ABSTRACT
Ricardo was not a utilitarian. He was instead a critic of utility, consequentialism, self-interest. His ethics was based on good readings, including Bayle, Montesquieu, Adam Smith and Paley. He had it clear that there are universal moral principles neither dependent on positive religion nor derived from the felicific calculus, ‘moral impressions’ are the first source of moral judgement, the rational search of happiness is the ‘rule of life’ whose beneficence is a crucial part.
He assumed that human nature is complex, not governed only by pain and pleasure but also by imagination and desire for sympathy. He was aware that happiness is a complex and unstable condition, and the mirroring relationship between individuals plays an important role.
He endorsed unlimited toleration, believed that good government is secured by representative institutions and a system of checks and balances that makes the interest of those in power coincide with those of the citizens.
He believed that the science of political economy highlights the general laws regulating the economy. The legislator is free to pursue ends dictated by a sense of justice within the bounds of what is possible. Removing legislation and institutions distorting the market would strengthen the labourers’ bargaining power.
Ricardo believed that theodicy is a question without an answer. His cautious attitude vis-à-vis the social question depends on an awareness of the limits to human knowledge. He sided with the poor but with caution dictated by awareness of the additional misery any significant change unavoidably carries.
