarded in the ancient sense as the pursuit of wisdom.  Knowledge derived in this way he considered is in no way inferior to knowledge arrived at by the empirical method.  He lamented the absence of values in economics.  So indeed did  Walter  Bagehot but recognized the establishment of such values as lying beyond the purview of the economist. Listen to him as he tells us that the purpose of economics is not to provide answers to defeat doctrinaire socialists, that its aims are more humble.  "These and these forces produce these effects, and there it stops.  It does not profess to give a higher moral judgment on either; it leaves it for a higher science, and one yet more difficult to pronounce what ought and what ought not to be."83
     It is in the decision of economists to leave matters of ethics severally alone that the distinguished  British historian,  R. H. Tawney, sees its great weakness.  For  Tawney a nation must have a clear understanding of the deficiency between must have a clear understanding of the deficiency between  "what is" and  "what ought to be".  Failure to act on this distinction is to  "move with the energetic futility of a squirrel in a revolving door."  A nation must have recourse to principles.  Such principles lie beyond the exigencies of society. 84

Å×ÀÏ·¯ ±³¼ö´Â ¿©±â¼­ °í´ëÀûÀÎ Àǹ̿¡¼­ ÁöÇýÀÇ Ãß±¸·Î °£ÁֵǴ öÇÐÀÇ °æ½Ã(ÌîãÊ)¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© °ÆÁ¤ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×°¡ »ý°¢Çß´ø ÀÌ·± ¹æ½Ä¿¡¼­ ¾òÀº Áö½ÄÀº °æÇèÀû ¹æ¹ý¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© µµ´ÞÇÑ Áö½Äº¸´Ù ¿­µîÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Ù. Å×ÀÏ·¯´Â °æÁ¦Çп¡ °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø´Â °ÍÀ» ÇÑźÇß´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ÂüÀ¸·Î ¿ùÅÍ ¹Ù°ÔȪÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¹üÀ§¸¦ ³Ñ¾î¼­ Á¸ÀçÇÏ´Â °¡Ä¡Ã¼Á¦ÀÇ È®¸³¸¸À» ÀÎÁ¤Çß´Ù.  °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº °ø»óÀû(¼øÀÌ·ÐÀû) »çȸÁÖÀÇÀÚµéÀ» ÁÂÀý½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇÑ ´ë´äÀ» Á¦°øÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í, °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ´õ º¸Àß °Í ¾ø´Ù(¼Ò¹ÚÇÏ´Ù)°í ±×°¡ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ» µé¾î¶ó.
"ÀÌ·± °Íµé°ú ÀÌ·± °ÍµéÀÇ ÈûµéÀÌ ÀÌ·± °á°úµéÀ» ³º´Â´Ù. ±×¸®°í °Å±â¿¡¼­ ¸ØÃá´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº ¾î¶² Æí¿¡ ´õ ³ôÀº µµ´öÀû ÆÇ´ÜÀ» ÁÖ±â À§ÇÏ¿© °ø¾ð(¼±¾ð)ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀº  ¹«¾ùÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇؾßÇÏ°í, ¹«¾ùÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¸»¾Æ¾ß Çϴ°¡¸¦ ¼±¾ðÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ´õ ³ôÀº °úÇÐ, ±×¸®°í ´õ ¾î·Á¿î °úÇп¡ ¸Ã±ä´Ù.  Àú¸íÇÑ ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ¿ª»ç°¡ÀÎ ÅÍ´Ï°¡ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ Å« ´ÜÁ¡À» º¸´Â °ÍÀº °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ À±¸®¹®Á¦µéÀ» Á¦°¢±â µ¿¶³¾îÁö°Ô ³»¹ö·ÁµÎ´Â °áÁ¤¿¡¼­´Ù.  ÅÍ´Ï¿¡°Ô À־´Â ±¹°¡´Â "¹«¾ùÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇϴ°¡"¿Í "¹«¾ùÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇØ¾ß Çϴ°¡"ÀÇ »çÀÌ¿¡ ÀÖ´Â °£±Ø(ÊàÐÀ)¿¡ °üÇÑ ¸í¹éÇÑ ÀÌÇظ¦ °¡Á®¾ßÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ Â÷À̸¦ ÀÌÇØÇÏÁö ¸øÇؼ­ ¿À´Â ½ÇÆо߸»·Î "´Ù¶÷Áã°¡ ü ¹ÙÄû¸¦ µ¹ µíÀÌ ¹«ÀÍÇÏ°Ô Áø·ÂÇÏ´Â °Í°ú °°´Ù°í ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù."  ¾î¶² ±¹°¡µç  ¿øÄ¢¿¡ ÀÇÁöÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ ¿øÄ¢µéÀº »çȸÀÇ ±ä¹Ú¼ºÀ» ³Ñ¾î¼­ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù.(Áï '¿øÄ¢ÀÇ ÀÇÁö'´Â ±ä¹ÚÇÑ »çȸÀÇ ¿ä±¸µéº¸´Ù ´õ ³ôÀº Â÷¿øÀÇ °úÁ¦´Ù.)

     Referring to the influence in the development of the  British industrial state of  Calvinism,  "a creed which transformed the acquisition of wealth from a drudgery or a temptation into a moral duty,"  Tawney notes the resultant change in the conception of the place of economic interests in the life of society:
    
The isolation of economic aims as a specialized object of concentrated and systematic effort, the erection of economic criteria into an independent and authoritative standard of social expediency, are phenomena which though familiar enough in classical antiquity, appear, at least on a grand scale, only at a comparatively recent date in the history of later civilizations. 85

     The Puritan was now free without any fear of moral restrictions to engage in the pursuit of wealth with all his heart and soul.  For  Tawney, however, the great problem remained.  "Harnessed to a social purpose, they will turn the mill and grind the   corn. But the question, to what end the wheels revolve, still remains; and on that question the naive and uncritical worship of economic power, ¡¦ throws no light." 86

¿µ±¹ÀÇ »ê¾÷±¹°¡ ¹ßÀü¿¡ À־ "ºÎ(Ý£)ÀÇ È¹µæÀ» °í¿ª(ÍÈæµ)À̳ª À¯È¤(½ÃÇè)À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ µµ´öÀû Àǹ«·Î º¯È­½ÃŲ ½Å¾Ó½ÅÁ¶"ÀÎ,  Ä®ºó ÁÖÀÇÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ¼³¸íÇϸ鼭,  ÅÍ´Ï´Â »çȸ»ýÈ°¿¡ À־ Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇÀÇ ¿µÇâ(Çؼ³3)ÀÇ °á°ú·Î ÀϾ °æÁ¦Àû ±ÇÀÍÀÇ È¯°æ(ÀÚ¸®)¿¡ °üÇÑ °³³äÀÇ º¯È­¸¦ ÁÖ¸ñÇÑ´Ù.


Çؼ³3: Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ À±¸®°ü

  ±Ù´ë ÀÚº»ÁÖÀÇ Á¤½ÅÀÇ Çü¼º¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ£ Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ(Calvinism)ÀÇ À±¸®°üÀ» ¿ä¾àÀûÀ¸·Î °³°üÇÏ¸é ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù.

  ¨ç ¿¹Á¤¼³(çãïÒàã, Predestination)
  Çϳª´Ô(God)Àº ¿µ»ý(çµßæ)¿¡ ¿¹Á¤(çãïÒ)µÈ ÀÚ¸¦ ¼Ò¸í(á¯Ù¤)Çϸç, Àηù°¡ Á¸ÀçÇÏ´Â À¯ÀÏÇÑ ¸ñÀûÀº Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Àڱ⿵ȭ(í»Ðùç´ü¤)¿¡ À̹ÙÁö ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÔÀ̸ç, ÅÃÇÔÀ» ¹ÞÀº ±×¸®½ºµµÀÎÀÇ À¯ÀÏÇÑ Á¸Àç ¸ñÀûÀº Çϳª´ÔÀÇ À²¹ý(°è¸í)À» ½ÇõÇÏ¿© °¢±â(ÊÀÐù) ¼¼»ó¿¡¼­ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿µ±¤À» ³ªÅ¸³¿¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Çϳª´ÔÀÌ ±×¸®½ºµµÀο¡°Ô ¹Ù¶ó´Â ¹Ù´Â ±×µéÀÇ »çȸÀû È°µ¿(ÞäüåîÜ üÀÔÑ)¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Çϳª´ÔÀº Àΰ£»ýÈ°ÀÇ »çȸÀû ±¸¼ºÀÌ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ À²¹ý¿¡ ÇÕ´çÇÏ°í ¶Ç ±× ¸ñÀû¿¡ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ°Ô µÇ±â¸¦ ¿øÇϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ¿¡ À־ »çȸÀû È°µ¿Àº ´Ù¸¸ Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿µ±¤À» ´õÇϱâ À§ÇÑ(In majorem gloriam Dei) °Í¿¡ Áö³ªÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.

  ¨è Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ(Calvinism)ÀÇ ³ëµ¿°ü(Á÷¾÷°ü)
  »çȸ ÀüüÀÇ Áö»ó »ýÈ°À» À§ÇÑ ³ëµ¿(Á÷¾÷) Àǹ«´Â ±× ±³¸®ÀÇ À±¸®Àû ü°è ÁßÀÇ Æ¯Â¡Àû ºÎºÐÀ¸·Î µÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù.
  ±×µéÀÇ ±³¸®ÀÎ "ÀÌ¿ô»ç¶û"Àº (ÇÇÁ¶¹°ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó Çϳª´Ô(God)ÀÇ ¿µ±¤¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾î¾ß ÇϹǷÎ) ¿ì¼± ù°·Î ÀÚ¿¬¹ý(Lex nature)¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÁÖ¾îÁø Á÷¹«Àǹ«(òÅÙâëùÙâ)ÀÇ ÀÌÇà¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³ª¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í ÇÑ´Ù.(ÁÖ1)

    [¿ªÀÚº¸Ãæ: ÀÚ¿¬¹ý(Lex nature)ÀÇ Á÷¹«Àǹ«: Ä«Å縯 ±³¸®¿¡¼­´Â Á÷¹«Àǹ«´Â "ÀÌ¿ô»ç¶û"À» À§ÇÑ ÀÚ¿¬ ¹ýÀû Áú¼­¿¡ ¼ÓÇÏ°í ¹°Àû¡¤ºñÀΰÝÀûÀÎ ¼ºÁúÀ» ¶è´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î Á÷¾÷¿¡ Ưº°ÇÑ À±¸®¼ºÀÌ °­Á¶µÇ°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ¿¡¼­´Â Á÷¾÷³ëµ¿Àº ±¸¿ø(Salvation)ÀÇ È®ÁõÀÇ °´°üÀû ÀÛ¿ëÀÌ°í Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¼Ò¸í(Calling)ÀÌ´Ù.]

  ÀÌ·± °æ¿ì ±×°ÍÀº ƯÈ÷ ¹°Àû(ÚªîÜ), ºñÀΰÝÀû(ÞªìÑÌ«îÜ)ÀÎ ¼ºÁú(¿ì¸®¸¦ µÑ·¯½Î°í ÀÖ´Â »çȸÀû Áú¼­ÀÇ ÇÕ¸®Àû ±¸¼º¿¡ À̹ÙÁö ÇÏ´Â)À» ¶ç°Ô µÈ´Ù. »çȸÀû Áú¼­(Kosmos)ÀÇ Á¶Á÷°ú ±¸¼ºÀº ³î¶ó¿ï Á¤µµ·Î ÇÕ¸ñÀûÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î¼­ ¼º¼­(Bible)ÀÇ °è½Ã¿¡¼­ º¸´ø, ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ Á÷°ü¿¡¼­ º¸´ø ±×°ÍÀÌ ÀηùÀÇ º¹Áö¸¦ À§ÇÑ °ÍÀÓÀº ÀÚ¸íÇÑ »ç½ÇÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ºñÀΰÝÀû¡¤»çȸÀû º¹Áö¿¡ ºÀ»çÇÒ ³ëµ¿(ÖÌÔÑ)Àº Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿µ±¤À» ³ôÀÏ »Ó´õ·¯ ±×ÀÇ ¶æ(God's will)¿¡µµ ÇÕ´çÇÑ °ÍÀ̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ(Calvinism)¿¡ À־´Â Çϳª´ÔÀÇ ¿¹Á¤¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ±¸¿ø(Salvation)ÀÇ ÀÚ±âÈ®½Å(í»Ðùü¬ãá)À» ȹµæÇÔ¿¡ À־ÀÇ ÃÖ¼±ÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î¼­ ºÎ´ÜÇÑ Á÷¾÷³ëµ¿(òÅåöÖÌÔÑ, Rastlose Berufsarbeit)ÀÌ ¿ä±¸µÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ Á÷¾÷³ëµ¿¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ ½Å¾ÓÀû ÀÇȤ(ãáäæîÜ ë÷ûã)ÀÌ Á¦°ÅµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ°í ±¸¿ø(Salvation)ÀÇ È°½Ç¼ºÀÌ º¸ÁõµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù°í ¹Ï´Â´Ù. Áï, Ä®ºó(J. Calvin)¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¸é ½Å¾Ó(ãáäæ, Faith)ÀÌ ±¸¿øÀÇ È®Áõ(ü¬ñû)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÐ¸íÇÑ ±âÃÊ°¡ µÇ±â À§ÇÏ¿©´Â ±×ÀÇ °´°üÀû(ËÔκîÜ)ÀÎ ÀÛ¿ë(íÂéÄ ¶Ç´Â ÇàÀ§)¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ È®ÀεÇÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é ¾ÈµÈ´Ù°í ÇÑ´Ù. ½Å¾ÓÀº À¯È¿ÇÑ ½Å¾Ó(Fides efficax)ÀÓÀ» ÇÊ¿ä·Î Çϸç, ±¸¿ø¿¡ÀÇ ¼Ò¸í(á¯Ù¤)µµ À¯È¿ÇÑ ¼Ò¸í(Effectual calling)ÀÓÀ» ÇÊ¿ä·Î ÇÑ´Ù.(ÁÖ2)

  ¨é Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ(Calvinism)ÀÇ ±Ý¿åÀ±¸®(Ð×é¯×Ã×â)
  Ä®ºó(J. Calvin)Àº Çâ¶ô(ú½Õ¥)Àº ±ÝÁöÇßÀ¸³ª ±×·¸´Ù°í Çö¼¼µµÇÇ(úÞá¦Ô±ù­)³ª µÐ¼¼(Ôíá¦, ¼Ó¼¼¿¡¼­ ÀºµÐÇÔ)¸¦ Çã¿ëÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ¿ÀÈ÷·Á Àΰ£Àº ´©±¸µµ Çö¼¼¿¡¼­ Çϳª´Ô(God)ÀÌ ±×¿¡°Ô ºÎ¿©ÇÑ »ç¹°(ÞÀÚª)ÀÇ °ü¸®Àڷμ­ ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î Çù·ÂÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ Á¾±³Àû ÀÓ¹«¶ó°í »ý°¢Çß´Ù.(ÁÖ3)  
  ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ÀÏ¹Ý ½ÅÀÚµé(Believers)ÀÇ À±¸®»ýÈ°·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹«°èȹ(Ùíͪüñ)°ú ¹«Ã¼°è(Ùíô÷ͧ)°¡ Á¦°ÅµÇ°í »ýÈ°Àü¹ÝÀ» ±ÔÁ¦ÇÏ´Â ÀÏ°üµÈ ¹æ¹ý(Method)ÀÌ ¿ä±¸µÇ¾ú´Ù.(ÁÖ4)
  µû¶ó¼­ Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ¿¡¼­ÀÇ ±Ý¿å(asceticism, Ð×é¯)Àº ÀÏÁ¤ÀÇ ±ÔÀ²(Ю×È)°ú ¹Ù¸¥»ýÈ° ŵµÀÇ ½ÇÇà(ãùú¼)À» ÀǹÌÇÑ´Ù.(ÁÖ5) ±×·¡¼­ ÀÌ ±Ý¿åÀº ÇÕ¸®Àû »ýȰŵµ¸¦ Á¶Á÷ÀûÀ¸·Î ¿Ï¼ºÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. ±ÝÀ°ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀÚ¿¬ÀÇ »óÅÂ(Status nature)¸¦ ±Øº¹ÇÏ¿© ºñÇÕ¸®ÀûÀÎ Ã浿·Â°ú ¼¼»ó ¹× ÀÚ¿¬¿¡ÀÇ ÀÇÁ¸½É(ëîðíãý)À» Àΰ£À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ Àý´Ü(ï·Ó¨)ÇÔ¿¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸ç Àΰ£À» °èȹÀûÀÎ ÀÇÁöÀÇ Áö¹è¿¡ º¹Á¾½ÃÅ´¿¡ ÀÖ°í, Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇàÀ§¸¦ ºÎ´ÜÇÑ ÀÚ±â½É»ç(í»ÐùãûÞÛ)¿Í À±¸®Àû °á°úÀÇ Æò·®(øÄÕá, °¡Ä¡ÆÇ´Ü)°ú¿¡ Á¾¼Ó½ÃÅ´À¸·Î½á ½ÅÀÚ(ãáíº)¸¦ (°´°üÀûÀ¸·Î´Â) õ±¹(Çϴóª¶ó)ÀÇ ³ëµ¿ÀÚ·Î ÈÆÀ°(ýºëÀ)ÇÔ°ú ¾Æ¿ï·¯, (ÁÖ°üÀûÀ¸·Î´Â) ±×µéÀÇ ¿µÈ¥ÀÇ ±¸¿øÀ» È®½ÇÄÉ ÇÔ¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.
  ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Àû±ØÀûÀÎ ÀÚ±âÁö¹è(í»Ðùò¨ÛÕ, Self-control)´Â ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î ÃÖ°í ÇüÅÂÀÇ ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀÎ ¼ºÁ÷ÀÚ À±¸®(½ÅºÎ¡¤¼ö³àµéÀÇ µµ´öÀ±¸®)ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¿´´ø ¹Ù¿Í ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î, û±³ÁÖÀÇ(ôèÎçñ«ëù)ÀÇ ½Çõ»ýÈ°(ãùôÂßæüÀ)¿¡ À־µµ °áÁ¤ÀûÀ¸·Î Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÌ»ó(×âßÌ)À̾ú´Ù. Áï, û±³ÁÖÀÇ(Puritanism)ÀÇ ±Ý¿å(Ð×é¯)ÀÌ °®´Â ÀÛ¿ë(íÂéÄ)Àº ÁïÈïÀûÀÎ °¨Á¤(Êïï×, Affekte)¿¡ ´ëÇ×ÇÏ¿© ¿µ¼ÓÀûÀÎ µ¿±â[ƯÈ÷ ±×·¯ÇÑ ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀÎ ±Ý¿å¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ ¼ö·Ã(áóÖ£)µÈ µ¿±â]¸¦ À¯ÁöÇÏ°í È°¿ëÇÒ ´É·ÂÀ» Àΰ£¿¡°Ô ÁÖ´Â µ¥ ÀÖ´Ù. ¿©±â¼­ÀÇ ±Ý¿åÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î ÈçÈ÷ »ý°¢ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Í°ú´Â ´Þ¸® ÀÚ°¢Àû(í»ÊÆîÜ), ÀǽÄÀû(ëòãÛîÜ)ÀÎ Åõ¸íÇÑ »ýÈ°À» ¿µÀ§Çϴµ¥ ÀÖÀ¸¸ç(ÀÚÀ¯¹æÁ¾ÇÑ º»´ÉÀû Äè¶ôÀ» ±Øº¹ÇÏ´Â ÀÏÀÌ Àý½ÇÇÑ °úÁ¦·Î µÇ¾î ÀÖ°í), ¶ÇÇÑ ±Ý¿å(Ð×é¯)ÀÇ ÃÖÁß¿äÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀº ÀÌ¿¡ º¹Á¾ÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÇ »ýȰŵµ¿¡ ±ÔÀ²(Ordnung)À» È®¸³ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¸ðµç °áÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ÀÔÀåÀº Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇÀÚ(Calvinist)ÀÇ »ýÈ° ¿ø¸®¿¡¼­³ª, Ä«Å縯Àû ¼ºÁ÷ÀÚ »ýÈ°ÀÇ ±ÔÀ²¿¡¼­³ª ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ µÎ ½Å¾Ó(Ä«Å縯Àû ½Å¾Ó°ú °³½Å±³ ½Å¾Ó)ÀÇ Çö¼¼(úÞá¦)¸¦ ±Øº¹ÇÏ´Â °­·ÂÇÑ Èû°ú ƯÈ÷ Ä®ºóÁÖÀÇ(Calvinism)°¡ ·çÅÍÁÖÀÇ(Lutheranism)¿Í´Â ´Þ¸® ÀüÅõÀû ±³È¸(îú÷ãîÜ Îçüå, Ecclesia militans)·Î¼­ ÇÁ·ÎÅ×½ºÅºÆ¼Áò(Protestantism)À» ¿µ¼Ó½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´ø ÈûÀÇ ±Ù¿øÀº ¹Ù·Î ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÀüÀΰÝ(îïìÑÌ«)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¶Á÷Àû Áö¹è(ðÚòÄîÜ ò¨ÛÕ)¿¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù°í ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.(ÁÖ6)
  
.ÁÖ 1) Ïíá¦êª¡¤Ë©Ù¤Ð¤ Íìæ», ÇÁ·ÎÅ×½ºÆ®ÅºÆ¼ÁòÀÇ ×Ã×â¿Í íÀÜâñ«ëùÀÇ ïñãê, ¼­¿ï,
     ìéðÍÊÈ, 1978, p.92.
ÁÖ 2) Ibid., p.97.
ÁÖ 3) ÙøïáäÜ¡¤ôìߣâ³Üýæ», «Þ«Ä«¯«¹¡¤«¦«¨ -«Ð- ìéÚõÞäüåÌèð­ÞÈé©Öå, ÔÔÌÈ,
      äÛ÷îßöïÁ, á¹ûú 50Ò´, p.225.
ÁÖ 4) Ïíá¦êª¡¤Ë©Ù¤Ð¤ Íìæ», ÇÁ·ÎÅ×½ºÆ®ÅºÆ¼ÁòÀÇ ×Ã×â¿Í íÀÜâñ«ëùÀÇ ïñãê, ¼­¿ï,
      ìéðÍÊÈ, 1978.
ÁÖ 5) ôìߣâ³Üýèâ ìéìÑæ», «Þ«Ä«¯«¹¡¤«¦«¨ -«Ð- ìéÚõÞäüåÌèð­ÞÈé©Öå, ÔÔÌÈ,
      äÛ÷îßöïÁ, á¹ûú 50Ò´, p.252.
ÁÖ 6) Ïíá¦êª¡¤Ë©Ù¤Ð¤ Íìæ», ÇÁ·ÎÅ×½ºÆ®ÅºÆ¼ÁòÀÇ ×Ã×â¿Í íÀÜâñ«ëùÀÇ ïñãê, ¼­¿ï,
      ìéðÍÊÈ, 1978. p.103.


°æÁ¦ÀûÀÎ ¸ñÀûÀ» ÁýÁßÀûÀÌ°í ü°èÀûÀÎ ³ë·ÂÀ» ±â¿ïÀÌ´Â Àü¹®È­µÈ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ºÐ¸®ÇÏ´Â °Í°ú °æÁ¦Àû Ç¥ÁØÀ» »çȸÀû ÆíÀÇ(expediency)ÀÇ ¼¼°è(Çؼ³4) ¾È¿¡ ÇϳªÀÇ µ¶¸³ÀûÀÌ°í ±ÇÀ§ÀûÀÎ ±âÁØÀ¸·Î ¶¸¶¸ÀÌ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© ¼¼¿ì´Â °ÍÀº, ºñ·Ï °íÀüÀûÀÎ °í´ë¿¡¼­´Â ¸Å¿ì Ä£¼÷ÇÏÁö¸¸, Àû¾îµµ ´ë±Ô¸ð·Î´Â, Èı⠹®¸í»ç ½Ã´ë¿¡  ÀÖ´Â ºñ±³Àû ±Ù·¡¿¡¼­¸¸ º¸ÀÌ´Â Çö»óÀÌ´Ù.

Çؼ³4: ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ ÆíÀÇ·Ð(Expediency)
¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ µµ´ööÇÐü°è´Â À̽ŷÐ(deism)¿¡ ±âÃʸ¦ µÐ ¼¼ °³ÀÇ ¼¼°è, Áï ÀξֽÉ(ìÒäñãý)ÀÇ ¿ø¸®°¡ Áö¹èÇÏ´Â µµ´öÀÇ ¼¼°è, Á¤ÀÇÀÇ ¿ø¸®°¡ Áö¹èÇÏ´Â ¹ýÀÇ ¼¼°è, ÆíÀÇÀÇ ¿ø¸®°¡ Áö¹èÇÏ´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¼¼°è µîÀ¸·Î Á¤Àǵǰí ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¹ýÀÇ ¼¼°è¿Í °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¼¼°è´Â µµ´öÀÇ ¼¼°è¿¡ Æ÷°ýµÇ´Â ÀϺκÐÀÓÀ» ±Ô¸íÇÑ´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½º´Â Çü½Ä»óÀ¸·Î´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¼¼°è°¡ µµ´ö ¹× ¹ýÀÇ ¼¼°è¿¡ Á¾¼ÓÇÏÁö¸¸, ½ÇÁúÀûÀ¸·Î´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¼¼°è°¡ ÀÌ µÎ ¼¼°è À§¿¡ ±º¸²ÇÏ´Â ÀüµµµÈ Çö»óÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³ª°í ÀÖÀ½À» ¸í½ÃÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
(ÂüÁ¶¹®: ¹Ú ±âÇõ, °æÁ¦Çлç, ¼­¿ï, ¹ý¹®»ç, 1995, p.98.)

±×¶§ û±³µµ´Â  ±×ÀÇ ¿Â ½É·ÉÀ» ´ÙÇÏ¿© ºÎÀÇ Ãß±¸¿¡ Á¾»çÇÏ´Â µ¥¿¡ ¾î¶² µµ´öÀû Á¦¾àÀÇ µÎ·Á¿ò ¾øÀÌ ÀÚÀ¯·Î¿ü´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÅÍ´Ï¿¡°Ô À־´Â Å« ¹®Á¦´Â ±×´ë·Î ³²¾Æ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. "»çȸÀû ¸ñÀû¿¡ ¼Ó¹ÚµÈ ä, ±×µéÀº ¹æ¾Ñ°£À» µ¹¸®°í, °î½ÄÀ» Âö´Â´Ù. ±×·¯³ª '¹«½¼ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¹°·¹¹æ¾Æ¸¦ µ¹¸®´Â°¡' ¶ó´Â Áú¹®Àº ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ³²´Â´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±× Áú¹®¿¡  °æÁ¦·Â¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼øÁøÇÏ°í ¹«ºñÆÇÀûÀÎ ¼þ¹è´Â....... ¾î¶² ºûµµ ´øÁ®ÁÖÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.

     Stronger, and perhaps much more constructive criticism --- an alternative system is offered --- of an economy without a goal comes from a twentieth century  German economist,  Heinrich  Pesch.  Since economic life has its source in human needs,  Pesch asks whether the economy has a goal beyond the aims of individuals in the marketplace.  Since the social scientist, the economist should be concerned with acquiring a knowledge of means relative to the desired goal, such and end should be established in order to provide the criterion by which the choice of means should be made.  For  Pesch, the goal of the economy, antecedent to the economic goals men have set themselves, and discovered by philosophic deduction from the nature of society and the economic order, is the material welfare of individuals, 87 something quite different from the sum of the welfare of individuals.
     Claiming that the whole of economic theory had prescinded from the question of the goal of the economy,  Professor Mulcahy notes that the determination of the goal of the economy was a crucial matter for  Pesch.  "Not material goods, nor their production, maintenance, increased employment, nor the formation of wealth and capital, but the material wealth of men constitutes the aim of the aggregate of activities and institutions which are wont to be called the 'economy' ¡¦ "88

¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¾ø´Â °æÁ¦¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ´õ À¯·ÂÇÑ, ±×¸®°í ¾Æ¸¶ ÈξÀ ´õ °Ç¼³ÀûÀÎ ºñÆÇÀÌ......¾î¶² ´ë¾ÈÁ¦µµ°¡ Á¦Àǵǰí ÀÖ´Ù.......20¼¼±â µ¶ÀÏ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ ÇÏÀθ®È÷ Æ佬·ÎºÎÅÍ ¿Â´Ù. °æÁ¦»ýÈ°Àº Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇÊ¿äµé¿¡ ±× ±Ù¿øÀ» °®°í Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ Æ佬´Â °æÁ¦°¡ ½ÃÀåÀÇ °³ÀεéÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀ» ³Ñ¾î¼± ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ °®°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö¸¦ ¹¯´Â´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ´Â »çȸ°úÇÐÀÚÀ̱⠶§¹®¿¡ ¹Ù¶ú´ø ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ °ü·ÃµÈ ¼ö´ÜÀÇ Áö½ÄÀÇ È¹µæ¿¡ °ü½ÉÀ» °¡Á®¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ ¸ñÇ¥´Â ¼ö´ÜÀÇ ¼±ÅÃÀÌ ¸¸µé¾îÁö±â À§ÇÑ Ç¥ÁØÀ» Á¦°øÇϱâ ÀÇÇÏ¿© È®Á¤µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. Æ佬¿¡ À־, Àΰ£µéÀÌ ½º½º·Î¿¡°Ô ºÎ°úÇÑ °æÁ¦Àû ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ ¾Õ¼­°í, »çȸÀÇ ¼º°Ý°ú °æÁ¦Àû Áú¼­·ÎºÎÅÍ Ã¶ÇÐÀû Ã߷п¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¹ß°ßµÈ ¸ñÇ¥´Â °³ÀεéÀÇ º¹ÁöÀÇ ÃÑ°è(ÃѾ×)¿Í´Â ¾ÆÁÖ ´Ù¸¥ °ÍÀÎ °³ÀÎÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹ÁöÀÌ´Ù.
°æÁ¦ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ Àüü´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ ¹®Á¦·ÎºÎÅÍ ºÐ¸®µÇ¾ú´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇϸ鼭, ¸ÖÄ«ÀÌ ±³¼ö´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ °áÁ¤Àº Æ佬¿¡°Ô´Â °ï¶õÇÑ ¹®Á¦¿´´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÁÖ¸ñÇÑ´Ù.
"¹°ÁúÀû ÀçÈ­µµ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ±×µéÀÇ  »ý»ê, º¸Á¸, °í¿ëÁõ°¡µµ ¾Æ´Ï°í,  ºÎ¿Í ÀÚº»ÀÇ Çü¼ºµµ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû ºÎ´Â ´Ã '°æÁ¦'¶ó°í ºÒ·¯Áö´Â È°µ¿°ú Á¦µµµéÀÇ ÃÑ°è(ÃÑÁýÇÕ)ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÇ ±¸¼º¿ä¼Ò°¡ µÈ´Ù...."

     There is no question here of an economy whose goal is the production of wealth for its own sake, as an end in itself.  Nor is there any question of a study of the economy in terms of subjective satisfaction.  Pesch considers the aim of the economy an objective one, in a physical sense.  "The physical and psychic enjoyment, attached to the satisfaction of a momentary want, cannot be the final goal of a struggle so severe and difficult which, for the most part, makes up the content of men's lives."89

¿©±â¿¡¼­´Â °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ºÎÀÇ »ý»ê ÀÚü¸¦ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î Çϸç, ºÎÀÇ »ý»ê ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ºÎ¸¦ »ý»êÇÏ´Â °æÁ¦¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©´Â ¹®Á¦¸¦ »ïÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ÁÖ°üÀû °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ÀÇ °æÁ¦ ¿¬±¸¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©µµ ¾î¶² Áú¹®ÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. (³íÀÇÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.)  Æ佬´Â, ¹°¸®ÀûÀÎ Àǹ̿¡¼­, °æÁ¦ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ¹°ÁúÀû(°´°üÀû)ÀÎ ¸ñÇ¥¶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÑ´Ù.  "¼ø°£ÀûÀÎ ¿å±¸ÀÇ ¸¸Á·¿¡ ¼Ò¼ÓµÈ, À°Ã¼Àû Äè¶ô°ú ½É¸®Àû À¯Äè´Â, ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ Àΰ£µéÀÇ »îÀÇ ³»¿ëÀ» ±¸¼ºÇÏ´Â ¸Å¿ì È£µÇ°í ¾î·Á¿î ¾ÇÀü°íÅõÀÇ ÃÖÁ¾ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù."

     Nor does  Pesch regard the material welfare of men as anything other than one aspect, albeit a fundamental one, of man's total welfare.  The distinction between spiritual and material wants is very important for the science of economics.

On the one hand, the distinction between material and spiritual welfare must be firmly maintained for the protection of the worth of man and the eminence of the spiritual moral order; on the other hand, no less even in the interest of our science itself.  That is to say, if this distinction is not observed, then either the whole life of the citizen must be reduced to the economic, or at least there is lacking a certain boundary between the economy and other spheres of human and political activities. 90

Æ佬´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¸¦, ºñ·Ï ÇϳªÀÇ ±âº»Àû ¸é¸ðÀ̱â´Â Çϳª, Àΰ£ÀÇ Àüüº¹ÁöÀÇ ÇÑ ¸é¸ð¿¡ ºÒ°úÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î °£ÁÖÇÑ´Ù. Á¤½ÅÀû ¿å±¸µé°ú ¹°ÁúÀû ¿å±¸µé »çÀÌÀÇ ±¸º°Àº °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¸Å¿ì Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù.

ÇÑÆí, Á¤½ÅÀû ¿å±¸µé°ú ¹°ÁúÀû ¿å±¸µé°úÀÇ »çÀÌÀÇ ±¸º°Àº Àΰ£ÀÇ °¡Ä¡¿Í Á¤½ÅÀû µµ´öÁú¼­ÀÇ °í±Í¼ºÀÇ º¸È£¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© È®°íÇÏ°Ô À¯ÁöµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.  ¹Ý¸é¿¡, ½ÉÁö¾î °úÇÐ ÀÚüÀÇ ÀÌÀÍÀ» À§Çؼ­µµ ¸¶Âù°¡Áö´Ù. Áï, ±× ±¸º°ÀÌ ÁؼöµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù¸é ½Ã¹ÎÀÇ ¿Â »ýÈ°Àº °æÁ¦ÀûÀÎ Â÷¿øÀ¸·Î ³·Ãß¾îÁö°Ô µÇ°Å³ª, ȤÀº Àû¾îµµ °æÁ¦¿Í ´Ù¸¥ Àι®Àû, Á¤Ä¡Àû È°µ¿ÀÇ ¿µ¿ª°ú È®½ÇÇÑ °æ°è°¡ ¾øÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

     In this connection,  Pesch's view of the relationship between economics and ethics is of importance.  This isolation of economics and other social sciences rather than specialization, is the weakness in modern methods of research.  Economics and ethics are interdependent but separate subjects.  The formal object of economics is the provision of the material needs of the people; the formal object of ethics is a concern with what is morally good and morally evil.  Pesch is firm in his conviction that economic theory cannot be dissociated from ethics for a practical science such as economic theory is obliged to conform to ethical principles.  This would not make economics a part of ethics for it is an independent subject, but argues  Pesch, not an isolated one.  "The concern of the economist is 'not to teach us about virtues and vices, but about the ways and means which lead to and preserve the material welfare of the people'."91

ÀÌ·± »ç»ó°ú °ü·ÃÇÏ¿©, °æÁ¦Çаú À±¸®ÇÐ »çÀÌÀÇ °ü·Ã¼º¿¡ °üÇÑ Æ佬ÀÇ »ç»óÀº Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù. Àü¹®È­º¸´Ù ¿ÀÈ÷·Á °æÁ¦Çаú ´Ù¸¥ »çȸ°úÇеé°úÀÇ ºÐ¸®(Àý¿¬)´Â Çö´ëÀÇ ¿¬±¸¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¾àÁ¡ÀÌ´Ù. °æÁ¦Çаú À±¸®ÇÐÀº ¼­·Î ÀÇÁ¸ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª º°°³ÀÇ ÁÖÁ¦ÀÌ´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ Á¤½ÄÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû ÇÊ¿äµéÀÇ °ø±ÞÀÌ´Ù. À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ Á¤½ÄÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ¹«¾ùÀÌ µµ´öÀûÀ¸·Î ¼±ÇÑ°¡¿Í ¹«¾ùÀÌ µµ´öÀûÀ¸·Î ¾ÇÇÑ°¡¿¡ °üÇÑ °ü½ÉÀÌ´Ù. Æ佬´Â °æÁ¦ÀÌ·ÐÀº À±¸®ÇÐÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ºÐ¸®µÇ¾î Áú ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â ±×ÀÇ ½Å³ä¿¡ À־ È®°íÇÏ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é °æÁ¦À̷аú °°Àº ½Çõ°úÇÐÀº À±¸®Àû ¿øÄ¢¿¡ ¼øÀÀ½ÃÄÑ¾ß Çϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀ»  À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ÀϺηΠ¸¸µéÁö ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ±×°ÍÀº µ¶¸³µÈ ÁÖÁ¦À̱⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Æ佬´Â ºÐ¸®(Àý¿¬)µÈ ÁÖÁ¦°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó°í ÁÖÀåÇÑ´Ù.(Áï °æÁ¦Çаú À±¸®ÇÐÀº ±× ÁÖÁ¦°¡ ¼­·Î µ¶¸³µÇÁö¸¸, Àý¿¬µÇ¾î¼­´Â ¾È µÈ´Ù.)
"°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ °ü½ÉÀº  ¼±(à¼)°ú ¾Ç(äÂ)¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ¿ì¸®¸¦ °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í, »ç¶÷µéÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÏ°í ±×°ÍÀ» º¸Á¸ÇÏ´Â ¹æ¹ý°ú ¼ö´Ü¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¿ì¸®¸¦ °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù."

    Pure economic theory, a study limited to the natural instinct of self-interest possesses scientific worth, but scarcely deserves, says  Pesch, the right to be described as a complete science of economics.  Such theory indicates the course of events which follow in the economic order where the sole and unrestrained operation of self-interest permitted.  Admitting that personal utility is a motive in men's lives,  Pesch says it is not all motives, and it is a motive not a norm.  Moreover, he says: "Self-interest is an instinct, an impulsive force and tendency within our human nature.  Only it is not to be forgotten that instinctive forces are subject to man's reason: the guiding law of free rational men belongs to the intellectual and moral order."92
     It is in the supremacy of reason over the human condition that leads to actions which are ethical.  Reason ordains that the natural resources of the earth be used for peaceful purposes, the material welfare of man.

À̱âÁÖÀÇÀÇ ÀÚ¿¬Àû º»´É¿¡ Á¦¾àµÈ ¿¬±¸ÀÎ, ¼ø¼ö °æÁ¦ÀÌ·ÐÀº °úÇÐÀû °¡Ä¡¸¦ °®´Â´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿ÏÀüÇÑ °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀ¸·Î ±â¼úµÉ ÀÚ°ÝÀ» ¹ÞÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù°í Æ佬´Â ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯ÇÑ ÀÌ·Ð(¼ø¼ö °æÁ¦ÀÌ·Ð)Àº À̱âÁÖÀÇ(À̱â½É)ÀÇ ´Üµ¶ÀûÀÌ°í Á¦¾îµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â ÀÛ¿ë(Çൿ)ÀÌ Çã¶ôµÇ´Â °æÁ¦Àû ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â »ç°ÇµéÀÇ °úÁ¤À» º¸¿© ÁØ´Ù. °³ÀÎÀû È¿¿ë(°ø¸®)ÀÌ Àΰ£µéÀÇ »îÀÇ ÇÑ µ¿±âÀÌÁö¸¸, ±×°ÍÀº ¸ðµç µ¿±â°¡ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±×°ÍÀº ÇϳªÀÇ ±ÔÁØÀÌ ¾Æ´Ñ ÇϳªÀÇ µ¿±â¶ó°í Æ佬´Â ¸»ÇÑ´Ù. ´õ¿íÀÌ ±×´Â "À̱â½ÉÀº ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Àΰ£¼º ¾È¿¡ ÀÖ´Â Ã浿·ÂÀÌ°í ¼ºÇâ(àõú¾)ÀÌ´Ù. ´Ù¸¸ º»´ÉÀÇ ÈûÀº Àΰ£ÀÇ À̼º¿¡ Áö¹èµÇ¾î¾ßÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» Àؾ´Â ¾ÈµÉ »ÓÀÌ´Ù. ÀÚÀ¯·Î¿î  À̼ºÀÎÀÇ ÀεµÀÇ ¹ýÄ¢Àº ÁöÀûÀÌ°í µµ´öÀûÀÎ µµ¸®(Ô³×â)¿¡ ¼ÓÇÑ´Ù. À̼ºÀÇ ÁÖ±Ç(¿ì¿ù¼º)ÀÌ Àΰ£»óŸ¦ Áö¹èÇÒ ¶§ À±¸®ÀûÀÎ ÇൿÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. À̼ºÀº Áö±¸ÀÇ ÀÚ¿¬ÀÚ¿øÀ» ÆòÈ­ÀûÀÎ ¸ñÀû, Áï  Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÇµµ·Ï ±ÔÁ¤ÇÑ´Ù.

    (2)  The  Goals  of  Civilization(¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥)

     In so far as economics is regarded as a positive science, then the aim of economists is the pursuit of truth for its own sake.  In this paper the view is maintained that the science of economics is to provide knowledge which will assist us to attain the goal of the economy, the material welfare of men, and in so doing, contribute to the attainment of the goals of civilization.
     For some scholars, the goal of civilization lies with the creation of a society where man can find happiness.  For  John Kenneth  Galbraith  "the pursuit of happiness is admirable as a social exactitude; there is agreement neither on its substance nor its source."93  Admitting that he evaded the question of happiness,94  Galbraith is chided by the philosopher,  Mortimer  Adler, for leaving to each individual the right to decide in view of his wants, apparently, what makes his life good.95

°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÌ ½ÇÁõ°úÇÐÀ¸·Î °£ÁֵǴ ÇÑ, °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº  Áø¸®Ãß±¸ ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÑ Áø¸®Ãß±¸ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â °æÁ¦°úÇÐÀº °æÁ¦¸ñÀûÀÎ, Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¸¦ ¼ºÃëÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ¿ì¸®¸¦ µµ¿ï Áö½ÄÀ» Á¦°øÇÏ°í, ±×·¸°Ô ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á, ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ ¼ºÃë¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â »ý°¢À» ÁÖÀåÇÑ´Ù. ¾î¶² ÇÐÀڵ鿡°Ô À־´Â, ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â Àΰ£ÀÌ ÇູÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »çȸÀÇ Ã¢Á¶¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù°í ÇÑ´Ù. Á¸ ÄÉ³×µå °¥ºê·¹À̽º¿¡°Ô´Â "ÇູÀÇ Ãß±¸´Â »çȸÀû ¸ñÇ¥·Î¼­ ¾ÆÁÖ ÈǸ¢ÇÏ´Ù.(ĪÂùÇÒ ¸¸ ÇÏ´Ù.) ±×·¯³ª ÇູÀÇ °³³äÀº öÇÐÀû Á¤È®¼ºÀÌ ¹ÌÈíÇÏ´Ù. ±×ÀÇ ³»¿ë(º»Áú)¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÇ°ßÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡°¡ ¾ø°í, ±× ±Ù¿ø¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©µµ ÀÏÄ¡µÈ ÀÇ°ßÀÌ ¾ø´Ù.  ±×(°¥ºê·¹À̽º)´Â ÇູÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ȸÇÇÇß´Ù°í´Â ÇÏÁö¸¸, °¥ºê·¹À̽º´Â °¢ °³ÀÎÀÇ »îÀ» ÇູÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µå´Â °ÍÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀΰ¡¸¦, ¿Ü°ü»ó, °¢ÀÚÀÇ ¿å±¸¸¦ °í·ÁÇÏ¿© °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ±Ç¸®¸¦ °¢ °³Àο¡°Ô ¸Ã°å´Ù´Â °Í¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© öÇÐÀÚ ¸ðƼ¸Ó ¾Æµé·¯¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÁúŸ¸¦ ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù.

    Professor  Adler is not at all pleased by a society which honors the production of wealth and technological advances for their own sake or for the sake of creature comforts in excess of human needs.  He says:

The high value set upon these things (money, fame, power) represents a fundamental disorder of goods, a perverse scale of values, placing lower over higher goods, mistaking merely apparent for real goods, and even transforming goods that are only means into ends to be sought for their own sake, as if they constituted the good life as a whole.96

¾Æµé·¯ ±³¼ö´Â ºÎÀÇ »ý»ê°ú ±â¼úÀû Áøº¸ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¶Ç´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ ÇÊ¿äµéÀ» ÃÊ°úÇÏ´Â Àΰ£  ¾È¶ôÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ºÎÀÇ »ý»ê°ú ±â¼úÀû Áøº¸¸¦ Áß½ÃÇÏ´Â »çȸ¸¦ ÀüÇô ÁÁ¾ÆÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

µ·, ¸í¼º, ±Ç·Â °°Àº °Íµé¿¡°Ô ³ôÀº °¡Ä¡¸¦ ¸Å±â´Â °ÍÀº ÀçÈ­ÀÇ ±âº»ÀûÀΠȥ¶õ°ú °¡Ä¡ÀÇ ±×¸©µÈ ÃøÁ¤(ôµµ)À» ³ªÅ¸³½´Ù. Áï ´õ ³ôÀº ÀçÈ­ À§¿¡ ´õ ³·Àº ÀçÈ­¸¦ µÎ°í, ±×Àú ¿Ü¾ç»ÓÀÎ ÀçÈ­¸¦ ÁøÂ¥ÀçÈ­·Î ¿ÀÇØÇϸç, ½ÉÁö¾î ¼ö´ÜÀÏ »ÓÀÎ ÀçÈ­µéÀ», ¸¶Ä¡ ±×µéÀÌ ÀüºÎ ÇູÇÑ »îÀ» ±¸¼ºÇÏ´Â °Íó·³, ±× ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Ãß±¸µÇ´Â ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î º¯È­½ÃŲ´Ù.

     Believing in a teleological ethics that considers happiness the same for all men,  Adler rails against the overproduction and maldistribution of goods in the economic order.  His goals are clear and unambiguous; his solution expressed forthrightly:

Instead of the free time being used for the pursuits of leisure, through which a human being develops as a person and grows mentally, morally and spiritually, it is being used in the consumption, as well as in the production, of commodities of questionable value, and for over-indulgence in frivolous activities that make little or no contribution to the good life.  To change this pattern of life calls for a moral revolution, not an economic revolution.97

ÇູÀ» ¸ðµç »ç¶÷¿¡°Ô µ¿ÀÏÇÏ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â ¸ñÀû°üÀÇ À±¸®¸¦ ¹ÏÀ¸¸é¼­, ¾Æµé·¯´Â °æÁ¦Àû ¿µ¿ª¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀçÈ­ÀÇ °úÀ×»ý»ê°ú ºÎÀûÁ¤ÇÑ ¹èºÐ¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ºÒÆòÇÑ´Ù. ±×ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥µéÀº ¸í·áÇÏ°í ¸í¹éÇÏ´Ù. ¼ÖÁ÷ÇÏ°Ô Ç¥ÇöµÈ ±×ÀÇ ÇØ´äÀº:

ÀÚÀ¯½Ã°£ÀÌ ¿©°¡ÀÇ Ãß±¸¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÇ´Â °Í ´ë½Å¿¡, -ÀÌ ¿©°¡¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿©  Àΰ£ÀÌ ÀΰÝü·Î ¼ºÀåÇÏ°í, Á¤½ÅÀûÀ¸·Î, µµ´öÀûÀ¸·Î, ±×¸®°í ¿µÀûÀ¸·Î ¹ßÀüÇÑ´Ù.(Çؼ³5)- ÀÚÀ¯½Ã°£Àº Àǽɽº·¯¿î(¹®Á¦°¡ µÇ´Â) °¡Ä¡ÀÇ ÀçÈ­µéÀÇ »ý»ê»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¼Òºñ¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í À¯ÀÍÇÑ(ÁÁÀº) »î¿¡ º°·Î µµ¿òÀÌ  µÇÁö ¾Ê°Å³ª ¶Ç´Â ÀüÇô µµ¿òÀÌ µÇÁö ¾Ê´Â õ¹ÚÇÑ È°µ¿µéÀÇ Å½´Ð(÷¯Òü)¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù.  ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ýÈ° ¹æ½ÄÀ» º¯È­ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº °æÁ¦Àû Çõ¸íÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, µµ´öÀû Çõ¸íÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÑ´Ù.

Çؼ³5: ¾Æ¸®½ºÅäÅÚ·¹½ºÀÇ ¿©°¡(Aristotle's leisure)
°í´ë ±×¸®½ºÀÇ Á÷Á¢ ¹ÎÁÖÁ¤Ä¡ÀÇ Âü¿©¿¡´Â ½Ã¹Î°è±Þ¸¸À¸·Î ÇÑÁ¤µÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×¸®°í ½Ã¹Î°è±ÞÀº ¹«»ç, ½Â·Á ¹× ÅëÄ¡ÀÚÀÇ ¼¼ °è±Þ¸¸À¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÇ¸ç »óÀÎ, ³ó¹Î ¹× ¼ö°ø¾÷ÀÚ´Â ½Ã¹ÎÀÇ ÀÚ°ÝÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ½Ã¹ÎÀÌ µÇ·Á¸é Åä·Ð°ú µ¶¼­¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ ´öÀ» ´Û°í Á¤Ä¡È°µ¿À» ¼öÇàÇØ ³ª°¡±â À§ÇÑ ¿©°¡°¡ ÀÖ¾î¾ß Çϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀ» Çö´ëÀÎÀº "¾Æ¸®½ºÅäÅÚ·¹½ºÀÇ ¿©°¡(Aristotle's leisure)"¶ó°í ÇÏ¿© ºñ»ý»êÀûÀÎ ¿©°¡ÀÇ °³³ä°ú ±¸º°ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
(ÂüÁ¶¹®: ¹Ú ±âÇõ, °æÁ¦Çлç, ¼­¿ï, ¹ý¹®»ç, 1995, pp.24-25.)

     Not all scholars are united in the belief that the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness.  Not only was  Immanuel  Kant an intractable opponent of eudaemonism, 98  but the  Scottish historian,  Thomas  Carlyle, considered a life of ease was for neither man nor god and that it was arrogant to have pretensions to happiness.  Says he: "Every pitifulest whipster that walks within a skin has his head filled with the notion that he is, shall be, or by all human and divine laws ought to be, 'happy.' ¡¦ my brother?  First of all,  what difference is it whether thou art happy or not!  To-day becomes  Yesterday so fast, all  To-morrows become  Yesterdays; and then there is no question whatever of the  'happiness', but quite another question."99

ÀλýÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ÇູÀÇ Ãß±¸¶ó´Â ½Å³ä¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¸ðµç ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ °á¼ÓµÇ¾î ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù.  ÀÓ¸¶´©¿¤ Ä­Æ®´Â Çູ·ÐÀÇ ¿Ï°íÇÑ ¹Ý´ëÀÚ¿´À» »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, ½ºÄÚƲ·£µåÀÇ ¿ª»ç°¡ÀÎ Å丶½º Ä®¶óÀÏÀº ¾È¶ôÇÑ »îÀº Àΰ£À» À§Çؼ­µµ ÇÊ¿äÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í, ½ÅÀ» À§Çؼ­µµ ÇÊ¿äÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Ù, ±×¸®°í ÇູÀÇ ÁÖÀåÀº ¿À¸¸ÇÏ´Ù°í »ý°¢Çß´Ù.
±×´Â, "Àΰ£ °¡Á×À» ¾²°í ÀÖ´Â °¡Àå ºÒ½ÖÇÑ ³ðÀº ´©±¸³ª ±×ÀÇ ¸Ó¸® ¼Ó¿¡ ±×´Â Áö±Ý ÇູÇÏ°í, ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ÇູÇÒ °ÍÀÌ°í, Àΰ£°ú ½ÅÀÇ ¹ýÄ¢µé¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÇູÇؾßÇÑ´Ù.....³» ÇüÁ¦¿© ÇູÀ̶ó°í? ¶ó´Â »ý°¢ÀÌ ²Ë Â÷ÀÖ´Ù. ¹«¾ù º¸´Ù, ±×´ë°¡ ÇູÇϵçÁö, ¾ÊµçÁö, ±×°Ô ¹«½¼ Â÷º°ÀÌ Àִ°¡? ¸Å¿ì ºü¸£°Ô ¿À´ÃÀº ³»ÀÏÀÌ µÈ´Ù, ¸ðµç ³»ÀϵéÀº ¾îÁ¦µéÀÌ µÈ´Ù, ±×·±µ¥ Çູ¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ÀüÇô µûÁú°Ô ¾ø´Ù, ±×·¯³ª ´Ù¸¥ ¹®Á¦°¡ ÀÖ´Ù."(Áï ÇູÀÇ ¹®Á¦´Â ½Å°æ ¾µ °Í ¾ø°í, ÇູÀÌ ¾Æ´Ñ ´Ù¸¥ ¹®Á¦°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.)

***********************

     If the goals of society are to be found only in those pursuits which advance the material well-being of man, then there is nothing in such a life to distinguish it from that of the animal.  The aim of the animal is to indulge its instincts to the fullest; it is the comfortable life and that for as long as possible.
     On the other hand, if material progress is not an end in itself but a means to the summum bonum, then the goals of man and civilization are to be found somewhere in human nature.  By virtue of his reason, man hungers for truth, moral perfection and beauty.  By his intellectual powers he is able to conjure up in his mind an image of what civilization ought to be if it is to fulfill the needs of man's human nature.  Since science is concerned with the relationship between cause and effect, it is unable to determine the goals of civilization, of life.  The determination of the goals of life lies within the purview of the ethician, the moral philosopher.  Unfortunately, due to a lack of cultivation --- the study of ethics does not lend itself to the experimental method --- the subject of ethics has not only failed to provide us with a hierarchy of values, it is in great danger of atrophying.  For  John  U. Nef, the neglect of ethics bodes ill for the future.  "It is as certain for society as a whole as it is for each individual that, without a continual striving toward what is right, society will become a prey to what is wrong.  The way of truth, the way of beauty, the way of honor, is always the hard way."100

»çȸÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¸¦ Á¶ÀåÇÏ´Â ÀÌ Ãß±¸µé¿¡¼­¸¸ ¹ß°ßµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ±×·¯ÇÑ »î¿¡¼­´Â µ¿¹°ÀÇ »î°ú ±×°Í(±×·¯ÇÑ »î)À» ±¸º°½ÃÅ°´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. (Áï Àΰ£ÀÇ »îÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥°¡ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹ÁöÀÇ Ãß±¸¸¸ À̶ó¸é, Àΰ£ÀÇ »î°ú µ¿¹°ÀÇ »î¿¡ ±¸º°ÀÌ ¾ø´Ù.)
µ¿¹°ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ¸¶À½²¯ µ¿¹°ÀÇ º»´É¿¡ Ž´Ð(÷¯Òü)ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀÌ (µ¿¹°¿¡°Ô´Â)¾È¶ôÇÑ »îÀÌ´Ù, ±×°Íµµ °¡´ÉÇÑ ÇÑ ¿À·§µ¿¾ÈÀÇ ¾È¶ôÇÑ »îÀÌ´Ù. ¹Ý¸é¿¡, ¹°ÁúÀû Áøº¸°¡ ±× ÀÚü°¡ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í, ÃÖ°í¼±(õÌÍÔà¼)À» À§ÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀ̶ó¸é, Àΰ£°ú ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ º»¼º ¾È¿¡¼­ ã¾ÆÁ®¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. Àΰ£ÀÇ À̼ºÀÇ ´öºÐÀ¸·Î, Àΰ£Àº Áø¸®, µµ´öÀû ¿Ï¼º°ú ¹Ì(¾Æ¸§´Ù¿ò)¸¦ °¥¸ÁÇÑ´Ù. Àΰ£ÀÇ ÁöÀû´É·Â¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¹®¸íÀÌ Àΰ£ÀÇ Àμº(ìÑàõ)ÀÇ ¿ä±¸¸¦ ÃæÁ·½ÃÅ°·Á¸é ¹®¸íÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô µÇ¾î¾ß Çϴ°¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À̹ÌÁö(½É»ó)¸¦ Àΰ£Àº ±× ¸¶À½¼Ó¿¡¼­ ±×·Á³¾ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. °úÇÐÀº ¿øÀΰú °á°ú »çÀÌÀÇ °ü°è¿¡ °ü½ÉÀÌ Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡, °úÇÐÀº ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥, »îÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ °áÁ¤ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ÀλýÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ °áÁ¤Àº À±¸®ÇÐÀÚ, Áï µµ´ööÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¹üÀ§(±ÇÇÑ)¾È¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù.(ÇÊÀÚÀÇ°ß: ¿©±â¼­ÀÇ µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ¸¦ ±âµ¶±³ÀÎÀº ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥ ¼º°æ Çؼ®ÀÚ¶ó°í ÀÌÇØÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.)
ºÒÇàÇÏ°Ôµµ, ±³¾çÀÇ ºÎÁ· ¶§¹®¿¡ - À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸°¡ ±× ÀÚü¸¦ ½ÇÇèÀû ¹æ¹ý¿¡ ºô·Á ÁÙ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.(Áï À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸´Â ½ÇÇèÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î Á¢±Ù ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.) - À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ÁÖÁ¦´Â °¡Ä¡ÀÇ °è±Þü°è¸¦ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô Á¦°øÇϴµ¥ ½ÇÆÐÇßÀ» »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó À±¸®ÇÐÀº Å« À§ÃàÀÇ À§Çè¿¡ ³õ¿© ÀÖ´Ù.
Á¸ ³×ÇÁ¿¡°Ô À־ À±¸®ÇÐÀÇ ¹«½Ã´Â Àå·¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÒ±æÇÑ Â¡Á¶°¡ µÈ´Ù. "¿ÇÀº °ÍÀ» À§ÇÑ °è¼ÓÀûÀÎ ³ë·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Ù¸é, »çȸ´Â À߸ø µÈ °ÍÀÇ ¸ÔÀÌ°¡ µÉ °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀº °¢ °³Àο¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© È®½ÇÇÑ °Í °°ÀÌ ´ëü·Î »çȸ¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­µµ È®½ÇÇÏ´Ù. Áø¸®(òØ×â)ÀÇ ±æ, ¹Ì(Ú¸)ÀÇ ±æ, ¿µ¿¹(ç´çâ)ÀÇ ±æÀº Ç×»ó ¾î·Á¿î ±æÀÌ´Ù."

     For most people in the  Western world, the ends of the totalitarian state are roundly rejected.  In this paper, the ends of the materialistic society are equally roundly rejected on the grounds that its ends are simply means.  Its philosophy is therefore partial.  There now remains only the humanist conception of civilization, one which recognizes the need to promote the superb sense of the dignity of man.
     Reminding us of  Dante's expression of the human spirit:  "Consider your origin; ye were not formed to live like brutes, but to follow virtue,"  Tawney tells us that:

Humanism is the antithesis, not of theism or of  Christianity ¡¦ but of materialism.  Its essence is simple.  It is the attitude which judges the externals of life by their effect in assisting or hindering the life of the spirit.  It is the belief that the machinery of existence --- property and material wealth and industrial organization, and the whole fabric and mechanism of social institutions --- is to be regarded as means to an end, and that this end is the growth towards perfection of individual human beings. 101

¼­±¸ÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô, ÀüüÁÖÀÇ ±¹°¡ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ´Ü¿¬ °ÅÀýµÈ´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­, À¯¹°·ÐÀûÀÎ »çȸÀÇ ¸ñÀûµµ ±×ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ÀüÀûÀ¸·Î ¼ö´ÜÀ̶ó´Â ±Ù°Å¿¡¼­ ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î ´Ü¿¬ °ÅºÎµÈ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î À¯¹°·ÐÀû »çȸÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀº ºÒ¿ÏÀüÇÏ´Ù. ¿äÁò¿¡´Â  Àι®ÁÖÀÇ(Àκ»ÁÖÀÇ)ÀÇ ¹®¸í °³³ä¸¸ ³²¾Æ ÀÖ´Ù. Áï ÃÖ°íÀÇ Àΰ£Á¸¾ö ÀǽÄÀ» ÁõÁø½Ãų Çʿ伺À» ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏ´Â °³³ä¸¸ÀÌ ³²¾ÆÀÖ´Ù.
Àΰ£Á¤½Å¿¡ °üÇÑ ´ÜÅ×ÀÇ Ç¥Çö: Áï "³ÊÀÇ ±Ù¿øÀ» »ý°¢Ç϶ó; ³Ê´Â Áü½Â°°ÀÌ »ìµµ·Ï Áö¾î Áø °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í, µµ´öÀ» µû¸£µµ·Ï Áö¾îÁ³´Ù."¸¦ »ý°¢Çϸ鼭, ÅÍ´Ï´Â ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ´ÙÀ½°°ÀÌ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

Àι®ÁÖÀÇ(Àκ»ÁÖÀÇ)´Â À¯½Å·Ð ¶Ç´Â ±âµ¶±³ÀÇ ´ë±Í(Á¤¹Ý´ë)°¡ ¾Æ´Ï°í ¹°ÁúÁÖÀÇÀÇ ´ë±Í(ÓßÏû)ÀÌ´Ù. Àι®ÁÖÀÇÀÇ º»ÁúÀº °£´ÜÇÏ´Ù. Àι®ÁÖÀÇ´Â »îÀÇ ¿ÜºÎÇö»óµéÀ» ±×°ÍµéÀÌ Á¤½Å»ýÈ°À» µ½´Â°¡ ¶Ç´Â ¹æÇØÇϴ°¡ÀÇ °á°ú¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿©  ÆÇ´ÜÇϴ ŵµÀÌ´Ù. ±×°ÍÀº Á¸ÀçÇÏ´Â ±â±¸(Ѧϰ)´Â - Àç»ê°ú ¹°ÁúÀû ºÎ¿Í »ê¾÷Á¶Á÷, ±×¸®°í »çȸÁ¦µµÀÇ Àü ±¸Á¶¿Í ¸ÞÄ«´ÏÁò - ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼ö´ÜÀ¸·Î °£ÁֵǾî¾ß ÇÑ´Ù, ±×¸®°í ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀº °³ÀÎÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÀ» ÇâÇÑ ¼ºÀåÀÌ´Ù¶ó´Â ½Å³ä(ãáÒ·)ÀÌ´Ù.

     To contribute towards the perfecting of the individual, civilized society needs to reassert as its goals of human life, the ancient values of wisdom, faith, virtue and beauty discarded once, but not for all, by the advancement of the industrial state.  Unless there is agreement on the goals of life, it is doubtful if the world can escape the awful conflict that lurks in the offing.  The future of the human race, its happiness, depends upon it.  In exhorting us not to misunderstand the word  "happiness", one which has no precise meaning for people today,  Professor  Nef reminds us that happiness in the  Aristotelian sense  "is not a matter of individual whim.  It consists not in seeking pleasure for its own sake, but from gaining it from doing the right things or behaving in the right way, according to the accumulated wisdom of the human race."102
     To this end civilization places itself in the heart and mind of the moral philosopher, a disinterested scholar with no axe to grind.  The moral philosopher, who does not leave happiness to chance:

¡¦ can attempt to discover what is good for man and for mankind ¡¦ morally, intellectually and aesthetically.  He can set about to decide tentatively, with reason as a guide and experience as a keepsake, what wants and what combinations of wants contribute most to the happiness of the individual, the nation and humanity. 103

°³ÀÎÀÇ ¿ÏÀü¿¡ À̹ÙÁöÇϱâ À§Çؼ­, ¹®¸í»çȸ´Â ±×ÀÇ Àΰ£»ýÈ°ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥·Î¼­, »ê¾÷±¹°¡ÀÇ ¹ß´Þ¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÇÑ ¶§ ¹ö·ÈÁö¸¸ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ¹ö·ÁÁöÁö´Â ¾ÊÀº ÁöÇý. ½Å¾Ó, ´ö°ú ¹Ì(¾Æ¸§´Ù¿ò)ÀÇ °í´ë°¡Ä¡¸¦ °Åµì ÁÖÀåÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.  ÀλýÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÏÄ¡(µ¿ÀÇ)°¡ ¾ø´Â ÇÑ, ±Ùó¿¡ ÀẹÇØ ÀÖ´Â Ãæµ¹À» ÇÇÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´ÂÁö Àǽɽº·´´Ù. ÀηùÀÇ Àå·¡, ÀηùÀÇ ÇູÀº ÀηùÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡¿¡ ÀÇÁ¸ÇÑ´Ù. ¿À´Ã³¯ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô Á¤È®ÇÑ Àǹ̸¦ °®Áö ¾Ê°í ÀÖ´Â "Çູ"À̶ó´Â ´Ü¾î¸¦ ¿ÀÇØÇÏÁö ¾Êµµ·Ï ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ±Ç°íÇÔ¿¡ À־, ³×ÇÁ ±³¼ö´Â ¾Æ¸®½ºÅäÅÚ·¹½ºÀÇ Àǹ̿¡¼­ ÇູÀº °³ÀÎÀûÀÎ º¯´ö(ÀϽÃÀûÀÎ ±âºÐ)ÀÇ ¹®Á¦°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â °ÍÀ» »ý°¢ÇÏ°Ô ÇÑ´Ù. ÇູÀº Äè¶ô ÀÚü¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© Äè¶ôÀ» Ãß±¸Çϴµ¥ ÀÖÁö ¾Ê°í, ÀηùÀÇ ÃàÀûµÈ ÁöÇý¿¡ µû¶ó¼­ ¿ÇÀº °ÍÀ» ÇàÇϰųª ¶Ç´Â ¿ÇÀº ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î  ÇൿÇÔ¿¡¼­ ¿À´Â ±â»ÝÀ» ¾ò´Âµ¥ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ¸ñÀûÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¹®¸íÀº, ¹èÆ÷(¼ûÀº ¶æ)°¡ µû·Î ¾ø°í, ÀÌÇØ°ü°è°¡ ¾ø´Â ÇÐÀÚÀÎ µµ´ööÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¸¶À½°ú Á¤½Å¿¡ ÀÚ¸®Àâ°í ÀÖ´Ù. µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â ÇູÀ» ¿î¼ö¿¡ ¸Ã±âÁö ¾Ê´Â »ç¶÷ÀÌ´Ù.(¿ªÀÚÀÇ°ß: ¿©±â¼­ ±âµ¶±³ÀεéÀº µµ´ööÇÐÀ» "¼º°æ"À¸·Î, µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ¸¦ '¼º°æÇÐÀÚ'·Î Çؼ®ÇÏ¸é µÈ´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ ÇÊÀÚ´Â ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­ ±âµ¶±³ÀÇ Áø¸®¸¦ À±¸®¶ó´Â °³³äÀ¸·Î Æ÷ÀåÇÏ°í Àֱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù.)

.......µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â Àΰ£°ú Àηù¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© µµ´öÀûÀ¸·Î, ÁöÀûÀ¸·Î, ±×¸®°í ¹ÌÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ¼±ÇÑ °ÍÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÏ·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â À̼ºÀ» ¾È³»ÀÚ·Î ÇÏ°í °æÇèÀ» ÀÚ·á·Î »ïÀ¸¸ç, ¾î¶² ¿å±¸µé°ú ¿å±¸µéÀÇ ¾î¶² °áÇÕÀÌ °³Àΰú ±¹¹Î°ú ÀηùÀÇ Çູ¿¡ °¡Àå ±â¿©Çϴ°¡¸¦ ÀáÁ¤Àû(ÀÓ½ÃÀû)À¸·Î °áÁ¤Çϴµ¥ Âø¼ö ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.

    The moral philosopher regards with favor the increased production of wealth where it is used to promote the material and spiritual well-being of man.  The moral philosopher is concerned only with the truth, and as a philosopher takes no sides on controversial, political issues.  His task is to formulate principles for the guidance of the statesman and the man of affairs.  Having no responsibility for action, he is more likely to preserve an attitude of detachment.  Kant puts it this way:  "That kings should philosophize or philosophers become kings is not to be expected.  Nor is it to be wished, since the possession of power inevitably corrupts the untrammeled judgment of reason."104
     In a democracy,  Kant adds, philosophers should be allowed to speak out for the enlightenment of business and governments.  As a class, philosophers are by nature not capable of lobbying and plotting and are unlikely to consist of propagandists. 105

µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â ºÎÀÇ Áõ°¡µÈ »ý»êÀÌ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¹°ÁúÀû º¹Áö¿Í Á¤½ÅÀû º¹ÁöÀÇ ÁõÁø¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â °÷ÀÇ  ºÎÀÇ Áõ°¡µÈ »ý»êÀ» È£ÀÇ·Î Á¸ÁßÇÑ´Ù. µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â Áø¸®¿¡¸¸ °ü½ÉÀ» °®´Â´Ù. ±×¸®°í öÇÐÀڷμ­ ³íÀïÀÌ ÀÖ°í, Á¤Ä¡¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ °üÇÏ¿©´Â ¾î¶² Æíµµ ÆíÀ» µéÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ±×ÀÇ ÀÏÀº Á¤Ä¡Àΰú »ç¹«°¡(ÞÀÙâÊ«)ÀÇ ¾È³»¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¿øÄ¢µéÀ» °ø½ÄÈ­ÇÑ´Ù. Çൿ¿¡ °üÇÑ Ã¥ÀÓÀÌ ¾ø±â ¶§¹®¿¡, ±×´Â ÃÊ¿¬ÇÑ Åµµ¸¦ ´õ Àß º¸Á¸ÇÒ °Í °°´Ù. Ä­Æ®´Â ±×°ÍÀ» ÀÌ·¸°Ô ¼³¸íÇÑ´Ù.
"¿ÕµéÀÌ Ã¶ÇÐÀÚ°¡ µÇ°Å³ª öÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ ¿ÕÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ±â´ëµÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.  ±Ç·ÂÀÇ ¼ÒÀ¯´Â À̼ºÀÇ ÀÚÀ¯·Î¿î ÆÇ´ÜÀ» ÇÊ¿¬ÀûÀ¸·Î ºÎÆнÃÅ°±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ±×°ÍÀº ¹Ù¶ö ¼ö ¾ø´Ù."
¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ »çȸ¿¡¼­´Â, öÇÐÀÚµéÀº ±â¾÷°ú Á¤ºÎÀÇ ±³È­(°è¸ù)¸¦ À§ÇÏ¿© ¸ñ¼Ò¸®¸¦ ³ôÀÌ´Â °ÍÀÌ Çã¶ôµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í Ä­Æ®´Â ºÎ¾ðÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. »çȸÀÇ ÇÑ °èÃþÀ¸·Î¼­, öÇÐÀÚµéÀº º»·¡ ·Îºñ(À̸é°øÀÛ)¿Í À½¸ð¸¦ ÇàÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù, ±×¸®°í ¼±Àü¿ø(Àüµµ»ç)µéÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ¾øÀ» °Í °°´Ù.

CONCLUSION(°á·Ð)

     At the present time it seems safe to say that we in the  Western world have solved, by virtue of fantastic advances in science and technology, the economic problem. That it has not been solved for each particular individual in the  Western world is not so much a fault in our institutions, but in man's nature.  The reality of evil has to be faced.  That the great economic progress, born of economic growth arising out of a prolific science and an equally fecund technology, has not succeeded in banishing evil, has not solved the problems of society, indeed, has presented to us the gravest problem with which mankind has ever been confronted, in a sobering, and paradoxically, at the same time, agitating thought.
     If civilization is to be not simply advanced but preserved, economic resources must be used to promote peaceful ends, the goals of civilization.  An intense pre-occupation with one's self- interest augurs ill for the preservation of civilization.  As the  Spanish philosopher tells us:  "Civilization is, before all, the will to live in common.  Man is uncivilized into barbarous to the extent that he does not take others into consideration.  Barbarism is a tendency to disassociation."106  Self-interest, an instinct, must yield to reason.
     The danger of too great a pre-occupation with oneself is one to which the self-seeking nation is also exposed.  As the  English economist,  Joan  Robinson, tells us:  "The very nature of economics is rooted in nationalism ¡¦  Marxism ¡¦ had to be poured into national moulds when revolutionary administrations were set up ¡¦  The aspirations of the developing countries are more for national independence and national self-respect than just for bread to eat."107

ÇöÀç ¼­±¸¼¼°è¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ¿ì¸®´Â °úÇаú ±â¼úÀÇ È¯»óÀûÀÎ Áøº¸ÀÇ ´öÅÃÀ¸·Î °æÁ¦¹®Á¦´Â ÇØ°áµÇ¾ú´Ù°í ¸»Çصµ ±¦ÂúÀº °Í °°´Ù. ¼­±¸¼¼°è¿¡¼­ °æÁ¦Àû ¹®Á¦°¡ °¢ °³ °³ÀÇ °³Àο¡°Ô À־ ÇØ°áµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´ø °ÍÀº ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Á¦µµµéÀÇ Çã¹°º¸´Ù´Â Àΰ£ÀÇ º»¼ºÀÇ Çã¹°ÀÌ´Ù. ¾ÇÀÇ ½ÇÀç´Â ¸Â¼³ ¼ö ¹Û¿¡ ¾ø´Ù. »ý»ê·ÂÀÌ ³ôÀº °úÇаú ¶È°°ÀÌ Ã¢Á¶·ÂÀÌ Å« ±â¼ú¿¡¼­ »ý±ä °æÁ¦¼ºÀå¿¡¼­ ž À§´ëÇÑ °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸´Â ¾ÇÀ» Ãß¹æÇÏ´Â µ¥ ¼º°øÇÏÁö ¸øÇß°í, »çȸÀÇ ¹®Á¦µéÀ» ÇØ°áÇÏÁö ¸øÇß°í, ÂüÀ¸·Î Àηù°¡ ÀÌÁ¦²¯ Á÷¸éÇß´ø °¡Àå ½É°¢ÇÑ ¹®Á¦µéÀ», ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Á¤½ÅÀ» ±ú°Ô Çϸ鼭, ±×¸®°í ¿ª¼³ÀûÀ¸·Î, µ¿½Ã¿¡, ½É¶õÇÏ°Ô Çϸ鼭, ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô Á¦±âÇß´Ù.
¹®¸íÀº ¹ßÀüµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÒ »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó º¸Á¸µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù¸é, °æÁ¦Àû ÀÚ¿øµéÀº ÆòÈ­ÀûÀÎ ¸ñÀûÀÎ, ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ÁõÁøÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© »ç¿ëµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. Àΰ£ÀÇ À̱â½É¿¡ÀÇ °­·ÄÇÑ ÆíÁßÀº ¹®¸íÀÇ º¸Àü¿¡ ºÒ±æÇÑ Â¡Á¶ÀÌ´Ù. ½ºÆäÀΠöÇÐÀÚ°¡ ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ¸»ÇÑ °ÍÀº, "¹®¸íÀº ¹«¾ùº¸´Ù °øµ¿À¸·Î »ì·Á´Â ÀÇÁöÀÌ´Ù. Àΰ£Àº ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷À» °í·ÁÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â ¸¸Å­ ¹Ì°³ÇÏ°í ¾ß¸¸½º·´´Ù. ¾ß¸¸Àº ÀÎ°Ý ºÐ¿­ÀÇ ¼ºÇâ(àõú¾)ÀÌ´Ù." À̱â½É, º»´ÉÀº À̼º¿¡ º¹Á¾ÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. Àڽſ¡ÀÇ ³Ê¹« Å« ÆíÁßÀÇ À§ÇèÀº ¶ÇÇÑ À̱âÁÖÀÇ ±¹°¡¿¡µµ ³ëÃâµÈ À§ÇèÀÌ´Ù. ¿µ±¹ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ Á¶¾ð ·Îºó¼ÕÀº ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.
"°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ ÁøÁ¤ÇÑ ¼º°Ý(º»Áú)Àº ±¹°¡ÁÖÀÇ¿¡ »Ñ¸®¹Ú°í ÀÖ´Ù.....¸¼½ºÁÖÀǵµ Çõ¸íÁ¤Ä¡°¡ ½ÃÀ۵ǾúÀ» ¶§ ±¹°¡¶ó´Â ÁÖÇü(Ʋ)¿¡ ºÎ¾îÁ®¾ß Çß´Ù. °³¹ßµµ»ó ±¹°¡µéÀÇ ¿­¸ÁÀº ´ÜÁö ¸Ô´Â »§À» Ãß±¸Çϱ⺸´Ù´Â ±¹°¡Àû µ¶¸³°ú ±¹°¡Àû ÀÚÁ¸À» Ãß±¸ÇÑ´Ù."

     The drive for national independence and national self-respect can lead to that sort of economic growth which is rooted in the desire for power, power which may be used unwisely, and which can retard our advance towards the goals that civilized men cherish in their hearts and minds.  Such men reject outrightly the way of thought that considers war as the mistress of power, to be wooed for the benefits she may bring to a particular nation, not for any service she may perform on behalf of truth and ideals.
     Warring nations have in no small measure contributed to the undoing and destruction of civilization, leading  Leonard  Woolf to describe the growth of civilization as following a curve until  "the gates are once more opened to the barbarians; the curve descends and civilization fades and dies."108
     The most vital problem facing men,  Lord  Russell tells us, is the elimination of warfare as a means of resolving conflict, and the transcendence of nationalism as an ultimate loyalty.

The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in  England,  France and  Germany, in  Russia and  Austria.  It will not adapt itself to national needs; it is in essence neutral.  It stands outside the clash of passions and hatreds, revealing, to those who seek it,  the tragic irony of strife with its attendant world of illusions. 109

±¹°¡Àû µ¶¸³°ú ±¹°¡ÀûÀÎ ÀÚÁ¸ÀÇ ÃßÁøÀº ¾î¸®¼®°Ô »ç¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ°í, ¹®¸íÀÎÀÌ ±×µéÀÇ ¸¶À½°ú Á¤½Å¿¡ Ç°°í ÀÖ´Â ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ÇâÇÑ ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ¹ßÀüÀ» Áöü½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÈûÀÇ °¥¸Á¿¡ »Ñ¸®¹Ú°í ÀÖ´Â ±×·± Á¾·ùÀÇ °æÁ¦¼ºÀåÀ¸·Î À̲ø ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
±×·¯ÇÑ »ç¶÷(¹®¸íÀÎ)µéÀº ÀüÀïÀ», Áø¸®¿Í ÀÌ»óÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ¼öÇàÇÏ´Â ¾î¶² ºÀ»ç(¼­ºñ½º)¸¦ À§Çؼ­°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, ¾î¶² ƯÁ¤ÇÑ ±¹°¡¿¡ °®°í ¿À´Â ÀÌÀÍÀ» À§ÇÏ¿© ±¸È¥À» ¹Þ´Â ÈûÀÇ ½Ã³à(¾ÖÀÎ)·Î¼­ »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â »ç°í¹æ½ÄÀ» öÀúÈ÷ °ÅÀýÇÑ´Ù. ¼­·Î ½Î¿ì´Â ±¹°¡µéÀº, ·¹¿À³ªµå ¿ïÇÁ·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ¹®¸íÀÇ ¼ºÀåÀ», " ¹®µéÀÌ ¾ß¸¸Àε鿡°Ô Çѹø ´õ ¿­·ÁÁö±â±îÁö ÇÑ °î¼±À» µû¸£´Â °Í(±× °î¼±Àº ³»·Á°¡°í ¹®¸íÀº »ç¶óÁø´Ù.)À¸·Î ±â¼úÇÏ°Ô Çϸ鼭, ¹®¸íÀÇ ¼è¸Á(áñØÌ)°ú Æı«¿¡ Å©°Ô ±â¿©Çß´Ù.
Àΰ£ÀÌ ´ç¸éÇÑ °¡Àå ½É°¢ÇÑ ¹®Á¦´Â ¾Ë·Â(äØÕù)ÀÇ ÇØ°á¼ö´ÜÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ ÀüÀïÀ» Á¦°ÅÇÏ´Â °Í°ú ÃÖ°íÀÇ Ã漺À¸·Î¼­ÀÇ ±¹°¡ÁÖÀǸ¦ ÃÊ¿ùÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó°í ·µ¼¿ °æÀº ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

Áø¸®°¡ ¹«¾ùÀ̵çÁö °£¿¡, Áø¸®´Â ¿µ±¹¿¡¼­³ª, ÇÁ¶û½º¿Í µ¶ÀÏ¿¡¼­³ª, ·¯½Ã¾Æ¿Í ¿À½ºÆ®¸®¾Æ¿¡¼­³ª, ´Ù µ¿ÀÏÇÏ´Ù.
Áø¸® ÀÚü´Â ±¹°¡ÀÇ ÇÊ¿ä¿¡ ¼øÀÀÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. Áø¸®´Â º»ÁúÀûÀ¸·Î Á߸³ÀÌ´Ù. Áø¸®´Â Ãß±¸ÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô Áø¸®¿¡ µ¿¹ÝÇϴ ȯ»ó(ü³ßÌ)ÀÇ ¼¼°è¿Í °¥µîÇÏ´Â ºñ±ØÀûÀÎ ¾ÆÀÌ·¯´Ï¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¸é¼­ Á¤¿å°ú Ãæµ¹ÀÇ ¿ÜºÎ¿¡ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù.

     Earlier,  Ernest  Renan, had noticed the flaw in the thinking of those who regarded war as an ennobling experience.  In his  "First  Letter to  Strauss,"  Renan says:  "Have you noticed that, neither in the eight  Beatitudes, nor in the  Sermon on the Mount, nor in all of early  Christian literature is there a word which puts military virtues among those which will gain the  Kingdom of  Heaven?"110
     In this essay in persuasion the view has been advanced that the main barrier to the creation of a permanent and peaceful civilization lies in a failure to agree on the goals of civilization, due in large measure to the ubiquity of moral relativism.  Failure to find, even within a particular nation, unanimity of opinion regarding the distinction between good and evil has led to the abandonment of all attempts to discover the truths of morality, and to pinning all of one's faith in the morrow on economic growth and progress.  The Sisyphus task of discovering those moral truths on which we can all agree, and on the establishment of goals for humanity will never be performed if it is never undertaken.

ÀÏÂïÀÌ ¿¡¸£³× ¸£³¶Àº ÀüÀïÀ» °í»óÇÏ°Ô ÇÏ´Â °æÇèÀ¸·Î¼­ »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÇ »ç°íÀÇ °áÁ¡À» ¾ð±ÞÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×ÀÇ "½ºÆ®¶ó¿ì½º¿¡°Ô º¸³»´Â ù ¹ø° ÆíÁö"¿¡¼­ ¸£³¶Àº ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. "±×´ë´Â õ±¹À» ¾òÀ» ÀÚÁß¿¡ ¹«ÀÎ(ÙëìÑ)ÀÇ ´öÀ» Ç¥ÇöÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ´Ü ÇÑ ¸¶µðÀÇ ¸»ÀÌ ÆÈ º¹(ø¢ÜØ, ½Å¾à¼º°æ ¸¶Åº¹À½ 5:3-12)¿¡µµ ¾ø°í, »ê»ó¼öÈÆ(ߣ߾á÷ýº, ½Å¾à¼º°æ ¸¶Åº¹À½ 5Àå-7Àå)¿¡µµ ¾ø°í, ÃʱâÀÇ ±âµ¶±³ ¹®Çå¿¡µµ ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¾Ë¾Ò´Â°¡?"¶ó°í.
ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â ¿µ¿øÇÏ°í, ÆòÈ­·Î¿î ¹®¸í âÁ¶ÀÇ  ÁÖ¿äÇÑ ÀåÇØ´Â, ´ëºÎºÐ µµ´öÀû »ó´ëÁÖÀÇÀÇ ÆíÀç(ø¶î¤) ¶§¹®¿¡, ¹®¸íÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÏÄ¡(µ¿ÀÇ)¸¦ ¸¸µéÁö ¸øÇÑ ½ÇÆп¡ ÀÖ´Ù´Â È®½ÅÀÇ °ßÇØ°¡ Á¦ÀǵǾú´Ù. ¼±°ú ¾Ç°£ÀÇ ±¸º°¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÇ°ßÀÇ ¸¸ÀåÀÏÄ¡ÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀÇ ½ÇÆа¡ - ½ÉÁö¾î ƯÁ¤±¹°¡ ³»¿¡¼­Á¶Â÷µµ - µµ´öÀÇ Áø¸®µéÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÏ·Á´Â ¸ðµç ½Ãµµ(ãËÓñ)µéÀ» Æ÷±â¿¡·Î ÀεµÇß°í, ³»ÀÏ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Àΰ£ÀÇ ¸ðµç ¹ÏÀ½À» °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú Áøº¸¿¡ °íÁ¤½ÃÄ×´Ù.(Áï µµ´öÀÇ Áø¸®µé¿¡°Ô Èñ¸ÁÀ» °®Áö ¾Ê°í, °æÁ¦¼ºÀå°ú Áøº¸¿¡¸¸ ³»ÀÏÀÇ Èñ¸ÁÀ» °É¾ú´Ù.)  ¿ì¸® ¸ðµÎ°¡ µ¿ÀÇÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÀÌ µµ´öÀû Áø¸®µéÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÏ´Â °Í°ú, ÀηùÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥ÀÇ È®¸³¿¡ °üÇÑ ½Ã½ÃÆÛ½º(¿ªÀÚÃß°¡: ±×¸®½ºÀÇ Àü¼³ÀÇ ½Å, ¶Ç´Â °í¸°µµÀÇ ¾ÇÇÑ ¿ÕÀÇ À̸§)ÀÇ ÀÏ(³Ê¹«µµ Èûµç ÀÏ)Àº ±×°ÍÀÌ ´Ü¿¬ÄÚ º¸ÁõµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù¸é °áÄÚ ¿Ï¼ö µÉ ¼ö ¾øÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

    The first duty of economists is to recognize the right of the disinterested, impartial moral philosopher to discover  the goals of society  and  provide  thereby  economic science  with  its raison d'etre.  The  time has come for economists to combat within their own ranks the mistaken belief, the false ideology, that the only values which matter are those which can be measured by the dollar, or some other unit of account.
     Economic progress can never solve the problem of evil.  It is not denied, nevertheless, that economic progress is the first condition of many goods of a spiritual nature, and even of life itself.  The economist's knowledge is, however, only partial and he needs to defer to the moral philosopher.  The latter is much more competent to decide on the goals of society than men in public life, or anyone else, who  "have no guide but the pressures from their own lust for power or from the opinions expressed by polling services and by organized petitions from constituents."111  To ignore the teachings of moral philosophy is surely the height of folly.  To disregard principles and decide for ourselves what man is to become simply because we want him to be that way is a possible position.  "Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny,"  says  C. S. Lewis, somewhat wryly, as he adds:  "This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether."112   Values, is it to be feared,  Professor  Lewis regards as something transcendental.

°æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÇ Á¦ÀÏ Àǹ«´Â, »çȸÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇÏ°í, ±×¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÇ Á¸ÀçÀÌÀ¯¸¦ Á¦°øÇÏ´Â »ç½É ¾ø°í °øÁ¤ÇÑ µµ´ööÇÐÀÚÀÇ ±Ç¸®¸¦ ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ ±×µé ½º½º·Îµµ(±×µé ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¹Ý¿­ ¾È¿¡¼­µµ) ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â °¡Àå ÁÁÀº °¡Ä¡µéÀº ´Þ·¯³ª, ¶Ç´Â ¾î¶² ´Ù¸¥ °è»ê´ÜÀ§¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ̶õ À߸øµÈ ¹ÏÀ½, °ÅÁþ °ü³ä(À̵¥¿À·Î±â)°ú ½Î¿ï ¶§°¡ ¿Ô´Ù. °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸´Â ¾ÇÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ °áÄÚ ÇØ°áÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, °æÁ¦Àû Áøº¸´Â Á¤½ÅÀû ¼º°ÝÀÇ ¸¹Àº Àç»ê(¼ÒÀ§ Á¤½ÅÀû Àç»ê)ÀÇ Ã¹Â° Á¶°ÇÀÌ°í, ½ÉÁö¾î »î ÀÚüÀÇ Ã¹Â° Á¶°ÇÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀº ºÎÁ¤µÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ±×·¯³ª °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚÀÇ Áö½ÄÀº ´Ù¸¸ ºÎºÐÀû(ºÒ¿ÏÀüÇÑ) Áö½ÄÀÏ »ÓÀÌ´Ù.  ±×·¡¼­ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ´Â µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ¿¡°Ô ¾çº¸(º¹Á¾)ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. µµ´ööÇÐÀÚ´Â °ø¹«¿øµéÀ̳ª, ±×¹Û¿¡ "±×µé ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ±Ç·Â¿åÀÇ ¾Ð·ÂÀ̳ª ÅõÇ¥¼Ò·ÎºÎÅÍ Ç¥ÇöµÈ ÀÇ°ß°ú ¼±°Å±¸¹ÎÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ³ª¿Â Á¶Á÷µÈ û¿øÀÇ ¾Ð·Â ÀÌ¿Ü´Â ¾î¶² ÁöħÀÌ ¾ø´Â, ´Ù¸¥ ¾î¶² »ç¶÷º¸´Ù »çȸ¸ñÇ¥¸¦ °áÁ¤Çϴµ¥ ÈξÀ À¯´ÉÇÏ´Ù."  µµ´ööÇÐÀÇ ±³ÈÆÀ» ¹«½ÃÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº È®½ÇÈ÷ ¾î¸®¼®À½ÀÇ ÀýÁ¤ÀÌ´Ù. ¿øÄ¢µéÀ» ¹«½ÃÇÏ´Â °Í°ú (Àΰ£ÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ß Çϴ°¡¸¦ °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â µ¥ À־) ´ÜÁö ¿ì¸® Àΰ£ÀÌ ±×·¸±â¸¦ ¿øÇϱ⠶§¹®¿¡ ¿ì¸® ½º½º·Î Àΰ£ÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ß Çϴ°¡¸¦ °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ÇϳªÀÇ °¡´ÉÇÑ ÀÔÀåÀÌ´Ù.
·ùÀ̽º´Â "ÀÌ°ÍÀº °¡Ä¡°³³äÀ» ÀüÀûÀ¸·Î °ÅºÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù."¶ó°í ºÎ¾ðÇϸ鼭, ±×´Â "¿ì¸®ÀÇ È¯°æÀ» Á¤º¹ÇßÀ¸¹Ç·Î, ÀÌÁ¦´Â ¿ì¸® ÀÚ½ÅÀ» Á¤º¹ÇÏ°í(¿ì¸® ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ÁÖÀÎÀÌ µÇ°í), ¿ì¸®ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¿î¸íÀ» ¼±ÅÃÇÏÀÚ"¶ó°í ¾à°£ ¾û¶×ÇÑ ¸»À» ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ·ùÀ̼ö ±³¼ö´Â, ¸Á¼³¿´Áö¸¸, °¡Ä¡µéÀ» ÃÊ¿ùÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ̶ó°í °£ÁÖÇÑ´Ù.

     Several years ago, in an article entitled:  "After  Samuelson, Who Needs  Adam Smith?",  the distinguished  American economist,  Kenneth  E. Boulding, referred to the seventeenth century argument that modern writers were only feebler repetitions of the ancients who had said all the good things long ago. 113   A later argument, to which  Professor  Boulding alludes, that the  "modern exceeds the ancients and indeed makes them obsolete", let the historian, John U. Nef, to question the assertion that our intelligence and our morality are above earlier peoples, and to advance the claim to  "more rather less guidance from the ancient saints and wise man if we are to survive the storms" 114  of the twentieth century.

¼ö ³â Àü¿¡, "»ç¹«¿¤¼Õ ÀÌÈÄ, ´©°¡ ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½º¸¦ ÇÊ¿ä·Î Çϴ°¡?" ¶ó´Â Á¦¸ñÀÇ ³í¼³¿¡¼­, Àú¸íÇÑ ¹Ì±¹ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ, ÄÉ³×µå º¸¿ïµùÀº Çö´ëÀÇ Àú¼ú°¡µéÀº ¿À·¡ Àü¿¡ ¸ðµç À¯ÀÍÇÑ(¼±ÇÑ) °ÍÀ» ¸»Çß´ø °í´ëÀεéÀÇ Çã¾àÇÑ ¹Ýº¹ÀÏ »ÓÀ̾ú´ø 17¼¼±âÀÇ ÁÖÀå(ÀÌ·Ð)À» ¾ð±ÞÇß´Ù. º¼µù ±³¼ö´Â "Çö´ë´Â °í´ëÀÎÀ» ´É°¡ÇÏ°í ÂüÀ¸·Î ±×µéÀ» ¹«¿ë(ÙíéÄ)ÄÉ ÇÑ´Ù."¶ó´Â ±× ÈÄÀÇ ÁÖÀå¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¾Ï½ÃÇϴµ¥, ÀÌ ÁÖÀåÀº ¿ª»ç°¡ ³×ÇÁ·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Áö¼º°ú ¿ì¸®ÀÇ µµ´öÀÌ ÀÌÀüÀÇ »ç¶÷µéº¸´Ù ³´´Ù´Â ÁÖÀå¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© Àǹ®À» Ç°µµ·Ï Çß´Ù. "¿ì¸®°¡ 20¼¼±âÀÇ Æødz¿¡¼­ »ì¾Æ ³²À¸·Á¸é °í´ëÀÇ ¼ºÀεé°ú ÇöÀÚµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀûÀº °Ô ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ´õ ¸¹Àº Áöµµ(±³ÈÆ)"¸¦ ¿ä±¸ÇÒ °ÍÀ» Á¦ÀÇÇϵµ·Ï Çß´Ù.

     Listen to that  "friend of mankind", the great  Frenchman,  Le  Baron  Gaston de  Montesquieu as he says:

If I knew something which was useful to me and which was detrimental to my family, I would banish it from my mind.  If I knew something useful to my family, but which was not useful to my country,  I would endeavor to forget it.  If I knew something useful to my country, but which was harmful to  Europe, or indeed was useful to  Europe but harmful to mankind, I would regard it as a crime. 115

À§´ëÇÑ ÇÁ¶û½º »ç¶÷ÀÎ ¸£ ¹Ù·Õ °¡½º¶Ë µå ¸ù¶¼½º²î¿¡ (¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥: ÇÁ¶û½ºÀÇ Á¤Ä¡Ã¶ÇÐÀÚ, 1689-1755)°¡ ¸»ÇÑ Àú "ÀηùÀÇ Ä£±¸"¿¡ ±Í¸¦ ±â¿ïÀ̶ó.

¸¸ÀÏ ³»°¡ ³ª¿¡°Ô À¯ÀÍÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ³ªÀÇ °¡Á·¿¡°Ô ÇØ·Ó´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¾È´Ù¸é, ³ª´Â ³ªÀÇ ¸¶À½À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ±×°ÍÀ» Ãß¹æÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¸¸ÀÏ ³»°¡ ³ªÀÇ °¡Á·¿¡°Ô À¯¿ëÇÑ °ÍÀÌÁö¸¸ ³ªÀÇ Á¶±¹¿¡ À¯¿ëÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °ÍÀ» ¾È´Ù¸é, ³ª´Â ±×°ÍÀ» ÀØÀ¸·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¸¸ÀÏ ³»°¡ ³ªÀÇ Á¶±¹¿¡ À¯¿ëÇÑ °ÍÀÌÁö¸¸, À¯·´¿¡ ÇØ·Î¿î °ÍÀ̰ųª, ÂüÀ¸·Î À¯·´¿¡ À¯¿ëÇÑ °ÍÀÌÁö¸¸, Àηù¿¡°Ô ÇØ·Î¿î °ÍÀ» ¾È´Ù¸é, ³ª´Â ±×°ÍÀ» ¹üÁË·Î ¿©±æ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.[¿ªÀÚÀÇ°ß: ¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥ÀÇ ÀÌ Á¤½ÅÀº "±×·¯¹Ç·Î ¹«¾ùÀ̵çÁö ³²¿¡°Ô ´ëÁ¢À» ¹Þ°íÀÚ ÇÏ´Â ´ë·Î ³ÊÈñµµ ´ëÁ¢Ç϶ó ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ À²¹ýÀÌ¿ä ¼±ÁöÀڴ϶ó"¶ó°í ÇϽŠ¿¹¼ö´ÔÀÇ ±³ÈÆ, ¼ÒÀ§ Ȳ±Ý·ü(¸¶7:12)ÀÇ ±³ÈÆ°ú ÀÏÄ¡ÇÑ´Ù.]

     This man,  Baron  Montesquieu penned these words some two hundred and fifty years ago.  He died in 1755 when  Adam Smith was 32 years old.  How different civilization today would be if these words of  Montesquieu had been embraced with the same fervor as those of  Adam  Smith when the latter vindicated the belief in the pursuit of self-interest as the guiding force in the economic order.

ÀÌ »ç¶÷, ¹Ù·Õ ¸ù¶¼½º²î¿¡(¼ÒÀ§ ¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥)´Â ¾à 250³â Àü¿¡ À§ÀÇ ±ÛÀ» ½è´Ù. ±×´Â ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½º(¿µ±¹ÀÇ °æÁ¦ÇÐÀÚ, 1723-1790)°¡ 32¼¼ ¶§ÀÎ 1775³â¿¡ Á×¾ú´Ù. ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½º°¡ °æÁ¦Àû ¿µ¿ª(°æÁ¦ÀÇ Â÷¿ø)ÀÇ Àεµ·ÂÀ¸·Î¼­  À̱âÁÖÀÇÀÇ Ãß±¸ÀÇ ½Å³äÀ» ÁÖÀå(º¯È£)ÇßÀ» ¶§(Çؼ³6) ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ ¸»°ú °°Àº ¿­Á¤À¸·Î ¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥ÀÇ À§ÀÇ ¸»ÀÌ ±â²¨ÀÌ ¹Þ¾Æ µé¿©Á³´Ù¸é  ¿À´Ã³¯ ¹®¸íÀº ¾ó¸¶³ª ´Ù¸¦ °ÍÀΰ¡.


Çؼ³6: ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ 'À̱âÁÖÀÇ'¿Í 'º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â ¼Õ'
Every individual endeavors to employ his capital so that its produce may be of greatest value. He generally neither intends to promote the public, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own security, only his own gain. And he is in this led by an INVISIBLE HAND to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
ADAM SMITH, The Wealth of Nations(1776)

»ç¶÷Àº ´©±¸µçÁö ÀÚ±âÀÇ »ý»ê¹° °¡Ä¡°¡ ÃÖ´ë°¡ µÇ°Ô²û ±× ÀÚº»À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ·Á ÇÑ´Ù. ±×´Â Åë»ó °ø°øÀÌÀÍÀ» ÃËÁø½ÃÅ°·Á´Â µûÀ§¸¦ ÀǵµÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸ç, ¶Ç Çö½ÇÀûÀ¸·Î ÀڱⰡ ¾î´À Á¤µµ ±×ÀÇ ÃËÁø¿¡ °øÇåÇÏ°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö¸¦ ¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Â °Íµµ ¾Æ´Ï´Ù. ÀǵµÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¾ÈÀü°ú À̵æ»ÓÀÌ´Ù. ±×·³¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í ÀÌ·± °æ¿ì, ±×´Â  º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â ¼Õ(INVISIBLE HAND)¿¡ ÀεµµÇ¾î ÀڱⰡ Àü¿¬ ÀǵµÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´ø ¸ñÀûÀ» ÃËÁø½ÃÅ°°Ô µÈ´Ù. ÀÚ±â ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ÀÌÀÍÀ» Ãß±¸ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ±×´Â ½ÇÁ¦ ±×·¸°Ô ÇÏ°íÀÚ »ý°¢ÇßÀ» ¶§º¸´Ù ¿ÀÈ÷·Á À¯È¿ÇÏ°Ô »çȸÀÇ ÀÌÀÍÀ» ÃËÁøÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ÀÚÁÖ ÀÖ´Ù.  °°´Ù.)
¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½º, ±¹ºÎ·Ð(1776)
(º¸Ãæ: Á¦¥±ºÎ¿¡ °ÔÀçÇÑ Çؼ® ³í¹®ÀÇ ¸¶Áö¸· ¹®´Ü¿¡¼­"......¿À´Ã³¯ ¹®¸íÀº ¾ó¸¶³ª ´Ù¸¦ °ÍÀΰ¡"¶ó°í ¾ð±ÞÇÑ  O'BRIEN±³¼öÀÇ ¸¶À½Àº ¾Æ´ã ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ ¸»°ú ¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥ÀÇ ¸»À» ¹èŸÀûÀÎ ´ëü(ÓÛôð)°ü°è·Î º¸´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ½º¹Ì½ºÀÇ ¸»°ú  ¸óÅ×½ºÅ¥ÀÇ ¸»À» ¼­·Î Ä«¿îÅÍÆÄÆ®(counterpart)·Î º¸°í ÇÔ²² ¾ç¸³½ÃÅ°´Â ¼¼°è¸¦ Èñ¸ÁÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Í °°´Ù.)

Signed  John  C.  O' Brien(Á¸ C. O' ºê¶óÀ̾ð)
date    August 23, 1977 (1977. 8. 23)
About  16,000 words [¾à 16,000 ´Ü¾î(¿µ¹®)]




REFERENCES(ÂüÁ¶ ¹®)

1. Clark, Kenneth, Civilisation, (Harper and Row, New York, 1968), pp.344-345.
2. Cited in John U. Nef, War and Human Progress, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950), p.335.
3. Nef, John U., The United States and Civilization, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967, 2nd edition), p.69.
4. Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in the West, (The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1954), p.15.
5. Ibid., pp.16-17.
6. Wicksteed, Philip H., The Common Sense of Political Economy, (Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, New York, 1950), pp.191-192.
7. Rostow, W. W., The stages of Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, London, 1971, 2nd edition), p.6.
8. Ibid., p.10.
9. Keynes, John Maynard, "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," 1930, in Essays in Persuasion, (W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1963), p.364.
10. Ibid., p.319.
11. Rostow, op. cit., p.11.
12. Ibid., p.91.
13. Econmic Report of the President, January, 1977, Washington, D.C.
14. Ibid.,
15. Denison, Why Growth Rates Differ, (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1967), p.3.  "None of these countries is willing to sacrafice what are regarded as fundamental liberties for growth.  Even within this limitation, none is willing to push growth regardless of cost. The people of no nation do everything possible to obtain the highest possible growth rate .... None forsakes compassion expressed in social welfare programs to accelerate growth."
16. Rostow, op. cit., p.10.
17. Ibid., p.114.
18. Ibid.,
19. Ibid., p.117.
20. Rostow, W. W., The Process of Economic Growth, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, 2nd edition), p. 164.
21. Ibid., pp.166-167.
22. Nef, War and Human Progress, op. cit., p.113.
23. Schumacher, E. F., "Non-Violent Economics : Next Task for Mankind," in Melman, Seymour, The War Economy of the United States, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1971), p.242.
24. Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York,1920), p.33.
25. Melman, Seymour, "Who Decides Technology?" in The War Economy of the  United States, op. cit., p.149.
26. Nef, War and Human Progress, op. cit., p.373.
27. Ibid.,
28. Woolf, Leonard, The War for Peace, 1940, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972), p. 26.
29. Bury, J, B., The Idea of Progress, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1920), p. vii.
30. Guizot, F., Histoire de la civilisation en Europe, (Perrin et Cie, Paris, 29th edition, circa 1850), p.6.  "Il ne faut flatter personne, pas m me son pays; cependant je crois qu'on peut dire sans flatteries que la France a  t  le centre, le foyer de la civilisation de l'Europe."  Where the citation in English is from a work in French, German or Spanish, with the original in the foothnotes, the translation is mine.
31. Schweitzer, Albert,  The Philosophy of  Civilisation, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1950), p.22.
32. Ibid., pp.23.
33. Ibid.,
34. Ibid., p.24.
35. Tawney, R. H., Equality, (Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, 1931), p. 82.
36. Ibid., Italics supplied.
37. Bury, op. cit., pp.138-139.
38. Ibid., p.139.  Italics supplied.
39. Meek, Ronald L., ed. and trans., Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics, (Cambridge  University Press, London and New York, 1973).
40. Ibid.,
41. Bury, op. cit., p.197.
42. Ibid., p.242.
43. Kant, Immanuel, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, (The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1949). pp.12-13.
44. Eckermann, Johann Peter, Gespr che mit Goethe, (Verlag Birkh user, Basel, Switzerland, 1945, Vol. 2), p. 651.  "Die Welt soll nicht so rasch zum Ziele, als wir denken and w nschen. Immer sind die retardierenden  D monen da, die  berall dazwischen-und   berall entgegentreten so dass es zwar in ganzen vorw rtsgeht, aber sehr langsam. Leben Sie nur fort, and Sie Werden schon finden, dass ich recht habe."
45. Ibid. "Ich sehe die Zeit kommen, wo Gott keine Freude mehr an ihr hat und er abermals alles zusammenschlagen muss zu einer verj ngten Sch pfung.
46. Renan, Ernest, L'avenir de la science, 1848, (Michel L vy Fr res, Paris, 1890), p.429.  "Le but de I'humanit  n'est pas le repos : c'est la perfection intellectuelle et morale ... L' tat le plus dangereux pour I'humanit  serait celui o  la majorit  se trouvant a l'aise et ne voulant pas  tre derang e, maintiendrait son repos aux d pens de la pens e et d'une minorit  opprim e."
47. Renan, Ernest, Oeuvres Compl tes, Tome I, "Dialogues et fragments philosophiques," 1876, (Calman-Levy, Paris), p.598.
     Que sera I'humanit  dans dix mille ans, dans cent mille ans? Que sera le monde dans un milliard d'ann es?  Il y a un milliard d'ann es, la Terre n'existait peut- tre pas; elle etait noy e dans I'atmosph re du soleil, et la lune n'en  tait pas detach e.  Que sera-t-elle devenue dans un milliard d'ann es?  Impossible de le dire, et pourtant ce jour viendra; rien n'est plus indubitable.  Nous ne nous faisons non plus aucune id e de I' tat de la mati re dans I'int rieur de la terre, et pourtant cet inconcevable  tat de choses existe a cinq cents lieues de nous."
48. Ibid., p.610.  "En somme, la fin de I'humanit , c'est de produire des grands hommes; le grand oeuvre s'accomplira par la science, non par la d mocratie.  Rien sans grands hommes; le salut se fera par des grands hommes.  L'oeuvre du messie, du lib rateru, c'est un homme, non une masse, qui I'accomplira."
49. Renan L'avenir, op. cit., p.432.  "Et qu'importe apr s tout que la journ e de demain soit s re ou incertaine?  Qu'importe que I'avenir nous appartienne ou ne nous appartienne pas?  Le ciel est-il moins bleu,  Beatrix est-elle moins belle, et Dieu est-il moins grand?"
50. Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics, (D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1896), p.125.
51. Ibid.,
52. Ibid., p.32.
53. Condorcet, Antoine-Nicolas de, The Progress of the Human Mind, 1795, (The Noonday Press, New York, 1955), pp.174-175.
54. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace, ed., Beck, Lewis W., (The Boobs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1957), pp.28-29.
     Italics supplied.
55. Nef, The United States and Civilization, op. cit., p.90.
56. Clark, op. cit., p.347.
57. Huxley, Thomas,  Evolution and Ethics, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1911), p.38.
58. Ibid., p.48.
59. Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, (The Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1948), p.160. Italics supplied.
60. Taylor, Overton H., A History of Economic Thought, (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1960), p. xiii.
61.            , Humanist Manifesto Il,  The Humanist, September/ October, 1973, Vol. xxxIII, No. 5, p.5.
62.  Ibid., p.6.
63. Huxley, Julian, The  Humanist  Framework, (Harper and Bros., New York, 1961). p.40.
64. James, William, Pragmatism, (The World Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1969), p.51.
65. Lunn,  Arnold,  Revolt  Aqainst  Reason, (Greenwood Press Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, 1971). p.xi.
66. Remak, Joachim, The Nazi Years, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969). p.62.
67. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Soviet Communism : A New Civilisation?, (Charles Scribner's  Sons, New York, 1937, Vol. II), p.1043.
68. Ibid., p.1045.
69. Winter, Ella, Red Virtue, (Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, 1933), pp.21-22.
70. Ibid., p.21.
71. Trotsky, Leon, Dewey, John, Novack, George, Their Morals and Ours, (Pathfinder Press, Inc., New York, 1973),. p.42.
72. Ibid., p.48.
73. Ibid.,
74. Ibid., p.58. Italics supplied.
75. Rader, Melville M., Ethics and the Human Community, (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1964), p.238.
76. Robbins, Lionel, Nature and SIgnificance of Economic Science, (Macmillan, London, 1948, 2nd edition), p.145, p.24.
77. Cairnes, John Elliott, The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy, (Harper and Row, New York, 1857, 3rd edition, 1888), p.34.
78. Senior, Nassau William, An Outline of the Science of Political Economy, (Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., New York, 1939), p.3.
79. Hutton, R. H., etc., Economic Reprints, Chapter II, "Postulates of English Political Economy," Walter Bagehot, (Academic Reprints, Stanford, California, 1953), 1879, p.7. Italics supplied.
80. Myrdal, Gunnar, Value in Social Theory, (Harper Bros., New York, 1958), p.49.
81. Taylor, op. cit., p.xiii.
82. Bagehot, op. cit., p.23.
83. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society,  op. cit., p.3.
84. Tawney, R. H., The Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, (Harcourt, Brace, and the World, Inc., New York, 1926), pp.277-278.
85. Ibid.,  p. 282.
86. Mulcahy, Richard E., The Economics of Heinrich Pesch, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1952), p.22.
87. Ibid.,  p. 25.
88. Ibid.,  p. 23.
89. Ibid.,  p. 27.
90. Ibid.,  p. 39.
91. Ibid.,  p. 39.
92. Ibid.,  p. 42.  The whole of this brief discussion of the theory of Heinrich Pesch is derived from Chapter 4, "The Nature of Economic Science," in Mulcahy's work.
93. Galbraith, John K., The Affluent Society, (Houghton, Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1969, 2nd edition), p.311.
94. Ibid.,  p. 312.
95. Adler, Mortimer, The Time of Our Lives, The Ethics of Common Sence, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970), p.225.
96. Ibid.,  p. 225. Italics supplied.
97. Kant, Immanuel, Fundamental Principles,  op. cit.,  Supra.
98. Carlyle, Thomas, Past and Present, (Homewood Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois, no date),pp.216-218. First published in 1843.
99. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit., 9.123.
100. Tawney, Equality,  op. cit., p.85.  Italics supplied.
101. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit.,  p.188.
102. Ibid.,  p. 191.
103. Kant, Immanuel,  Perpetual Peace,  op. cit.,  p.34.
104. Ibid.,
105. Ortega y Gasset, Jos , La rebeli n de las masas, (Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1930), p. 74. "Civilizati n es, antes que nada, voluntad de convivencia. Se es incivil y b rbaro en la medida en que no se cuente con los dem s. La barbarie es tendencia a la disociaci n."
106. Robinson, Joan, Economic Philosophy, (Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois, 1962). p.124.
107. Woolf, Leonard, Quack, Quack:,(Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1935), p.166.
108. Chatfield, Charles, ed., The Ethics of War, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972), p.2.
109. Cited in Benda, La trahison des clercs, (Bernard Grasset, Paris, France, 1927), pp.170-171.  "Avez-vous remarqu  que, ni dans les huit b atitudes, ni dans le Sermon sur la montagne, ni dans I'Evangile, ni dans toute la litt rature chr tienne primitive, il n'y a pas un mot que mette les vertus militaires parmi celles qui gagnent le royaume du ciel?"
110. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit., p.205.
111. Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1962), p.33.
112. Boulding, Kenneth E. "After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith",  The History of Political Economy, Vol.3, No.2, Fall 1971, p.224.

113. Nef, The United States and Civilization, op. cit., p.90.
114. Montesquieu, Gaston de, Pensees et Fragments inedits, (Imprimerie G. Gounouilhou, Bordeaux, France, 1899), Tome I, p.15.  "Si, je savois quelque chose qui me fut utile, et qui fut prejudiciable a ma famille, je la rejetterois de mon esprit.  Si je savois quelque chose utile  a ma famille, et qui ne le fut pas  a ma patrie, je chercherois  a l'oublier.  Si je savois quelque chose utile  a ma patrie, et qui fut pre judiciable  a l'Europe, ou bien qui fut utile a l'Europe et prejudiciable au Genre humain, je la regarderois comme un crime.


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY(°ü°è¼­Àû¸ñ·Ï)

1. Adler, Mortimer J., The Time of Our Lives, The Ethics of Common Sence, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970).
2. Benda, Julien,  La trahison des clercs, (Bernard Grasset, Paris, France, 1927).
3. Bury, J, B., The Idea of Progress, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1928).
4. Chatfield, Charles, ed., The Ethics of War, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972).

5. Clark, Colin, The Conditions of Economic Progress, (Macmillan and Company, Londonm 1957, 2nd edition).
6. Clark, Kenneth, Civilisation, (Harper and Row, New York, 1968).
7. Cohen, Marshall, Nagel, Thomas, and Scanlon, Thomas, eds.,  War and Moral Responsibility, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1974).
8. Condorcet, Antoine-Nicolas de, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795, (The Noonday Press, New York, 1955).
9. Denison, Edward F., Why Growth Rates Differ, (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1967).
10. Eckermann, Johann Peter, Gespr che mit Goethe, (Verlag Birkh user, Basel, Switzerland, 1945, Vol. 2).
11. Gaibraith, John K., The Affluent Society, (Houghton and Mifflin,  Boston, Massachusetts, 1969, 2nd edition).
12.        , The New Industrial State, (Houghton and Mifflin, Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1967).
13. Gasset, Jos , Ortega y. La rebeli n de las masas, (Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1930).
14. Guizot, F., Histoire de la civilisation en Europe, (Perrin et Cie, Paris, 1855).
15. Hollis, Martin and Nell, Edward, Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neo-Classical Economics, (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975).
16. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace, ed., Beck, Lewis W., (The Boobs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1957).
17. Keynes, John M., "Essays in  Persuasion, (W. W. Norton and Company, 1963).
18. Koopmans, Tjalling C., Three Essays on the State of Economic Science, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1957).
19. Kuznets, Simon, Economic Growth of Nations, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971).
20. Lamfallusy, A., The United Kingdom and the Six, (Richard D. Irwin and Company, Homewood, Illinois, 1963).
21. Leonard Woolf, Quack, Quack:,(Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1935).
22.          , The War for Peace, 1940, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972).
23. Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1962).
24. Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in the West, (The Twintieth Century Fund, New York, 1954).
25. Meek, Ronald L., Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics, (Cambridge  University Press, London and New York, 1973).
26. Melman, Seymour, The War Economy of the United States, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1971).
27. Montesquieu, Le Baron Gaston de, Pens es et Fragments in dits, (Imprimerie G. Gounouilhou, Bordeaux, France, 1899).
28. Mulcahy, Richard E., The Economics of Heinrich Pesch, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1952).
29. Myrdal, Gunnar, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory,(Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., London, 1953).
30.           , Value in Social Theory, (Harper Brothers, New York, 1958).
31. Nef, John U., The United States and Civilization, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967, 2nd edition).
32.            , War and Human Progress, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950).
33. Remak, Joachim, The Nazi Years, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969).
34. Renan, Ernest, L'avenir de la science, 1848, (Michel L vy Fr res, Paris, 1890).
35. Robbins, Lionel, Nature and SIgnificance of Economic Science, (Macmillan Company, London, 1948, 2nd edition).
36. Robinson, Joan, Economic Heresies, Some Old-Fashioned Questions in Economic Theory, (Basic Books, New York, 1971).
37.              , Economic Philosophy, (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1962).
38. Rostow, W. W., The Process of Economic Growth, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, 2nd edition).
39.          , The Stages of Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, London, 1971, 2nd edition).
40. Schweitzer, Albert,  The Philosophy of  Civilisation, (Macmillan Company, New York, 1950).
41. Sorel, Georges, The Illusions of Progress, (University of California Press, 1969).
42. Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics, (D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1896).
43. Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1920).
44.             , Equality, (Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, 1931).
45.            , Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1926).
46. Taylor, Overton H., A History of Economic Thought, (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1960).
47. Trotsky, Leon, Dewey, John, Novack, George, Their Morals and Ours, (Pathfinder Press, Inc., New York, 1973).
48. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Soviet Communism : A New Civilisation?, (Charles Scribner's  Sons, New York, 1937).
49. Winter, Ella, Red Virtue, (Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, 1933).


ºÎ·Ï[¿ø¹®(¿µ¹®) ÀÚ·á]

ECONOMIC  GROWTH  AND  ETHICAL  PROGRESS
          THE  WESTERN  EXPERIENCE
                                by
    John  C.  O'Brien(CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY¡¤FRESNO)



"We have no idea where we are going, and sweeping, confident articles on the future seem to me intellectually, the most disreputable of all forms of public utterances. The scientists who are best qualified to talk have kept their mouths shut."1 Kenneth Clark.

INTRODUCTION

     The main purpose of this paper lies in the endeavor to show that the future of Western civilization has been placed in jeopardy, in spite of economic growth on a phenomenally large scale, as a result of the declining influence of the traditional code of ethics, a system of transcendental values, due to the zeal and diligence of various groups of individuals whose philosophies have a common base in utilitarianism.
     Due to a lack of agreement on ethical principles, the study of ethics has been in our day quite unceremoniously pushed into the background of our academic and national life. The result as Kenneth Clark has noted is a civilization without goals. We truly do not know where we are going. This shortcoming is not restricted to our society, nor the Western world at large, not even to areas of academic endeavor within the bounds of society. In this paper, attention will be brought to the fact that economic science is without a goal and, most hazardous of all, it cannot even direct itself, if it wished, towards the attainment of the goals of society. There appears to be none.
     The view will therefore be advanced that although economics is an independent science, it is not an isolated one. If the economist still wishes to hold himself forth as an economist and a scientist, his study is wertfrei, he will be obliged because of the exigencies of present-day life to look beyond his discipline to discover  the  goals  for which he should strive. The question for

--------------------------
*This paper is derived in part from The Role of Economics and Ethics in Civilization and Progress, a paper presented at the 5lst Annual Western Economic Association Conference, San Francisco, California, June, 1976.


the economist boils down to this:  "Am  I engaged in the pursuit of truth for its own sake, or is my purpose the discovery of knowledge which will enable me to reach a goal?"
     The first part of the paper is devoted to a brief survey of recent economic growth and the resultant economic progress. This part is divided into two sections in which attention is directed to the affluent west and the effect of war on economic growth, or, economic growth on war.
     The second part of the paper is devoted to a brief, historical examination of the idea of progress. Historically, the idea of progress has manifested itself not in material progress alone, but in moral progress, too. In fact, the moral perfectibility of man has generally been regarded as highest peak in civilization. This paper generally implies that the partial knowledge of the economist is insufficient to deal with the problems of civilization. The economist must look beyond his discipline for his goals.
     The third part of the paper is concerned with the view here advanced, that the goals of civilization are beyond reach  as  long as moral relativism, the lion in the path, is widely accepted.  It is here maintained that the gravest problems of the twentieth century have found their roots in the  philosophy which holds that all values are relative in time  and  space.  This section will first of all devote itself to problem of moral progress and later moral relativism.
     The goals of the economy and civilization at large are examined in the fourth part of the paper.  It is here argued that the goals of civilization can be determined only by impartial and disinterested scholars in the field of moral philosophy. Outside the field of moral philosophy there is no one competent to discover these goals.
     Moreover, our leaders, statesmen, politicians and men of affairs have axes to grind.  Free from the power that corrupts, the moral philosopher remains impartial and unprejudiced.
     Agreement on the goals of civilization and a determination to work for them as essential to the preservation of a society where advances in science and technology have produced a rate of economic growth which will permit warfare on a scale too terrible to imagine is the view reached in the conclusion.


I.  ECONOMIC  GROWTH  AND  MATERIAL  PROGRESS

     The view of Sir Francis Bacon expressed in the New Atlantis, another elusive Utopia, that economic growth leads not just to material progress but also to moral, religious and intellectual advancement is so widely and uncritically accepted that it has today become a commonplace.


     (1) The  Affluent  West

     That there has been material progress, and that of a phenomenal nature, there can be no doubt. That there have been phenomenal advances in economic growth and material prosperity unaccompanied by similar improvements in ethical conduct, is summed up by the Marquise de la Tour du Pin when she said in the early part of the nineteenth century : "If the sentiments and virtues had made the same progress as industry, we should now be angels, worthy of Paradise.  How far we are from that?"2   For the last quarter of the twentieth century her words still have relevance.
     We are no nearer Paradise than we ever were. On the contrary, we are probably farther away than ever. The fault according to some lies in the uncritical acceptance of the view of Sir Francis Bacon expressed above. "The increasing disposition to measure all progress in terms of economic growth has contributed not only to a crisis in the realm of art, but to a moral and intellectual crisis."3  Nevertheless, there is no gainsaying the fact that economic growth and material progress have taken place here in the West on a scale hitherto unprecedented.
     More than twenty years ago, Angus Maddison published a study in which he showed that twelve countries in the West:
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the U. K., Canada and the USA, although they constitute only fifteen percent of the population of the world, are the richest nations on the face of the earth and account for half of the world's income, one-third of the output of agriculture, and sixty percent of world trade and industrial production.4
     It is noteworthy that most of these countries prefer an economic order characterized by free enterprise based as it is on private property and the freedom of the individual.  The State intervenes for no reason other than that of creating a climate wherein the forces of free enterprise may find their greatest strength.  The influence of Keynesian economics is here plainly to be seen.  In the nineteenth century when Britain abandoned herself to a completely unfettered price mechanism she had become the workship of the world.  When the depression of the thirties brought the period of laissez - faire to an end, the United Kingdom, as well as other leading economies of the West, created the managed market economy.
     The material progress of these nations is due in no small measure to the fact that these countries are closely linked by trade, and policies calculated to make the free flow of trade easier have enhanced their interdependence in every way.  More- over, according to Maddison, the growth of material prosperity in these nations redounds to the advantage of the less developed nations:

Not only is rapid growth essential to the advancing welfare of the rich countries, but it is essential for the progress of the world economy that the rich countries get richer.
They will thus be enabled to export more capital and provide better markets to the less privileged.  And the process of pushing forward the frontiers of technology, even though it may not help to raise the relative position of the less developed, adds to the welfare of everybody in absolute terms. 5

     Economic growth in the West, especially in the years following the Second World War, was due to the creation of a high and stable level of aggregate demand, a situation to which the governments in the West contributed in no small measure by their monetary and fiscal policies.  The intervention in the economic order may be regarded as a wise step along the path to the general, material welfare.  The free market knows nothing about justice or the dignity of man.  As Wicksteed has pointed out, the blind forces of supply and demand are just as likely to promote the common good as lightning is likely to strike trees that are better felled.6
     In describing the pre-conditions prevailing in an economy preparing for take-off, the period during which the obstacles to steady economic growth are being overcome, Walt Rostow, the American economic historian, notes as one of the pre-conditions the idea that economic progress is desirable.

The idea spreads not merely that economic progress is possible, but that economic progress is a necessary condition for some other purpose, judged to be good : be it national dignity, private profit, the general welfare, or a better life for the children. Education, for some at least, broadens and changes to suit the needs of modern economic activity.

     The desire for economic growth, according to Rostow's analysis, culminates in the fifth and final stage of growth:     The Age of High Mass Consumptions.  At this stage in time the leading sectors of the economy:

¡¦ shift towards durable consumer's goods and services : a phase from which Americans are beginning to emerge; whose not unequivocal joys Western Europe and Japan are beginning energetically to probe; and with which  Soviet society is engaged in an uneasy flirtation.8

     It is to the problem raised by this situation that Lord Keynes brought out attention almost fifty years ago when he said:  "All this means in the long run that mankind is solving  its economic problem."9  Earlier in  "The End of Laissez-Faire" 1926, he offered the view that divisions of  opinion would not center themselves in years to come"  around technical questions, where the arguments on either side are mainly economic, but round which,  for want of better words, may be called psycholo- gical, or, perhaps, moral."10
     Through the political process,  Rostow believes that the decision has been made in  Western societies to increase the quality of resources devoted to social security in preference to policies designed to promote the advance of technology as an overriding objective.

The emergence of the welfare state is one manifestation of a society's moving beyond technical  maturity,  but it is also at this stage that resources tend increasingly to be directed to the production of consumers'  durables and to the diffusion of services on a mass basis, if consumers'  sovereignty reigns.  The sewing-machine, the bicycle, and then the various electric-powered household gadgets were gradually diffused. Historically, however, the decisive element has been the cheap mass automobile with its quite revolutionary effects ¡¦¡¦11.

     As John Maynard Keynes and others had foreseen, failure to make the necessary spiritual progress may retard subsequently many of the advances made by economic growth.  The time comes when people realize the fact that the production of wealth is after all simply a means to an end, the good life.  For the sake of additional wealth people are no longer quite so ready to sacrifice their leisure hours.  In describing this situation, Rostow poses these questions:

Will man fall into secular spiritual stagnation, finding no worthy outlet for the expression of his energies, talents, and instinct to reach for immortality?  Will he follow the Americans and reimpose the strenuous life by raising the birth-rate?  Will the devil make work for idle hands?  Will men learn how to conduct wars with just enough violence to be good sport --- and to accelerate capital depreciation  --- without blowing up the planet?  Will the exploration of outer space offer an adequately interesting and expensive outlet for resources and ambitions?12

     The best example of economic progress in the Western world is, of course, the United States.  A swiftly growing population, from about three millions in 1776 to over 200 millions two hundred years later, and a richness in natural resources nowhere surpassed, created a dynamic economy where a high level of investment led enormous economic growth.  By 1870, the  United  States had already taken over the leadership in productivity.  The increase in the output of wealth between the present time and the lowest point in the depression has been quite phenomenal.  The role of the government has become one of the utmost importance.  Continuous growth seems assured.  The level of investment expenditures has never been higher.
     The  President of the  United  States saw the record of the world economy as quite positive in many respects.  "Output in the industrial countries is estimated to have risen by five percent above its 1975 level in real terms, the volume of trade expanded by about ten percent, and inflation rates, though not eliminated as much as desirable, are significantly below earlier levels."13
     A comparison of the dollar figures of important aggregates between the depression and the present time helps to emphasize the economic growth in recent years in the  USA.
     From 1933, the lowest point in the depression, the Gross National  Product rose from $56 billion to $1,700 billion in 1976.  In the same period, consumption rose from  $46 billion to  $1,118 billion;  private domestic investment from  $1.4 billion to an amazing  $250 billion,  Federal government expenditures on  goods  and  services  were  almost  $140  billion  compared to  $238  billion for  State and local governments.  Expenditure  for  national  defense rose from a low of  $1.2  billion  in 1938  to  $91.3 billion  in  1976.
     The total wage bill in 1976 was  $1,020 billion compared to  $19.5  billion in  1933 : profits for the same period rose from  - $1.7 billion  to  $117 billion.  The number of people in employ- ment  rose from 45 million in 1933 to around 90 million in 1976.  During this time, the national income had increased from  $85 billion to  $1,350 billion and the population had grown from 125 million to 215 million.
     In 1976, the quantity of money, M1, had risen to over $310 billion.  The government's  fiscal policy was reflected in a rise in total receipts in 1968 of  $ 153.7 billion to an estimated  $393.1 billion for  1978; a rise in total outlays in 1968 of  $178.8 billion to an estimated  $439.9  billion in 1978.  The national debt of  $370 billion in 1968 is expected to grow to an estimated $785 billion in 1978. 14
     There is no question that the  Federal  Government of the United  States intends to use fiscal policy and monetary policy, in its endeavors to contribute toward economic growth and stability  of employment.  To this end,  working in cooperation with private enterprise, the  Federal  Government  has helped to create  the most prosperous  economy ever known to man.  Nonetheless, grave social problems, many of them with a base in ethics, still exist on a national and international level.
     There is no doubt that the government of the  United  States is committed to a policy of economic growth.  Nevertheless,  Edward  F. Denison, in his studies of economic growth in leading  European industrial countries and the  United  States, pointed out that economic growth had become a national goal everywhere but none of the countries examined in his study allowed it to take precedence over more urgent needs. 15.

     (2) War  and  Economic  Growth

     At the present time economic growth, spurred by scientific and technological advances of an extraordinary sort, have led to the creations of weapons whose unethical use could result in the virtual annihilation of the human race.  This undesirable condition is aggravated by the fact that, in addition to China, most countries in the southern hemisphere are either ready for the take-off leading to economic maturity, or in the preconditions for such take-off.  Economic maturity,  Rostow defines as the "stage in which an economy demonstrates that it has the technological and entrepreneurial skills to produce not everything, but anything it chooses to produce."16
     In discussing the three types of war which can do nothing but ravish people and nations, and which he groups under the headings of colonial wars; wars of regional aggression; and the massive wars of the twentieth century,  Rostow reveals that the dangerous age comes with  "economic maturity, when one of the options open is to concentrate the resources of the mature economy on a more ambitious expansion of external power."17
Rostow adds that the reaching of economic maturity at different times helps  "to illuminate the three great military struggles of the twentieth century: the First  World  War, the  Second  World  War, and the Cold  War ¡¦¡¦"18
     Concerning the havoc which wars have wrought in this century of great economic growth and progress,  Rostow points out that the arrival at economic maturity of the  United  States,  Germany,  Japan and  Russia  was to determine the balance of power in the first half of the twentieth century.
     At the same time, the relative economic backwardness of  Eastern  European countries, and  China, still in the preconditions of take-off, "provided the occasion for the  First  World  War the  Second  World  War, and the  Cold  War in its first phase." 19  The lesson is clear.  Economic growth contributed to a country's military might and made it strong.  Lack of economic growth contributed to a country's undoing.  Is military might,  therefore, it may be asked, a good?
     Rostow, in another work, answers this question with reference to the effect of war on the economy of the  United  kingdom:

¡¦ it must be concluded that war constituted a great waste of British resources.  Looking strictly at economic variables, the rate of economic progress would appear to have been slower than it otherwise would have been; and it took forms other than those which would have maximized over time the British real national income.20

     Wars did, however, hasten the rate of social and political change in Britain which changes in themselves had positive effects on the rate of economic growth.21
     For John U. Nef, historian and economist, war is "a disease of human nature, which has affected all societies ¡¦ in various ways.  By seeking and achieving economic improvement, men and women change the means of fighting.  The greater their economic success, the greater the risks that economic success brings with it."22
     It is against this tendency in the  West to gravitate toward economic strength, and urge it elsewhere, by unlimited expansion, that  Schumacher warns us when he points out the lack of any philosophical base in our economics and the need for nonviolence to permeate the whole of man's activities.  "Present day economics," he says, "while claiming to be ethically neutral, in fact propagates a philosophy of unlimited expansion, without any regard to the true and genuine needs of man, which are limited." 23
     The pursuit of economic growth and wealth without regard to the needs of man, to ethical considerations, was for the British economic historian,  R. H. Tawney, quite meaningless. A civilization which rested on the faith "that riches are not a means but an end, implies that all economic activity is equally estimable, whether it is subordinated to a social purpose or not."24
     This failure to distinguish between goods which are necessary for man's needs and those which are not has a much more ominous meaning for us today than when  Tawney wrote in 1920.  It has led one economist to distinguish between productive economic growth and parasitic economic growth.  Productive growth refers to the production of those goods which are required by society's standard of living, or to goods which contribute to further production.  On the other hand, parasitic growth involves the production of goods and services not demanded by the level of living or not contributing to further production.  This is true of the production of military goods and services.  "The common use of the money unit to measure all economic activity masks the functional difference between parasitic and productive growth." 25
    With the advent of total war in the twentieth century, the scientist, unlike his predecessor of the nineteenth century, has seen the possibility of his discoveries being used for evil and for destructive purposes.  Scientific and technological advances serve economic growth regardless of the direction taken by such growth.
    In modern times the goods of war have also been served by the application of scientific discoveries to peaceful economic progress.  All economic life has received a military purpose from industrialism.  The hopes of  European philosophers and scientists that economic growth and progress would subdue war were in vain.
    At the beginning of the twentieth century, the principal powers of  Europe had four million men under arms.  These forces could be enlarged to account for thirty to forty million.  Today this figure could probably be increased several times over. "The god of war has been transformed into a mechanical Moloch, almost as impersonal as nature, but made capable by man's intelligence of swallowing at a gulp nearly all the children of God."26
     Commenting on the fact that the mechanization of war has diminished the extent to which physical courage is essential for victory,  Professor  Nef emphasizes the importance for victory to "organize industrial production, to deliver weapons and missiles in profusion, and to guide by technical rules the hands of the fighters."27
     Earlier the  English writer,  Leonard  Woolf, had advanced a somewhat similar view when he said that the evaluation of the modern national state had an immediate effect on the nature of war due to the birth of  Napoleon  Bonaparte and the industrial revolution.  The genius of  Napoleon, says  Woolf, consisted  "in a superhuman ability to move large masses of men about in fields, over roads, across rivers and mountains, in such a way that they were infallibly brought into positions where they could destroy other large masses of men." 28
     Industrial growth may affect wars but it does not start them. Men do that and they need not the genius of  Napoleon.


¥±. THE  PATH  TO  PROGRESS

     The eminent historian  J. B. Bury in his  The  Idea of Progress offered the view that we have come to judge a civilization as good or bad according to whether or not it is progressive because the expression  "civilization and progress"  had become stereotyped. 29  It seems, however, beyond dispute that the idea of civilization and progress originated with the  French.  According to the  French historian,  Guizot,  France was the doorway to  European civilization.  Says he: "It is not necessary to flatter anyone, not even one's country; however,  I believe that it can be said without flattery that  France has been the centre, the entrance to civilization."30
    Civilization also meant progress to that great twentieth century humanitarian,  Albert  Schweitzer, and progress both spiritually and materially and for the mass as well as the individual.  Progress meant for him:  "The establishment of as favorable conditions as possible for all is a demand which must be made partly for its own sake, partly with a view to the spiritual and moral perfecting of individuals, which is the ultimate object of civilization."31.
    There was no doubt in  Schweitzer's mind that economic growth was necessary for the advancement of civilization.  To this end it was necessary for man to gain control over the dispositions of men.  Economic growth is not an end in itself.  Listen to  Schweitzer when he says: "Ethical progress is ¡¦ that which is truly of the essence of civilization, and has only one significance; material progress is that which is less essential and may have a good or bad effect on the development of civilization."32  Civilization, in other words, is embodied in the  German work  Kultur which signifies  "the development of man to a state of higher organization and higher moral standard."33
     Schweitzer felt constrained to criticize when progress in the nineteenth century seemed to lose its ethical spur as it was restricted to the material sphere where it had advanced with phenomenal speed.  "In this way," complains  Schweitzer, "our own age, having never taken the trouble to reflect, arrived at the opinion that civilization consists primarily in scientific,  technical and artistic achievements, and that it can reach its goal without ethics, or at any rate with a minimum of them."34
     The view that progress and civilization consisted in material progress, in economic growth, did not sit lightly with the eminent Tawney: "If the kingdom of  Heaven is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace, neither is civilization the multiplication of motor-cars and cinemas, or of any other of the innumerable devices by which men accumulate means of ever increasing intricacy to the attainment of ends which are not worth attaining."35
     Tawney had no illusions about the meaning of progress, and has no compunctions about saying what was not in fact progress. Bemoaning the British economy, one without goals, for it was without principle,  Tawney says:

It is true that the mark of civilization is respect for excellence in the things of the spirit, and a readiness to incur sacrifice for the sake of fostering it.  It is true that excellence is impossible in the absence of severe and exacting standards of attainment and appreciation which check the taste for cheap success and shoddy achievement by cultivating a temper which discriminates ruthlessly between the admirable and the second-rate.  It is true that such a temper has no more persistent or insidious for than the perversion of values, which confuses the ends of life with the means and elevates material prosperity, whether the interpreta- tion put upon it is the accumulation of wealth or the diffusion of comfort, from the position of secondary and instrumental importance that properly belongs to it, into the grand and overmastering object of individual effort and public approval. 36

     The confusion of ends and means frequently results in the attachment of too much importance to the pursuit of profit, capital accumulation and economic growth.  The pursuit of wealth becomes an end in itself; our reason for being.

*********************************

     In his book,  Observations on the  Continuous  Progress of  Civilization,  1737, the  Abbe de  Saint  Pierre, a  Deist and a utilitarian, advanced another concept of civilization.  It is in the writings of the  Abbe, who believed that  La cathedrale de  Notre Dame had little value compared to that of a road, canal, or bridge, that we find the theory of intellectual progress enlarged to include the idea of the progress of man toward social perfection.  In his  Observations, the  Abbe compared the life of humanity to the life of the individual and reached the conclusion that civilization was only in the infancy of human reason.
     The Abbe saw in the "advance" of civilization the same weakness as that to which  Schweitzer was later to bring our attention.  Claiming that the literary works of the English and  French compared favorably with those of  Aristotle and  Plato, the Abbe advanced the view that morals and the general level of happiness had changed imperceptibly.  "Our mediocre savants know twenty times as much as  Socrates and  Confucius but our most virtuous men are not more virtuous than they."37  For this reason, the  Abbe lamented the neglect of the study of ethics and politics.  For him it was "a grave misfortune that  Descartes and  Newton did not devote themselves to perfecting these sciences (Ethics and  Politics),  so incomparably more useful for mankind than those in which they had made their great discoveries." 38
     The  Abbe was the forerunner of the  Encyclopaedists, those eighteenth century  French thinkers who did so much to nurture the humanist spirit, and who, in their writings, revealed their superb sense of the dignity of man.  Their belief in man is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the writings of  Anne - Robert - Jacques  Turgot, economist and administrator, and a  Physiocrat, according to some, who believed with  Abbe de  Saint Pierre in the infancy of humanity.  In his famous discourse  "A Philosophical  Review of the  Successive  Advances of the Human Mind," 1750, he says,  "¡¦ the human race, considered over the period since its origin, appears to the eye of a philosopher as one vast whole, which itself, like each individual has its infancy and its advancement." 39
     His hopes for humanity and his optimism about the future are reflected in the following words:

Self-interest, ambition, and vainglory continually change the world scene and inundate the earth with blood; yet in the midst of their ravages manners are softened, the human mind becomes more enlightened, and separate nations are brought closer to one another.  Finally, commercial and political ties unite all parts of the globe, and the whole human race, through alternate periods of rest and unrest, of weal and woe, goes on advancing, although at a slow pace, towards greater perfection.40

     Although the whole world is not yet united by commercial and political ties there seems nothing unethical about a readiness to share with  Turgot his aspirations for the human race's advancement towards greater perfection.
     For  Diderot, who directed the  Encyclopaedia, man was all that mattered.  Voltaire's view of man as an insect crawling on a heap of mud left him free to chart his own destiny, free at last from the trappings of final causes and original sin.  The complete faith of the  Encyclopaedists in man's perfectibility, in his indefinite improvement, dominated  French thinking in this era.  Truth, however, was no longer being sought for its, own sake but for its utility.
     In 1770,   Sebastien  Mercier wrote in his book  L'an 2440: "¡¦ where can the perfectibility of man stop, armed with geometry and the mechanical arts and chemistry?"41
     In  Germany,  Herder in his  Ideas of the  Philosophy of the History of  Humanity, 1784, opposed the view of a unique state of perfection as the goal of history.  Instead he held that  all forms of society are equally legitimate, the imperfect as well as the perfect; all are ends in themselves, not mere stages on the way to something better. 42
     In the genius of  Immanuel  Kant, there lingered an uncompromising and intractable opponent of eudaemonism.  According to him man's proper end in life was not the pursuit of happiness but the development of his rational faculty:

Not in a being which has reason and a will, if the proper object of nature were its conservation, its welfare, in a word, its happiness, then nature would have hit upon a very bad arrangement in selection the reason of the creature to carry out this purpose.  For all the actions which the creature has to perform with a view to this purpose, and the whole rule of its conduct would be far more surely prescribed to it by instinct, and that end would have been attained thereby much more certainly than it ever can be by reason. 43

     To  Kant the foundation of progress lay in ethical progress, moral amelioration.  To act in an ethical fashion was for  Kant an absolute obligation founded in reason.  Kant believed there had actually been some progress in that direction.
     The great  German poet and philosopher,  Johann  Wolfgang von  Goethe, 1749-1832, on the other hand, was extremely skeptical of the idea of progress.  Obstacles to progress were everywhere to be found.  Success was not assured.  "The world will not reach its goal as quickly as we think or wish.  The retarding demons are always there, intervening and resisting everywhere, so that although there is progress, it is very slow.  Live longer and you will discover that  I am right."44
     Goethe further believed that the development of humanity might take hundreds of years even millions.  Human beings may become cleverer and more prudent, but not happier nor more energetic, except for brief periods.  In fact, says  Goethe rather ominously, "I see the time coming when  God will no longer have any more pleasure in humanity, and has to destroy everything once more for a rejuvenated creation."45
     The search for a law of progress was conducted in the nineteenth century by other such distinguished  Frenchmen as  Fourier,  Saint-Simon, and  Augustus  Comte.  Due to the far-reaching effects of  Newton's  Newton's discoveries,  Fourier engaged in a search for a law which would coordinate the facts to be found in the realm of morality, in the same way that the law of gravity had coordinated the facts of the physical world.  His efforts bore fruit in the form of a law called  Passional  Attraction.  It proved to be valueless.
     For  Saint-Simon the golden age lay ahead of us and was one in which the social order would be perfected.  Saint-Simon, rejecting the watchwords of democracy, saw the future well-being of society taking the form of socialism,  As a diviner of the future,  Comte failed just as miserably as had  Fourier and  Saint-Simon.  The era of peace which he claimed to have foreseen never arrived.  He died in 1857.
     The best known work of another great  Frenchman of this era,  Ernest  Renan,  L' avenir de la science,  1848, was not published until forty years later.  At the time of writing,  Renan believed that reason, the scientific spirit, would ultimately enable men to reach an ideal state of civilization in which all would be equal.  Said he: "The goal of humanity is not tranquillity; it is intellectual and moral perfection.  The most dangerous state for humanity will be that where the majority finds itself at ease and not wishing to be disturbed will maintain its repose at the expense of thought and an oppressed minority."46
     In his  Dialogues, 1871,  Renan again began to speculate on the future of humanity and the world:

What will humanity be in ten thousand years, in one hundred thousand years? What will the world be in one thousand million years?  Perhaps the  Earth did not exist one billion years ago; it was drowned in the atmosphere of the sun, and the moon had not yet been separated from it.  What will have become of it in a billion years?  Impossible to say, and yet the day will come, nothing is more certain.  We can no longer pretend to have any idea of the state of the material in the interior of the earth and yet this inconceivable state of things exists five hundred leagues from us.47

     Later on his pessimism is displaced by the optimism inspired in him by the feats of the scientist.  No longer subscribing to the socialist's belief in equality, his mind has changed to accommodate the view that the goal of humanity is the production of great men.  "Finally, the goal of humanity is to produce great men; the great work will be accomplished by science not by democracy.  Nothing is accomplished without great men; salvation will be created by great men."48
     Renan's optimism and his true perception of the human condition, something which no amount of material progress, capital accumulation or economic growth can alter, are revealed again in his announcement of man's constant need to philosophize: "And what does it matter after all if tomorrow be sure or uncertain?  What does it matter whether the future belong or not to us?  Is the sky less blue, is Beatrice less beautiful, is God less great?"49

£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª£ª

     The argument from evolution to progress was best developed by the  Englishman,  Herbert  Spencer, when he extended the principle of evolution to sociology and ethics.  In keeping with  Darwin's view that the principle of natural selection work for the good of each being and will therefore provide the impetus to perfection,  Spencer believed that evil must disappear and man must become perfect.  Thus, in a chapter in  Social Statics  entitled  "What is  Morality?" he begins by saying that  "the moral law must be the law of the perfect man --- the law in obedience to which perfection consists."50
     The moral law, moreover, and according to  Spencer, prescribes the conduct of an ideal humanity.  "Pure rectitude can alone be its subject matter.  Its object must be to determine the relations in which men ought to stand in a normal society ¡¦ it requires ¡¦  that such human beings be perfect."51  Where the question of the disappearance of evil is concerned,  Spencer must be the optimist par excellence for he says: "Progress, therefore, is not an accident but a necessity ¡¦ as surely as a disregarded conscience becomes inert, and one that is obeyed active, ¡¦ so surely must evil and immorality disappear; so surely must man become perfect."52
     The origin of the idea of civilization and progress is rooted in the minds and hearts of many people in many different countries.  In the twentieth century, in spite of the malaise --- of which the world wars are a symptom --- the belief in progress is nothing more than a belief that the problems of society will be solved simply by an improvement in the material well-being of the people.  In this belief, we assume the role of the escapist.  We fail to direct ourselves to the questions which  Condorcet, friend and admirer of his fellow  Encylopaedist,  Turgot, tried to answer:

Is the human race to better itself, either by discoveries in the sciences and the arts, and so in the means to individual welfare and general prosperity; or by progress in the principles of conduct or practical morality; or by a true perfection of the intellectual, moral, or physical faculties of man, an improvement which may result from a perfection of the instruments used to heighten the intensity of these faculties and to direct their use or of the natural constitution of man.53

     The second question here posed by  Condorcet concerning  "progress in the principles of conduct or practical morality," calls stridently today for attention.  The human race has bettered itself by discoveries in the sciences.  Scientific discoveries with equal ease could be used to obliterate all of mankind.  Deference to high ethical principles, for example, "It is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being."  could prevent such a catastrophe.  Such deference on a global scale not only requires agreement on the principles of morality, it also requires that individuals and groups do nothing to jeopardize their status as "innocent" human beings.  The last requirement can only be met by the perfecting of human behavior, a rather tall order.  The almost insuperable obstacle to agreement on principles of morality is to be found in moral relativism.  Nevertheless, the solution must be sought.


¥².  THE  LION  IN  THE  PATH

     The same  Western world in which economic growth and material progress have been such that it is true to say that the economic problem has been solved has always been confronted by what appears to be an insoluble problem, a lion in the path leading to progress and civilization.  Evil is the lion in the path.  Economic progress has not seen fit to remove it.
     Events of the twentieth century put paid to any belief in the idea of a law of progress, for progress was far from assured.  Destruction on a massive scale lurked in the offing.  The danger lies in the failure fully to grasp the evil nature of war.  "War itself."  says  Immanuel  Kant, "requires no special motive but appears to be engrafted on human nature; it passes even for something noble, to which the love of glory impels men quite apart from any selfish urges." 54
     History, the litany of evil, identifies today's culprit as moral relativism, an evil eagerly embraced by unregenerate human nature.  Moral relativism is the enemy of moral progress.

     (1)  Moral  Progress

     Early in the eighteenth century the  Abbe de  Saint  Pierre bemoaned the fact that the mediocre savants of the day were far superior in knowledge to  Socrates or to  Confucius but that virtuous men had not surpassed the ancients in virtue.  Nor does the quality of mankind today appear to have improved with the advancement of the industrial state.

The economic experience of the hundred years from 1815 to 1914, great though these years were in material achievement, has not lifted man above the guidance of past knowledge and wisdom ¡¦  For all the material comfort that industrialism has generated it has not succeeded in creating a new find of being, so superior in moral and intellectual qualities to the human beings of the past, that he can get along without moral and intellectual training.55

     In spite of our greater knowledge of science and technology,  Professor  Nef believes we need more guidance, not less, from the saints and wise men of the past if we are to survive the storms that the twentieth century has provided for us.  Lord  Clark goes further than  Dr. Nef when he says: "I believe that in spite of recent triumphs of science, men haven't changed much in the last two thousand years, and in consequence we much in the last two thousand years, and on consequence we must learn from history."56
     Earlier, the great defender of evolution,  Thomas  Huxley, had shown himself substantially in agreement with both  Dr. Nef and  Lord  Clark.  In his refutation of the view that the evolution of society is to be compared to the evolution of the species,  Huxley admitted his failure to find a particle of evidence to show that the evolutionary process modified the physical and mental characteristics of man.  According to him, he had  "not met any grounds for suspecting that the average  Englishmen of today are sensibly different from those that  Shakespere knew and drew."57
     Due to the fact that the struggle for existence has had little or no selective operation,  Mr. Huxley says: "In my belief the innate qualities, physical intellectual and moral of our nation have remained substantially the same for the last four or five centuries."58
     The failure to progress morally may exact from us a price too high.  It may render our material gains valueless.  In modern times the failure to develop morally may be due to a widespread moral relativism arising out of the belief that there were no such things as moral or ethical truths.  The result was a neglect of the study of ethics.
     To trace the path leading to the erosion of our moral code and the subsequent neglect of ethics is not a simple task.  Certain historians note a decline in morals before the  Reformation, a decline in those moral standards which reach back to the early days of  Christianity and ancient  Greek thinkers.  Their virtual obliteration is a recent phenomenon and is linked to the advance in natural science, as well as the development of economics as a science.  All values are measured by the dollar, whether it be the  Mona  Lisa or the  Golden  Gate Bridge is of no consequence.
     As the zeal of the humanitarians increased, the influence of the church, the school and the family on the behavior of the individual began to decline.  With the decline of  Christianity and its influence in the realm of morality, there was a movement away from any framework of values  which admitted the absolute.  All values were relative, fleeting and ephemeral.  With the rise of the sciences and the pervasiveness of the scientific method, the existence of permanent values was denied more and more.  The emphasis on the scientific method as the only vehicle leading to truth brought forth these notorious remarks from the  American philosopher,  John  Dewey:

To generalize the recognition that the true means the verified and means nothing else places upon men the responsibility for surrendering political and moral dogmas, and subjecting to the test of consequences their most cherished prejudices.  Such a change involves a great change in the seat of authority and the methods of decision in society ¡¦ 59

     All truths, if there are any, are today derived from the facts of experience.  The truths of the intellect are no longer acceptable to the progressive, scientific man, and in their place were substituted as virtue an extreme form of nationalism, materialism and selfishness.  Yet, says a well-known  American economist,  Professor  Taylor:

I do not share the positivistic point of view, widely prevalent today in our culture and among economists and other scholars, which leads them to value, as intellectual productions,  only  the strict sciences, and despise, as sterile and illusory, all efforts  to think or inquire, as rationally as possible, about all the great questions of vital moment for human civilization, which do not admit of or cannot be given scientific answers.  I am convinced that civilizations, and civilized men, cannot live by or upon scientific knowledge alone, ¡¦¡¦ 60

     The decline in the study of ethics, especially an ethics which pointed to the existence of absolute values, was hastened by the growing influence of the philosophies of naturalism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and the zeal of the secular humanists.  The chameleon character of moral relativism enables it to dominate everywhere.  There was a different form for every taste and motive.  It was also eagerly embraced by those individuals who wished to rationalize their failure to abide by a code of constant ethical norms.  Such a task was much too demanding.
     The naturalist of today considers the universe as self- contained: the answer to all man's problems is to be found in nature, and  God is either non-existent or irrelevant to ethical norms.  Naturalism is closely allied to science and accepts the doctrine of evolution as if it contained demonstrable proofs.  Unaware of an ultimate end for man, the naturalist has dedicated himself to progress and looks for continual improvement in the human condition.  There are therefore, no established values.  All values are relative.  With the discoveries of science and technology there come changes in our way of life.  Old values are set aside; new ones take the place of the old.
     Due to his failure to discover an ultimate end for man,  John Dewey settled for growth as the aim in life, growth into an ambiguous self-fulfillment.  An act is good if it contributes to the growth of the individual.  What is good for that end today may not be good for that same end tomorrow.  Since we cannot foresee the future, we cannot set up an absolute end for man.  Naturalism, therefore, would appear to take away the reason for living.  A life lived in the pursuit of utility, in the performance of actions to promote growth to an ambiguous end, seems worthless and without purpose.
     Secular humanism, the religion of the naturalist, is singularly blunt in its rejection of religion and absolute values.  Not only does it banish the  Christian ethic from society, it actually condemns religion as a barrier to progress.  "We believe, however,"  say these secular humanists, "that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species."61  of the worthlessness of the ethics of  Christianity, or any other ethics finding its source and inspiration in religion, the secular humanists are no less dogmatic:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.  Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.  Ethics stems from human need and interest.  To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.  Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures.62

   In one good breath, the late Sir Julian  Huxley, numero uno among the secular humanists, destroys forever the belief in any absolute values, and reiterates the view that religion is an obstacle to progress:

Any belief in  Absolutes, whether the absolute validity of moral commandments, of authority of revelation, of inner certitude, or of divine inspiration, erects a formidable barrier against progress and the possibility of improvement, moral, rational, or religious. And the all-too-frequent combination of the two constitutes a grave brake on human advance, and, by obfuscating all the major problems of existence, prevents the attainment of a full and comprehensive vision of human destiny.63

     Naturalists and secular humanists have enjoyed singular success in their efforts to destroy the  Christian religion and its ethical norms.  In alliance with the pragmatists, their success has been even more far-reaching than otherwise.  The pragmatist, too, is committed to the proposition that all values are relative.  An act is good if it works --- for us.  There is no such thing as truth: everything is a matter of opinion and truth changes as fast as opinions change.  The view that one theory solves a problem better than another, says  William  James,  "means more satisfactorily to ourselves, and individuals will emphasize their points of satisfaction differently.  To a certain degree, therefore, everything is plastic."64
     In a world where everything is plastic, there is obviously no reason for believing steadfastly in anything.  One is without convictions.  Society is without a goal.  Whither economics?  Skepticism flourishes.

     (2) Moral  Relativism

     The dangers of moral codes which are relative to time and place, which are based on the "facts of experience" rather than the truths of the intellect, are devastating in their magnitude.  The philosophy of utilitarianism which lies at the roots of naturalism and pragmatism --- an act is good if it promotes growth, if it works --- is anti-intellectual, indeed, it is anti-rational.  The goodness of an act is not apprehended in advance by the rational faculty.  Rather, one waits until the act has been performed in order to review the consequences.
     On the assumption that the anti-rationalism of the  National  Socialists led to  Belsen and  Dachau, a distinguished  English scholar writes:

In most cases the rejection of an objective code of morality is the cause of atrocities so infamous that their cumulative effect has been to destroy one great heresy of the nineteenth century, the belief in the perfectibility of man and the inevitability of human progress. 65

     Sir  Arnold  Lunn here offers also the view that  "it is reason alone which can guarantee the integrity of on objective code of morals, which fallen man is always tempted to adapt and remould in accordance with his subjective desires."66
     The relationship between two fundamental but relative principles of morality --- their application produces the same awful unethical effect although their ends are different --- in  Nazi  Germany and  Soviet  Russia is plain to be seen:
     (a) Whatever promotes the well-being of Nazi
                     Germany is moral;
     (b) Whatever promotes the well-being of the
                     proletariat is moral.
     In keeping with Nazi  Germany's fundamental principle of morality,  Hans Frank, a leader of a German  Lawyer's  Guild in that era, wrote that it is not the task of the judge "¡¦ to help to apply a legal order that is higher than a racial community, or to enforce some system of universal values.  What he must do, rather, is to safeguard the concrete order of the racial community, to exterminate those who undermine it ¡¦ "67
     In the face of such relativism, individual rights are nowhere to be recognized.  Human life, which gives meaning to the universe, is of little value in a society where the overriding aim is "to safeguard the concrete order of the racial community."
     In  Soviet  Russia, individual rights may not always be inviolable since a moral relativism is to be found there, too.  In response to the question:  "What is the criterion of good or bad in the conduct of the member of the Communist  Party?" put to a widely respected  Bolshevik leader,  Sidney and  Beatrice  Webb were told  "that whatever conduced to the building of the classless society was good, and whatever impeded it was bad."68
Such moral relativism is a correlative of the loss of the sense of sin against  God, and  "the abandonment of the idea that there is anything absolute, fundamental, universal or everlasting, about a scale of values."69  Said  Emelyan  Yaroslavsky, an  Old Bolshevik and author of many books and pamphlets:  "We communists don's believe eternal moral truths exist.  Bourgeois morals are expressed in the laws of the bourgeoisie.  The proletariat will have its own morality, which will arise out of its own life.  The morals that have existed in the past have always been class morals."70
     Krupskaya,  Lenin's widow, was concerned about the formation of general principles of conduct.71  Lenin himself is said to have taught that "for the sake of gaining the desired ends communists can, and sometimes must 'resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and subterfuge' ¡¦ "72
     In his essay, "Their  Morals and  Ours,"  Leon  Trotsky explains the  Marxist point of view that  "the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of humanity over nature, and to the abolition of the power of one person over another,"73
     In response to the question put to him by an imaginery, sarcastic philistine: "We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?"  Trotsky answers: "That is permissible ¡¦ which really leads to the liberation of humanity."74
     In another essay,  "The  Moralists and  Sycophants against  Marxism,"  Trotsky wrote that civilization can only be saved by a social revolution in which the proletariat is victorious.  "Above all," he writes, "it must be completely free from the fictions of religion, 'democracy' and transcendental morality --- the spiritual chains forged by the enemy to tame and enslave it.  Only that which prepares the complete and final overthrow of imperialist bestiality is moral, and nothing else.  The welfare of the revolution --- that is the supreme law!"75
     From these statements it would appear that  Leon Trotsky, the great revolutionary, was committed to the principle that the end justified the means and that in this instance any act which leads to the "overthrow of imperial bestiality" is a good act.  From  Hitler's  standpoint, any means is good if it attains the end of  National  Socialism, namely, the good of the race.  The application of standards of conduct based on such moral relativism can do nothing but leave injustice in its wake.  The events of the first half of the twentieth century leave no doubt of the truth of this assertion.
     Are such examples of moral relativism any different from the fundamental principles of utilitarianism, embodied in the philosophies of naturalism and pragmatism, which hold that an action is good if it has pleasant consequences for the agent?  Are we in the "civilized" world not now at that stage where the relativity of our morals permits us without qualms to violate the rights of the individual in order to obtain our own ends?
     One great weakness of moral relativism follows from its premise that an individual acting in conformity with the mores of his society can do no wrong.  Relative values are in this case being treated as if they were absolute.  The relativists by denying the existence of any objective standards cut the heart out of morality.  In times of war, each side believes "our side is right."  "The relativist, in effect, tells them that this belief is sheer illusion; that there is no objectively valid ideal; that there are only conflicting cultural patterns, each one equally 'right', each one right according to its cultural view point."76
     Given the existence of moral relativism, there is no point in trying to improve one's moral ideals or strive for moral perfectibility.  The moral relativist denies the individual the possibility of ever declaring:  "This is really and truly right."  To deny the truth of such a statement is run counter to the strongest of mankind's convictions.


¥³.  ECONOMIC  SCIENCE  AND  CIVILIZATION

     (1)  The  Goal of  Economics

     The prevailing view of economics is that advanced by  Lionel  Robbins, one which holds that there are no economic ends, that the science of economics is entirely neutral with regard to ends.77  Lord  Robbins therefore holds that economics is a speculative or positive science not concerned with ends but simply with the intention only of explaining what is.  John  Elliott  Cairnes, sometimes described as the last of the great classical economists, was emphatic in his belief that economics was a positive science.  Its object was "not to attain tangible results, not to prove any definite thesis, not to advocate any practical plan, but simply to give light to reveal laws of nature, to tell us what phenomena are found together, what effects will follow from what causes."78  Nassau  Senior earlier uttered substantially the same view.  It matters not what the conclusions of the economist may be:

¡¦ whatever be their generality and their truth, (they) do not authorize him in adding a single word of advice.  That privilege belongs to the writer or statesman who has considered all the causes which may promote or impede the general welfare of those whom he addresses, not to the theorist who has considered only one, ¡¦¡¦ 79

     A more practical and down-to-earth definition of economics is given by another eminent  English economist,  Walter  Bagehot.  According to him:

The science of political economy, as we have it in  England, may be defined as the science of business --- the "great commerce" by which  England has become rich --- Dealing with matters of "business", it assumes that man is actuated only by motives of business: it assumes that every man who makes anything makes it for money, that he will always make it in the way that will produce most and spend least, ¡¦¡¦ 80

     Not everyone claims that these economists are as scientific as they maintain.  The Nobel  Laureate, Gunnar  Myrdal, makes no bones about his belief that economics is not wertfrei:  "Chaos does not organize itself into cosmos.  A "disinterested"  social science is, from this viewpoint pure nonsense.  It never existed and it will never exist.  We can strive to make our thinking rational in spite of this, but only by facing the valuations, not evading them."81
     Protesting that economic theory is not an end in itself --- it must have a goal, an end lying outside of itself --- and that all knowledge does not come from science, one  Harvard economist put it this way:

The sciences alone yield knowledge of the causes of effects  ¡¦ of means to ends ¡¦  not wisdom about values, or to guide and civilize men's choice of their ends.  Hence in the measure in which intellectual life and culture comes to be dominated by the scientific studies only, they make men and societies increasingly efficient and potent but at the same time increasingly barbarous.82

     Professor  Taylor here is concerned about the neglect of philosophy, regarded in the ancient sense as the pursuit of wisdom.  Knowledge derived in this way he considered is in no way inferior to knowledge arrived at by the empirical method.  He lamented the absence of values in economics.  So indeed did  Walter  Bagehot but recognized the establishment of such values as lying beyond the purview of the economist. Listen to him as he tells us that the purpose of economics is not to provide answers to defeat doctrinaire socialists, that its aims are more humble.  "These and these forces produce these effects, and there it stops.  It does not profess to give a higher moral judgment on either; it leaves it for a higher science, and one yet more difficult to pronounce what ought and what ought not to be."83
     It is in the decision of economists to leave matters of ethics severally alone that the distinguished  British historian,  R. H. Tawney, sees its great weakness.  For  Tawney a nation must have a clear understanding of the deficiency between must have a clear understanding of the deficiency between  "what is" and  "what ought to be".  Failure to act on this distinction is to  "move with the energetic futility of a squirrel in a revolving door."  A nation must have recourse to principles.  Such principles lie beyond the exigencies of society. 84

     Referring to the influence in the development of the  British industrial state of  Calvinism,  "a creed which transformed the acquisition of wealth from a drudgery or a temptation into a moral duty,"  Tawney notes the resultant change in the conception of the place of economic interests in the life of society:
    
The isolation of economic aims as a specialized object of concentrated and systematic effort, the erection of economic criteria into an independent and authoritative standard of social expediency, are phenomena which though familiar enough in classical antiquity, appear, at least on a grand scale, only at a comparatively recent date in the history of later civilizations. 85

     The Puritan was now free without any fear of moral restrictions to engage in the pursuit of wealth with all his heart and soul.  For  Tawney, however, the great problem remained.  "Harnessed to a social purpose, they will turn the mill and grind the corn. But the question, to what end the wheels revolve, still remains; and on that question the naive and uncritical worship of economic power, ¡¦ throws no light." 86
     Stronger, and perhaps much more constructive criticism --- an alternative system is offered --- of an economy without a goal comes from a twentieth century  German economist,  Heinrich  Pesch.  Since economic life has its source in human needs,  Pesch asks whether the economy has a goal beyond the aims of individuals in the marketplace.  Since the social scientist, the economist should be concerned with acquiring a knowledge of means relative to the desired goal, such and end should be established in order to provide the criterion by which the choice of means should be made.  For  Pesch, the goal of the economy, antecedent to the economic goals men have set themselves, and discovered by philosophic deduction from the nature of society and the economic order, is the material welfare of individuals, 87 something quite different from the sum of the welfare of individuals.
     Claiming that the whole of economic theory had prescinded from the question of the goal of the economy,  Professor Mulcahy notes that the determination of the goal of the economy was a crucial matter for  Pesch.  "Not material goods, nor their production, maintenance, increased employment, nor the formation of wealth and capital, but the material wealth of men constitutes the aim of the aggregate of activities and institutions which are wont to be called the 'economy' ¡¦ "88
     There is no question here of an economy whose goal is the production of wealth for its own sake, as an end in itself.  Nor is there any question of a study of the economy in terms of subjective satisfaction.  Pesch considers the aim of the economy an objective one, in a physical sense.  "The physical and psychic enjoyment, attached to the satisfaction of a momentary want, cannot be the final goal of a struggle so severe and difficult which for the most part, makes up the content of men's lives."89
     Nor does  Pesch regard the material welfare of men as anything other than one aspect, albeit a fundamental one, of man's total welfare.  The distinction between spirital and material wants is very important for the science of economics.

On the one hand, the distinction between material and spiritual welfare must be firmly maintained for the protection of the worth of man and the eminence of the spiritual moral order; on the other hand, no less even in the interest of our science itself.  That is to say, if this distinction is not observed, then either the whole life of the citizen must be reduced to the economic, or at least there is lacking a certain boundary between the economy and other spheres of human and political activities. 90

     In this connection,  Pesch's view of the relationship between economics and ethics is of importance.  This isolation of economics and other social sciences rather than specialization, is the weakness in modern methods of research.  Economics and ethics are interdependent but separate subjects.  The formal object of economics is the provision of the material needs of the people; the formal object of ethics is a concern with what is morally good and morally evil.  Pesch is firm in his conviction that economic theory cannot be dissociated from ethics for a practical science such as economic theory is obliged to conform to ethical principles.  This would not make economics a part of ethics for it is an independent subject, but argues  Pesch, not an isolated one.  "The concern of the economist is 'not to teach us about virtues and vices, but about the ways and means which lead to and preserve the material welfare of the people'."91
    Pure economic theory, a study limited to the natural instinct of self-interest possesses scientific worth, but scarcely deserves, says  Pesch, the right to be described as a complete science of economics.  Such theory indicates the course of events which follow in the economic order where the sole and unrestrained operation of self-interest permitted.  Admitting that personal utility is a motive in men's lives,  Pesch says it is not all motives, and it is a motive not a norm.  Moreover, he says: "Self-interest is an instinct, an impulsive force and tendency within our human nature.  Only it is not to be forgotten that instinctive forces are subject to man's reason: the guiding law of free rational men belongs to the intellectual and moral order."92
     It is in the supremacy of reason over the human condition that leads to actions which are ethical.  Reason ordains that the natural resources of the earth be used for peaceful purposes, the material welfare of man.

     (2)  The  Goals  of  Civilization

     In so far as economics is regarded as a positive science, then the aim of economists is the pursuit of truth for its own sake.  In this paper the view is maintained that the science of economics is to provide knowledge which will assist us to attain the goal of the economy, the material welfare of men, and in so doing, contribute to the attainment of the goals of civilization.
     For some scholars, the goal of civilization lies with the creation of a society where man can find happiness.  For  John Kenneth  Galbraith  "the pursuit of happiness is admirable as a social exactitude; there is agreement neither on its substance nor its source."93  Admitting that he evaded the question of happiness,94  Galbraith is chided by the philosopher,  Mortimer  Adler, for leaving to each individual the right to decide in view of his wants, apparently, what makes his life good.95
     Professor  Adler is not at all pleased by a society which honors the production of wealth and technological advances for their own sake or for the sake of creature comforts in excess of human needs.  He says:

The high value set upon these things (money, fame, power) represents a fundamental disorder of goods, a perverse scale of values, placing lower over higher goods, mistaking merely apparent for real goods, and even transforming goods that are only means into ends to be sought for their own sake, as if they constituted the good life as a whole.96

     Believing in a teleological ethics that considers happiness the same for all men,  Adler rails against the overproduction and maldistribution of goods in the economic order.  His goals are clear and unambiguous; his solution expressed forthrightly:

Instead of the free time being used for the pursuits of leisure, through which a human being develops as a person and grows mentally, morally and spiritually, it is being used in the consumption, as well as in the production, of commodities of questionable value, and for over-indulgence in frivolous activities that make little or no contribution to the good life.  To change this pattern of life calls for a moral revolution, not an economic revolution.97

     Not all scholars are united in the belief that the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness.  Not only was  Immanuel  Kant an intractable opponent of eudaemonism, 98  but the  Scottish historian,  Thomas  Carlyle, considered a life of ease was for neither man nor god and that it was arrogant to have pretensions to happiness.  Says he: "Every pitifulest whipster that walks within a skin has his head filled with the notion that he is, shall be, or by all human and divine laws ought to be, 'happy.' ¡¦ my brother?  First of all,  what difference is it whether thou art happy or not!  To-day becomes  Yesterday so fast, all  To-morrows become  Yesterdays; and then there is no question whatever of the  'happiness', but quite another question."99

************************

     If the goals of society are to be found only in those pursuits which advance the material well-being of man, then there is nothing in such a life to distinguish it from that of the animal.  The aim of the animal is to indulge its instincts to the fullest; it is the comfortable life and that for as long as possible.
     On the other hand, if material progress is not an end in itself but a means to the summum bonum, then the goals of man and civilization are to be found somewhere in human nature.  By virtue of his reason, man hungers for truth, moral perfection and beauty.  By his intellectual powers he is able to conjure up in his mind an image of what civilization ought to be if it is to fulfill the needs of man's human nature.  Since science is concerned with the relationship between cause and effect, it is unable to determine the goals of civilization, of life.  The determination of the goals of life lies within the purview of the ethician, the moral philosopher.  Unfortunately, due to a lack of cultivation --- the study of ethics does not lend itself to the experimental method --- the subject of ethics has not only failed to provide us with a hierarchy of values, it is in great danger of atrophying.  For  John  U. Nef, the neglect of ethics bodes ill for the future.  "It is as certain for society as a whole as it is for each individual that, without a continual striving toward what is right, society will become a prey to what is wrong.  The way of truth, the way of beauty, the way of honor, is always the hard way."100
     For most people in the  Western world, the ends of the totalitarian state are roundly rejected.  In this paper, the ends of the materialistic society are equally roundly rejected on the grounds that its ends are simply means.  Its philosophy is therefore partial.  There now remains only the humanist conception of civilization, one which recognizes the need to promote the superb sense of the dignity of man.
     Reminding us of  Dante's expression of the human spirit:  "Consider your origin; ye were not formed to live like brutes, but to follow virtue,"  Tawney tells us that:

Humanism is the antithesis, not of theism or of  Christianity ¡¦ but of materialism.  Its essence is simple.  It is the attitude which judges the externals of life by their effect in assisting or hindering the life of the spirit.  It is the belief that the machinery of existence --- property and material wealth and industrial organization, and the whole fabric and mechanism of social institutions --- is to be regarded as means to an end, and that this end is the growth towards perfection of individual human beings. 101

     To contribute towards the perfecting of the individual, civilized society needs to reassert as its goals of human life, the ancient values of wisdom, faith, virtue and beauty discarded once, but not for all, by the advancement of the industrial state.  Unless there is agreement on the goals of life, it is doubtful if the world can escape the awful conflict that lurks in the offing.  The future of the human race, its happiness, depends upon it.  In exhorting us not to misunderstand the word  "happiness", one which has no precise meaning for people today,  Professor  Nef reminds us that happiness in the  Aristotelian sense  "is not a matter of individual whim.  It consists not in seeking pleasure for its own sake, but from gaining it from doing the right things or behaving in the right way, according to the accumulated wisdom of the human race."102
     To this end civilization places itself in the heart and mind of the moral philosopher, a disinterested scholar with no axe to grind.  The moral philosopher, who does not leave happiness to chance:

¡¦ can attempt to discover what is good for man and for mankind ¡¦ morally, intellectually and aesthetically.  He can set about to decide tentatively, with reason as a guide and experience as a keepsake, what wants and what combinations of wants contribute most to the happiness of the individual, the nation and humanity. 103

     The moral philosopher regards with favor the increased production of wealth where it is used to promote the material and spiritual well-being of man.  The moral philosopher is concerned only with the truth, and as a philosopher takes no sides on controversial, political issues.  His task is to formulate principles for the guidance of the statesman and the man of affairs.  Having no responsibility for action, he is more likely to preserve an attitude of detachment.  Kant puts it this way:  "That kings should philosophize or philosophers become kings is not to be expected.  Nor is it to be wished, since the possession of power inevitably corrupts the untrammeled judgment of reason."104
     In a democracy,  Kant adds, philosophers should be allowed to speak out for the enlightenment of business and governments.  As a class, philosophers are by nature not capable of lobbying and plotting and are unlikely to consist of propagandists. 105

CONCLUSION

     At the present time it seems safe to say that we in the  Western world have solved, by virtue of fantastic advances in science and technology, the economic problem. That it has not been solved for each particular individual in the  Western world is not so much a fault in our institutions, but in man's nature.  The reality of evil has to be faced.  That the great economic progress, born of economic growth arising out of a prolific science and an equally fecund technology, has not succeeded in banishing evil, has not solved the problems of society, indeed, has presented to us the gravest problem with which mankind has ever been confronted, in a sobering, and paradoxically, at the same time, agitating thought.
     If civilization is to be not simply advanced but preserved, economic resources must be used to promote peaceful ends, the goals of civilization.  An intense pre-occupation with one's self- interest augurs ill for the preservation of civilization.  As the  Spanish philosopher tells us:  "Civilization is, before all, the will to live in common.  Man is uncivilized into barbarous to the extent that he does not take others into consideration.  Barbarism is a tendency to disassociation."106  Self-interest, an instinct, must yield to reason.
     The danger of too great a pre-occupation with oneself is one to which the self-seeking nation is also exposed.  As the  English economist,  Joan  Robinson, tells us:  "The very nature of economics is rooted in nationalism ¡¦  Marxism ¡¦ had to be poured into national moulds when revolutionary administrations were set up ¡¦  The aspirations of the developing countries are more for national independence and national self-respect than just for bread to eat."107
     The drive for national independence and national self-respect can lead to that sort of economic growth which is rooted in the desire for power, power which may be used unwisely, and which can retard our advance towards the goals that civilized men cherish in their hearts and minds.  Such men reject outrightly the way of thought that considers war as the mistress of power, to be wooed for the benefits she may bring to a particular nation, not for any service she may perform on behalf of truth and ideals.
     Warring nations have in no small measure contributed to the undoing and destruction of civilization, leading  Leonard  Woolf to describe the growth of civilization as following a curve until  "the gates are once more opened to the barbarians; the curve descends and civilization fades and dies."108
     The most vital problem facing men,  Lord  Russell tells us, is the elimination of warfare as a means of resolving conflict, and the transcendance of nationalism as an ultimate loyalty.

The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in  England,  France and  Germany, in  Russia and  Austria.  It will not adapt itself to national needs; it is in essence neutral.  It stands outside the clash of passions and hatreds, revealing, to those who seek it,  the tragic irony of strife with its attendant world of illusions. 109

     Earlier,  Ernest  Renan, had noticed the flaw in the thinking of those who regarded war as an ennobling experience.  In his  "First  Letter to  Strauss,"  Renan says:  "Have you noticed that, neither in the eight  Beatitudes, nor in the  Sermon on the Mount, nor in all of early  Christian literature is there a word which puts military virtues among those which will gain the  Kingdom of  Heaven?"110
     In this essay in persuasion the view has been advanced that the main barrier to the creation of a permanent and peaceful civilization lies in a failure to agree on the goals of civilization, due in large measure to the ubiquity of moral relativism.  Failure to find, even within a particular nation, unanimity of opinion regarding the distinction between good and evil has led to the abandonment of all attempts to discover the truths of morality, and to pinning all of one's faith in the morrow on economic growth and progress.  The Sisyphus task of discovering those moral truths on which we can all agree, and on the establishment of goals for humanity will never be performed if it is never undertaken.
     The first duty of economists is to recognize the right of the disinterested, impartial moral philosopher to discover  the goals of society  and  provide  thereby  economic science  with  its raison d'etre.  The  time has come for economists to combat within their own ranks the mistaken belief, the false ideology, that the only values which matter are those which can be measured by the dollar, or some other unit of account.
     Economic progress can never solve the problem of evil.  It is not denied, nevertheless, that economic progress is the first condition of many goods of a spiritual nature, and even of life itself.  The economist's knowledge is, however, only partial and he needs to defer to the moral philosopher.  The latter is much more competent to decide on the goals of society than men in public life, or anyone else, who  "have no guide but the pressures from their own lust for power or from the opinions expressed by polling services and by organized petitions from constituents."111  To ignore the teachings of moral philosophy is surely the height of folly.  To disregard principles and decide for ourselves what man is to become simply because we want him to be that way is a possible position.  "Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny,"  says  C. S. Lewis, somewhat wryly, as he adds:  "This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether."112   Values, is it to be feared,  Professor  Lewis regards as something transcendental.
     Several years ago, in an article entitled:  "After  Samuelson, Who Needs  Adam Smith?",  the distinguished  American economist,  Kenneth  E. Boulding, referred to the seventeenth century argument that modern writers were only feebler repetitions of the ancients who had said all the good things long ago. 113   A later argument, to which  Professor  Boulding alludes, that the  "modern exceeds the ancients and indeed makes them obsolete", let the historian, John U. Nef, to question the assertion that our intelligence and our morality are above earlier peoples, and to advance the claim to  "more rather less guidance from the ancient saints and wise man if we are to survive the storms" 114  of the twentieth century.
     Listen to that  "friend of mankind", the great  Frenchman,  Le  Baron  Gaston de  Montesquieu as he says:

If I knew something which was useful to me and which was detrimental to my family, I would banish it from my mind.  If I knew something useful to my family, but which was not useful to my country,  I would endeavor to forget it.  If I knew something useful to my country, but which was harmful to  Europe, or indeed was useful to  Europe but harmful to mankind, I would regard it as a crime. 115

     This man,  Baron  Montesquieu penned these words some two hundred and fifty years ago.  He died in 1755 when  Adam Smith was 32 years old.  How different civilization today would be if these words of  Montesquieu had been embraced with the same fervor as those of  Adam  Smith when the latter vindicated the belief in the pursuit of self-interest as the guiding force in the economic order.

Signed  John  C.  O' Brien

date    August 23, 1977

About  16,000 words




REFERENCES

1. Clark, Kenneth, Civilisation, (Harper and Row, New York, 1968), pp.344-345.

2. Cited in John U. Nef, War and Human Progress, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950), p.335.

3. Nef, John U., The United States and Civilization, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967, 2nd edition), p.69.

4. Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in the West, (The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1954), p.15.

5. Ibid., pp.16-17.

6. Wicksteed, Philip H., The Common Sense of Political Economy, (Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, New York, 1950), pp.191-192.

7. Rostow, W. W., The stages of Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, London, 1971, 2nd edition), p.6.

8. Ibid., p.10.

9. Keynes, John Maynard, "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," 1930, in Essays in Persuasion, (W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1963), p.364.

10. Ibid., p.319.

11. Rostow, op. cit., p.11.

12. Ibid., p.91.

13. Economic Report of the President, January, 1977, Washington, D.C.

14. Ibid.,

15. Denison, Why Growth Rates Differ, (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1967), p.3.  "None of these countries is willing to sacrafice what are regarded as fundamental liberties for growth.  Even within this limitation, none is willing to push growth regardless of cost. The people of no nation do everything possible to obtain the highest possible growth rate .... None forsakes compassion expressed in social welfare programs to accelerate growth."

16. Rostow, op. cit., p.10.

17. Ibid., p.114.

18. Ibid.,

19. Ibid., p.117.

20. Rostow, W. W., The Process of Economic Growth, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, 2nd edition), p. 164.

21. Ibid., pp.166-167.

22. Nef, War and Human Progress, op. cit., p.113.

23. Schumacher, E. F., "Non-Violent Economics : Next Task for Mankind," in Melman, Seymour, The War Economy of the United States, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1971), p.242.

24. Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1920), p.33.

25. Melman, Seymour, "Who Decides Technology?" in The War Economy of the  United States, op. cit., p.149.

26. Nef, War and Human Progress, op. cit., p.373.

27. Ibid.,

28. Woolf, Leonard, The War for Peace, 1940, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972), p. 26.

29. Bury, J, B., The Idea of Progress, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1920), p. vii.

30. Guizot, F., Histoire de la civilisation en Europe, (Perrin et Cie, Paris, 29th edition, circa 1850), p.6.  "Il ne faut flatter personne, pas m me son pays; cependant je crois qu'on peut dire sans flatteries que la France a  t  le centre, le foyer de la civilisation de l'Europe."  Where the citation in English is from a work in French, German or Spanish, with the original in the foothnotes, the translation is mine.

31. Schweitzer, Albert,  The Philosophy of  Civilisation, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1950), p.22.

32. Ibid., pp.23.

33. Ibid.,

34. Ibid., p.24.

35. Tawney, R. H., Equality, (Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, 1931), p. 82.

36. Ibid., Italics supplied.

37. Bury, op. cit., pp.138-139.

38. Ibid., p.139.  Italics supplied.

39. Meek, Ronald L., ed. and trans., Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics, (Cambridge  University Press, London and New York, 1973).

40. Ibid.,

41. Bury, op. cit., p.197.

42. Ibid., p.242.

43. Kant, Immanuel, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, (The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1949). pp.12-13.

44. Eckermann, Johann Peter, Gespr che mit Goethe, (Verlag Birkh user, Basel, Switzerland, 1945, Vol. 2), p. 651.  "Die Welt soll nicht so rasch zum Ziele, als wir denken and w nschen. Immer sind die retardierenden  D monen da, die  berall dazwischen-und   berall entgegentreten so dass es zwar in ganzen vorw rtsgeht, aber sehr langsam. Leben Sie nur fort, and Sie Werden schon finden, dass ich recht habe."

45. Ibid. "Ich sehe die Zeit kommen, wo Gott keine Freude mehr an ihr hat und er abermals alles zusammenschlagen muss zu einer verj ngten Sch pfung.

46. Renan, Ernest, L'avenir de la science, 1848, (Michel L vy Fr res, Paris, 1890), p.429.  "Le but de I'humanit  n'est pas le repos : c'est la perfection intellectuelle et morale ... L' tat le plus dangereux pour I'humanit  serait celui o  la majorit  se trouvant a l'aise et ne voulant pas  tre derang e, maintiendrait son repos aux d pens de la pens e et d'une minorit  opprim e."

47. Renan, Ernest, Oeuvres Compl tes, Tome I, "Dialogues et fragments philosophiques," 1876, (Calman-Levy, Paris), p.598.
     Que sera I'humanit  dans dix mille ans, dans cent mille ans? Que sera le monde dans un milliard d'ann es?  Il y a un milliard d'ann es, la Terre n'existait peut- tre pas; elle etait noy e dans I'atmosph re du soleil, et la lune n'en  tait pas detach e.  Que sera-t-elle devenue dans un milliard d'ann es?  Impossible de le dire, et pourtant ce jour viendra; rien n'est plus indubitable.  Nous ne nous faisons non plus aucune id e de I' tat de la mati re dans I'int rieur de la terre, et pourtant cet inconcevable  tat de choses existe a cinq cents lieues de nous."

48. Ibid., p.610.  "En somme, la fin de I'humanit , c'est de produire des grands hommes; le grand oeuvre s'accomplira par la science, non par la d mocratie.  Rien sans grands hommes; le salut se fera par des grands hommes.  L'oeuvre du messie, du lib rateru, c'est un homme, non une masse, qui I'accomplira."

49. Renan, L'avenir, op. cit., p.432.  "Et qu'importe apr s tout que la journ e de demain soit s re ou incertaine?  Qu'importe que I'avenir nous appartienne ou ne nous appartienne pas?  Le ciel est-il moins bleu,  Beatrix est-elle moins belle, et Dieu est-il moins grand?"

50. Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics, (D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1896), p.125.

51. Ibid.,

52. Ibid., p.32.

53. Condorcet, Antoine-Nicolas de, The Progress of the Human Mind, 1795, (The Noonday Press, New York, 1955), pp.174-175.

54. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace, ed., Beck, Lewis W., (The Boobs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1957), pp.28-29.
     Italics supplied.

55. Nef, The United States and Civilization, op. cit., p.90.

56. Clark, op. cit., p.347.

57. Huxley, Thomas,  Evolution and Ethics, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1911), p.38.

58. Ibid., p.48.

59. Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, (The Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1948), p.160. Italics supplied.

60. Taylor, Overton H., A History of Economic Thought, (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1960), p. xiii.

61.            , Humanist Manifesto Il,  The Humanist, September/ October, 1973, Vol. xxxIII, No. 5, p.5.

62.  Ibid., p.6.

63. Huxley, Julian, The  Humanist  Framework, (Harper and Bros., New York, 1961). p.40.

64. James, William, Pragmatism, (The World Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1969), p.51.

65. Lunn,  Arnold,  Revolt  Aqainst  Reason, (Greenwood Press Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, 1971). p.xi.

66. Remak, Joachim, The Nazi Years, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969). p.62.

67. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Soviet Communism : A New Civilisation?, (Charles Scribner's  Sons, New York, 1937, Vol. II), p.1043.

68. Ibid., p.1045.

69. Winter, Ella, Red Virtue, (Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, 1933), pp.21-22.

70. Ibid., p.21.

71. Trotsky, Leon, Dewey, John, Novack, George, Their Morals and Ours, (Pathfinder Press, Inc., New York, 1973),. p.42.

72. Ibid., p.48.

73. Ibid.,

74. Ibid., p.58. Italics supplied.

75. Rader, Melville M., Ethics and the Human Community, (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1964), p.238.

76. Robbins, Lionel, Nature and SIgnificance of Economic Science, (Macmillan, London, 1948, 2nd edition), p.145, p.24.

77. Cairnes, John Elliott, The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy, (Harper and Row, New York, 1857, 3rd edition, 1888), p.34.

78. Senior, Nassau William, An Outline of the Science of Political Economy, (Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., New York, 1939), p.3.

79. Hutton, R. H., etc., Economic Reprints, Chapter II, "Postulates of English Political Economy," Walter Bagehot, (Academic Reprints, Stanford, California, 1953), 1879, p.7. Italics supplied.

80. Myrdal, Gunnar, Value in Social Theory, (Harper Bros., New York, 1958), p.49.

81. Taylor, op. cit., p.xiii.

82. Bagehot, op. cit., p.23.

83. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society,  op. cit., p.3.

84. Tawney, R. H., The Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, (Harcourt, Brace, and the World, Inc., New York, 1926), pp.277-278.

85. Ibid.,  p. 282.

86. Mulcahy, Richard E., The Economics of Heinrich Pesch, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1952), p.22.

87. Ibid.,  p. 25.

88. Ibid.,  p. 23.

89. Ibid.,  p. 27.

90. Ibid.,  p. 39.

91. Ibid.,  p. 39.

92. Ibid.,  p. 42.  The whole of this brief discussion of the theory of Heinrich Pesch is derived from Chapter 4, "The Nature of Economic Science," in Mulcahy's work.

93. Galbraith, John K., The Affluent Society, (Houghton, Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1969, 2nd edition), p.311.

94. Ibid.,  p. 312.

95. Adler, Mortimer, The Time of Our Lives, The Ethics of Common Sence, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970), p.225.

96. Ibid.,  p. 225. Italics supplied.

97. Kant, Immanuel, Fundamental Principles,  op. cit.,  Supra.

98. Carlyle, Thomas, Past and Present, (Homewood Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois, no date),pp.216-218. First published in 1843.

99. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit., 9.123.

100. Tawney, Equality,  op. cit., p.85.  Italics supplied.

101. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit.,  p.188.

102. Ibid.,  p. 191.

103. Kant, Immanuel,  Perpetual Peace,  op. cit.,  p.34.

104. Ibid.,

105. Ortega y Gasset, Jos , La rebeli n de las masas, (Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1930), p. 74. "Civilizati n es, antes que nada, voluntad de convivencia. Se es incivil y b rbaro en la medida en que no se cuente con los dem s. La barbarie es tendencia a la disociaci n."

106. Robinson, Joan, Economic Philosophy, (Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois, 1962). p.124.

107. Woolf, Leonard, Quack, Quack:,(Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1935), p.166.

108. Chatfield, Charles, ed., The Ethics of War, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972), p.2.

109. Cited in Benda, La trahison des clercs, (Bernard Grasset, Paris, France, 1927), pp.170-171.  "Avez-vous remarqu  que, ni dans les huit b atitudes, ni dans le Sermon sur la montagne, ni dans I'Evangile, ni dans toute la litt rature chr tienne primitive, il n'y a pas un mot que mette les vertus militaires parmi celles qui gagnent le royaume du ciel?"


110. Nef, The United States and Civilization,  op. cit., p.205.

111. Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1962), p.33.

112. Boulding, Kenneth E. "After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith",  The History of Political Economy, Vol.3, No.2, Fall 1971, p.224.

113. Nef, The United States and Civilization, op. cit., p.90.

114. Montesquieu, Gaston de, Pensees et Fragments inedits, (Imprimerie G. Gounouilhou, Bordeaux, France, 1899), Tome I, p.15.  "Si, je savois quelque chose qui me fut utile, et qui fut prejudiciable a ma famille, je la rejetterois de mon esprit.  Si je savois quelque chose utile  a ma famille, et qui ne le fut pas  a ma patrie, je chercherois  a l'oublier.  Si je savois quelque chose utile  a ma patrie, et qui fut pre judiciable  a l'Europe, ou bien qui fut utile a l'Europe et prejudiciable au Genre humain, je la regarderois comme un crime.


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adler, Mortimer J., The Time of Our Lives, The Ethics of Common Sence, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970).

2. Benda, Julien,  La trahison des clercs, (Bernard Grasset, Paris, France, 1927).

3. Bury, J, B., The Idea of Progress, (Macmillan and Company, London, 1928).

4. Chatfield, Charles, ed., The Ethics of War, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972).

5. Clark, Colin, The Conditions of Economic Progress, (Macmillan and Company, Londonm 1957, 2nd edition).

6. Clark, Kenneth, Civilisation, (Harper and Row, New York, 1968).

7. Cohen, Marshall, Nagel, Thomas, and Scanlon, Thomas, eds.,  War and Moral Responsibility, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1974).

8. Condorcet, Antoine-Nicolas de, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795, (The Noonday Press, New York, 1955).

9. Denison, Edward F., Why Growth Rates Differ, (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1967).

10. Eckermann, Johann Peter, Gespr che mit Goethe, (Verlag Birkh user, Basel, Switzerland, 1945, Vol. 2).

11. Gaibraith, John K., The Affluent Society, (Houghton and Mifflin,  Boston, Massachusetts, 1969, 2nd edition).

12.        , The New Industrial State, (Houghton and Mifflin, Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1967).

13. Gasset, Jos , Ortega y. La rebeli n de las masas, (Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1930).

14. Guizot, F., Histoire de la civilisation en Europe, (Perrin et Cie, Paris, 1855).


15. Hollis, Martin and Nell, Edward, Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neo-Classical Economics, (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975).

16. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace, ed., Beck, Lewis W., (The Boobs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1957).

17. Keynes, John M., "Essays in  Persuasion, (W. W. Norton and Company, 1963).

18. Koopmans, Tjalling C., Three Essays on the State of Economic Science, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1957).

19. Kuznets, Simon, Economic Growth of Nations, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971).

20. Lamfallusy, A., The United Kingdom and the Six, (Richard D. Irwin and Company, Homewood, Illinois, 1963).

21. Leonard Woolf, Quack, Quack:,(Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1935).

22.          , The War for Peace, 1940, (Garland Publishing Company, New York, 1972).

23. Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1962).

24. Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in the West, (The Twintieth Century Fund, New York, 1954).

25. Meek, Ronald L., Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics, (Cambridge  University Press, London and New York, 1973).

26. Melman, Seymour, The War Economy of the United States, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1971).

27. Montesquieu, Le Baron Gaston de, Pens es et Fragments in dits, (Imprimerie G. Gounouilhou, Bordeaux, France, 1899).

28. Mulcahy, Richard E., The Economics of Heinrich Pesch, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1952).

29. Myrdal, Gunnar, The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory,(Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., London, 1953).

30.           , Value in Social Theory, (Harper Brothers, New York, 1958).

31. Nef, John U., The United States and Civilization, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967, 2nd edition).

32.            , War and Human Progress, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950).

33. Remak, Joachim, The Nazi Years, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969).

34. Renan, Ernest, L'avenir de la science, 1848, (Michel L vy Fr res, Paris, 1890).

35. Robbins, Lionel, Nature and SIgnificance of Economic Science, (Macmillan Company, London, 1948, 2nd edition).

36. Robinson, Joan, Economic Heresies, Some Old-Fashioned Questions in Economic Theory, (Basic Books, New York, 1971).

37.              , Economic Philosophy, (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1962).

38. Rostow, W. W., The Process of Economic Growth, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, 2nd edition).

39.          , The Stages of Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, London, 1971, 2nd edition).

40. Schweitzer, Albert,  The Philosophy of  Civilisation, (Macmillan Company, New York, 1950).

41. Sorel, Georges, The Illusions of Progress, (University of California Press, 1969).

42. Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics, (D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1896).

43. Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1920).

44.             , Equality, (Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, 1931).

45.            , Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1926).

46. Taylor, Overton H., A History of Economic Thought, (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1960).

47. Trotsky, Leon, Dewey, John, Novack, George, Their Morals and Ours, (Pathfinder Press, Inc., New York, 1973).

48. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Soviet Communism : A New Civilisation?, (Charles Scribner's  Sons, New York, 1937).

49. Winter, Ella, Red Virtue, (Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, 1933).









gbfd0MiniSP422013z
deiafMiniSP422013z http://duffieldtrio.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0MoTKgG3rk http://lollapalooza2013lineup.com/ http://www.squidoo.com/natural_sleep_aids http://www.meladermonline.com/ http://quickloansadvance.co.uk/ http://carinsurancequotations.org http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fitbit-line-of-products---important-details-now-released-173498021.html http://quickcashloans-365.co.uk http://beste-cigarettebrand.com http://www.paydayloans75.com http://pressurewasherspro.co.uk/ http://www.autotransportquotes.co/ http://www.healthierpost.com/acai-berry-diet-pills/ 2013-04-04
03:36:01



ny4bdDog Insurance
0vft3Dog Insurance http://archive.org/details/CelebrexWithoutPrescriptions2 2013-04-05
08:36:24



u16x6Dog Insurance
oddf1Dog Insurance http://www.yourshortlink.net/the-tao-of-badass http://www.wardkiacenter.com/ http://freecreditreportblog.net/tag/free-credit-report/ http://www.bettingspot.com.au/bookmaker-reviews/sportsbet http://www.raspberryketoneoriginal.com/ http://www.1hourpaydayloan.me.uk http://www.golfminx.com http://bettervitamin.com/coupons http://paintless-dent-repair.org http://myreviews123.com http://www.carhireshannonairport.org.uk/ http://cheapbeatsbydre4sale.webs.com/ http://archive.org/details/PetInsuranceMain 2013-04-07
03:57:09



jrh8vDog Insurance
elg92Dog Insurance http://cnatrainingtips.net/ http://electroniccigaretteflavors.com/top-3-e-cigarette-reviews http://buycrossfitgear.webs.com http://www.learnhowtogetridofacne.net/exposed-skin-care-reviews http://vistaprintcoupons.webgarden.com http://greensmokecouponcode.webs.com http://www.golfminx.com 2013-04-12
04:14:24



f5pp5Dog Insurance
080azDog Insurance http://www.facebook.com/retractablebannerstands http://www.kidsreadinstantly.com http://www.gwiyomimadness.com/ http://www.womenskorner.com http://typesofphotography.org/ http://paydayloanshut1b.com/ http://paydayloanshut1a.com/ 2013-04-15
05:15:24



w0opsnaNa
uhy7inaNa http://archive.org/details/PetInsuranceKWTerms 2013-04-18
03:59:07



pjs5cjordans cheap
lwqskjordans cheap http://cheapjordanshoesss.webs.com 2013-05-01
06:51:16



bbotnweight loss Min
3rcilweight loss MiniSpamwow http://www.healthcareauditblog.com 2013-05-03
09:50:36



v3ffzweight loss Min
lg660weight loss MiniSpamwow http://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3044259/Palladino-denies-default-provision-in-Guinean-deal-would-give-it-30-stake-in-assets.html 2013-05-06
07:07:55



ctnp0weight loss Min
avswmweight loss MiniSpamwow http://www.scribd.com/doc/138663710/Press-Release-%E2%80%93-Ministry-of-Mines-Ministry-of-Economy-Finance-and-SOGUIPAMI 2013-05-06
10:56:07



  ´ä±Û´Þ±â   ÃßõÇÏ±â   ¸ñ·Ïº¸±â

Copyright 1999-2024 Zeroboard / skin by Praise Jesus