Exploring the Limitations of Utilitarian Epistemology to Economic Science in View of Interacting Heterogeneity



The principles of political economy born before utilitarianism seized power in economics were entirely irrelevant to the kind of utility maximization. Utilitarianism made economists share a unique definite purpose for the art of life, thus becoming to play the crucial role in arguing economics almost everywhere. We can easily find our main prototype of modern economic ideas from the classical source of literatures of utilitarianism, in particular, James Mill who suggested the “Art of Life”, whose ultimate end is happiness in the society. Put another way, utilitarianism is a kind of art which has ultimately recourse to the sole value judgment on happiness either personally or interpersonally.


Utility Function Demand Function Intrinsic Rationality Practical Knowledge Representative Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aruka Y (2003) The complex adaptive processes in economics by heterogeneous interacting agents. In: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Economics and Central Economics and Mathematics Institute (eds) Economic transformation and evolutionary theory of J. Schumpeter. Institute of Economics and Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, pp 265–285Google Scholar
  2. Aruka Y (2004) How to measure social interactions via group selection? A comment: cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes, and large-scale cooperation. J Econ Behav Org 53:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hare T (1963) Descriptism. Br Acad 49:115–34Google Scholar
  4. Helbing D (1995) Quantitative sociodynamics: stochastic methods and models of social interaction processes. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Hildenbrand W (1983) On the “law of demand”. Econometrica 51:997–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hildenbrand W (1994) Market demand. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hildenbrand W, Kirman AP (1988) Equilibrium analysis: variations on themes by Edgeworth and Walras. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoover KD (2001) The methodology of empirical macroeconomics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mitjushcin LG, Polterovich WM (1978) Criteria for monotonicity of demand functions. Ekonomka i Matematicheskie Metody 14:122–128(in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Price GR (1972) Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Ann Hum Genet 35:485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Riley J (1988) Liberal utilitarianism: social choice theory and J. S. Mill’s philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Samuelson PA (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Econometrica 5:61–71Google Scholar
  13. Sen AK (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Steindl J (1965) Random processes and the growth of firms: a study of the Pareto law. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Weidlich W (2000) Sociodynamics: a systematic approach to mathematical modeling in the social sciences. Harwood Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Weidlich W, Haag G (1983) Quantitative sociology. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of CommerceChuo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations