The Economic Ethics of World Religions and Their Laws: An Introduction to Max Weber’s Comparative Sociology
This new book restates for
contemporary readers Max Weber’s thesis on the Protestant ethic, stressing how
it compares against other world religions. Because almost a century has elapsed
since the death of Max Weber in 1920, even though the title of his 1904 essay
is still familiar, the contents are fading into memory. Andreas Buss now brings
this fascinating period piece back to life for us.
In brief, this book is a summary of Max
Weber’s views of the social structure of European and Asian societies and of what
that meant for the status of wealth. The Protestant ethic famously encouraged
the accumulation of wealth while at the same time shunning frivolous
consumption or flashy display of riches. The focus was always on saving, or
what the author calls “asceticism.”
The Protestant Ethic, in the
thinking of Max Weber, is his stirring defense of capital[1]ism in the face of Marx’s
Das Kapital, which was shaking Europe to its roots. It was not enough for the
purpose to make clear the rectitude of capital; Weber had to argue that it is a
moral imperative of sorts on a par with or superior to the great religious
beliefs of the world. Capital is not Marxian “Das Kapital”; to twist a phrase,
it is for Protestant Europe “Der Kapital,” the paternal guide and reward—as it
were, the wise father-figure bequeathed to the West in the Protestant
Reformation. In pursuing that line of argument, Weber took great care to make
the case that the Protestant ethic was the logical precursor of modem
capitalism—of the choices that follow from the prescribed moral way of life.
Hence, it is not only the Protestant way of life; it is the Protestant ethic.
Capital is for this purpose both a culture and a divine command. It is a
culture of saving—of deferred gratification that Weber calls ascetic—and
dedication to the highest level of productivity at work. Economically,
capitalism is the logic of intermediate production in the creation of
intermediate goods (tools) that facilitate production of final goods. As a
commandment, it confirms the sanctity of private property in the biblical
Decalogue
Historically, capitalism seems
almost synonymous with indirect production methods that evolved into ever more
ingenious technologies and rising productivity, an entire cornucopia of scientific
knowledge and practical know-how that transformed lives. We recognize that
capital in this sense is a produced good, but it is entirely possible that our
capital would instead be a natural endowment, as for example the lush waters around
a tropical paradise, teeming with fish and watering the explosion of sugary
fruits and vegetables. In that case, the capitalist ethic would place greater
stress on conservation (asceticism) than we do, but the logic of capitalism
would be unchanged. The fantastic achievements of technologically driven
productivity have instead diminished the role of conservation in our lives, but
Weber’s attention is drawn not to us but to the rest of the world and how its
plethora of moral and economic cultures evolved differently.
Weber’s survey of world religions
covers Confucianism, Hinduism (Vedantism), Buddhism, Ancient Judaism, Islam,
Oriental Christianity (Russian Orthodoxy), Occidental Christianity
(Catholicism), and Ascetic Christianity (Protestantism). The focus is on the
social basis of adherents’ practices, based on Weber’s extensive studies of
these societies. Andreas Buss reproduces much of this thinking. This material
is not an easy read for an American economist given that the focus is not the
doctrines and beliefs but the social organization. Buss’s summary of Islam,
however, is representative of the text, if a bit politically incorrect today.
He traces the roots of Islam to nomadic warrior bands of Arabia who, with the
help of imported mercenary warriors from central Asia, prospered by exploiting
the settled city-dwellers. As a result of the cultural separation between the
warriors and the commercial interests, the law remained attached to the
religious tenets of Islam, while the legal needs of society were relegated to
commerce. Society remains split in two—between Sharia and secular
law—permanently locked in hostile competition.
The book concludes with a survey
of Weber’s historical comments on civil law across the places that his analysis
of religion touches. Weber’s study of the sociology of the law— he was trained
in legal theory in the Continental tradition—led him to ponder the roots of law
and in particular commercial law as they evolved to serve the needs of European
practice. He focuses on the way this evolution tended, or in many cases did not
tend, to adapt law to serve the needs of capitalist and merchant classes. Two
species especially caught Weber’s attention: English Common Law and Natural
Law.
Common Law is an almost ideal
example of his point. The Common Law has evolved from the national (i.e., held
“in common” across the kingdom) law created by the early system of royal-law
courts presided over by the sheriffs who were local administrators of royal
law. A sheriff was initially a royal tax collector who became involved is
settling legal disputes because the resolution frequently involved transfers of
money (e.g., fines). Because the sheriff was also the royal tax collector, this
seemed a natural sideline for them. On the continent, law developed very
differently as a study in the university and retained a greater emphasis on
abstract principles of justice and law. On the continent, the guiding
principles were informed by the Natural Law, which had been endorsed by the Church
in the Middle Ages. Considering the law as a body of principles by which to
judge right action, the mundane and unquestionably secular evolution of Western
law is entirely consistent with Weber’s thesis of a Protestant ethos for
virtuous laymen—citizens of this new secular moral world, who are guided by
wise self-interest in the management of the commonweal.
The Natural Law always brings us
back to the divine architect of nature and thus to theology and religion. To
quote William Carroll, professor of theology at Oxford University, “We might
distinguish the natural sciences from philosophy and theology, but it is a mistake
to see them as extrinsic to one another, each existing in its own neat
epistemological and ontological compartment. Although at first it might seem
counterintuitive, the proper autonomy of these areas of inquiry depends upon
their interdependence.” (“Science, Philosophy, and God,” Public Discourse,
January 29, 2016).
To read full article or download pdf book click here.
0 Comments