I am going to post on the discussion we had yesterday and then perhaps individuals will comment on it. I'm not sure if this belongs in the introduction paper or the poverty paper or parts in both. We shall see where the idea goes.

The original discussion revolved around Sen's use of Adam Smith and the moral implications that are almost always forgotten in capitalism (e.g. social exchange theory) so that the actual idea devolves into Malthusianism and/or social Darwinism (they are very connected). I was surprised to find that Adam Smith wrote his book on moral sentiments before he wrote "The Wealth of Nations." I have been trying to understand what this means and the role that the social mirror plays in any market place - and how it related to redefining the market place in terms of capabilities rather than abilities - especially when it comes to human capital.

I think it is important to remember that Smith was initially a moral philosopher, and many of his ideas spring from his moral stance. He also was an empiricist in the tradition of John Locke. His attitude towards human morality is that we came to it through our own empirical observations - it is not something that we know and understand innately. Smith was essentially a behaviorist - at least in the idea that we learn what we observe. What we observe others in pain or in difficulty we begin to see ourselves in them. I believe there is a certain "There but for the Grace of God go I" aspect to his theory. Smith talks about sympathy, but it is not that kind of "feeling sorry for another" sympath, but the aforementioned sympathy. This causes us to care about justice for others. I believe this is a very important part of his thinking and one that Sen thinks must be incorporated if we are going to have a society based in the market place.

Later Smith would turn to economics. There is some argument that "Wealth of Nations" is totally separate from his moral philosophy but I don't think that is really possible. Smith though has become very much a utilitarian in the mode of the philosopher Bentham. Smith's idea is that we are going to work in our own self-interest in order to achieve the greatest level of happiness. This for Smith is as much a part of human nature as the social mirror that he described seventeen years earlier. The question is should society do anything to circumvent this self-interested. This is a very important question for Smith because again he is a moral philosopher first and foremost. Smith's answer is no because even though people do things in their self-interest that is not necessarily bad for others around them. Meaning if a baker makes bread and sells it so he can make money to achieve his pleasure the act actually helps people because he is making life better for the person who makes meat for sandwiches, the person who makes mustard, but especially the person who wants to eat the sandwich especially.

What keeps self-interest from flying out of control. I think in this case you have to consider the social mirror. Part of our own happiness is determined by the need to believe there is justice, that there is a level playing field. I think Sen would say that this is why say a deficit model is so dangerous. You are bringing a Malthusian argument into the fray - the idea that those who are suffering are doing so because of their own deficiencies, whether they be organic, family oriented, ecologically oriented, or based on their own rational choices. Other suffer not because the world is unjust but because they have somehow failed on their own in the race to the top. This allows us to ignore their plight, to say these people are not like us, they do no represent a social mirror, and therefore we do not have to feel bad about their lack of justice. We can even give these poor, deficient human beings charity - but to consider their plight that these people are in the situation they are in because of injustice - an injustice that you benefit from - and you should be devoting your time and energy to a more just society - a deficit model allows us to escape from this. This is why giving the dollar to the homeless man, or judging the woman for making rational choices leading to having ten children, does not lead us to a better society, and we should not concentrate on fixing what it wrong with individuals.

CA is really about abandoning the modern welfare state - and I would say our education initiatives - in favor of creating a level playing field. If there is no level playing field we must see those who struggle or who are somehow hurt as being part of our mirror. I want to offer an example from watching the news this morning. They are talking about standardized tests and an initiative to make them federal in nature. It made me think - what is the purpose of standardized tests. Is is simply to set up a deficit model - that those who do not do well are deficient somehow and we must figure out how to fix this?