ABSTRACT
According to the definition most widely used by scholars, value (in the moral and social sense) is a principle indicating that which is preferable, that which most deserves the approval of all (cf. Harsanyi 1987; Abbagnano and Fornero 1998; Sciolla 1998). In economics, value (in the sense of exchange value, the only meaning accepted by all economists) is something completely different. It refers to the quantities (different and clearly defined) in which two goods are exchanged. In this sense the two kinds of value cannot be compared. They have totally different meanings. In fact, moral value is a principle while exchange value is a measure. However both kinds of value give rise to a code of conduct, to a standard of behaviour. These rules are both cogent, though in very different ways. Being a code of conduct, moral value makes itself felt in two ways: either through one’s sense of duty-as the philosopher Kant (1787:30) says: ‘Act as if the maxim from which you act were to become through your will a universal law’, or through a natural tendency towards benevolence, as Adam Smith (1759:171-4) believed. Economic value, as a code of conduct, asserts itself in that it is dictated by the criterion of self-interest-that is, of utility-which is the real economic standard. It asserts itself through its appeal to reason: trade can take place only if the exchange value of the two goods is respected. Only then do the two parties achieve an advantage. The advantage in an exchange must be reciprocal.
