Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa


  • James Konow (a1)

Third-party decision-makers, or spectators, have emerged as a useful empirical tool in modern social science research on moral motivation. Spectators of a sort also serve a central role in Adam Smith's moral theory. This paper compares these two types of spectatorship with respect to their goals, methodologies, visions of human nature and emphasis on moral rules. I find important similarities and differences and conclude that this comparison suggests significant opportunities for philosophical ethics to inform empirical and theoretical research on moral preferences and vice versa.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Y. Amiel , F.A. Cowell and W. Gaertner 2009. To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi's utilitarian ethics. Social Choice and Welfare 32: 299316.

N. Ashraf , C. Camerer and G. Loewenstein 2005. Adam Smith, behavioral economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 131145.

L. Babcock and G. Loewenstein 1997. Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 109126.

G. Bolton and A. Ockenfels 2000. ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review 90: 166193.

A. Broadie 2006. Sympathy and the impartial spectator. In The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, ed. K. Haakonssen, 158188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

G. Charness and M. Rabin 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817869.

G. Charness , R. Cobo-Reyes and N. Jiménez 2008. An investment game with third-party intervention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68: 1828.

R. Croson and J. Konow 2009. Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69: 201212.

D.L. Dickinson and J. Tiefenthaler 2002. What is fair? Experimental evidence. Southern Economic Journal 69: 414428.

M. Dufwenberg and G. Kirchsteiger 2004. A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 47: 268298.

D. Dunning , J.A. Meyerowitz and A.D. Holzberg 1989. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 10821090.

J. Elster 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

D. Engelmann and M. Strobel 2004. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review 94: 857869.

A. Falk and U. Fischbacher 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54: 293315.

E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher 2004 a. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 13641366.

E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher 2004 b. Third party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 25: 6387.

E. Fehr and K.M. Schmidt 1999. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817868.

S. Fleischacker 1991. Philosophy in moral practice: Kant and Adam Smith. Kant Studien 82: 249269.

F. Forman-Barzalai 2005. Sympathy in space(s). Political Theory 33: 189217.

C. Fricke and H.-P. Schütt 2005. Adam Smith als Moralphilosoph. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

D. Fudenberg and D. Levine 2006. A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review 96: 14491476.

S. Gächter and A. Riedl 2006. Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims. Social Choice and Welfare 27: 571594.

W. Gaertner , J. Jungeilges and R. Neck 2001. Cross-cultural equity evaluations: a questionnaire-experimental approach. European Economic Review 45: 953963.

M.B. Gill and S. Nichols 2008. Sentimentalist pluralism: moral psychology and philosophical ethics. Philosophical Issues 18: 143163.

J.D. Greene , R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley and J.D. Cohen 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 21052108.

C.L. Griswold 2006. Imagination: morals, science, and arts. In The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, ed. K. Haakonssen, 2256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

R.P. Hanley 2008. Enlightened nation building; the ‘science of the legislator’ in Adam Smith and Rousseau. American Journal of Political Science 52: 219234.

W.T. Harbaugh , U. Mayr and D.R. Burghart 2007. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316: 16221625.

J. Henrich , R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr and H. Gintis 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

L. Hill 2001. The hidden theology of Adam Smith. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 8: 129.

D. Kahneman , J.L. Knetsch and R.H. Thaler 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business 59: S285S300.

J. Konow 2000. Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review 90: 1072–92.

J. Konow 2003. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 41: 11861237.

J. Konow 2009 a. Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice. Social Choice and Welfare 33: 101127.

J. Konow 2010. Mixed feelings: theories of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public Economics 94: 279297.

D.K. Levine 1998. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics 1: 593622.

M.C. Nussbaum and A. Sen, eds. 1993. The Quality of Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

J.R. Otteson 2002. Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. Parrish 2007. Paradoxes of Political Ethics: From Dirty Hands to the Invisible Hand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D.D. Raphael 2007. The Impartial Spectator. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

D.C. Rasmussen 2008. Whose impartiality? Which self-interest? Adam Smith on utility, happiness and cultural relativism. The Adam Smith Review 4: 247253.

D.A. Redman 1993. Adam Smith and Isaac Newton. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 40: 210230.

E. Schokkaert , B. Capeau and K. Devooght 2003. Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures. Social Choice and Welfare 21: 207242.

E. Schwitzgebel 2008. The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review 117: 245273.

R.H. Thaler and H.M. Shefrin 1981. An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy 89: 392406.

L. Thompson and G. Loewenstein 1992. Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51: 176197.

S. Traub , C. Seidl, U. Schmidt and M.V. Levati 2005. Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 283309.

C.J. Turillo , R. Folger, J.J. Lavelle, E.E. Umphress and J.O. Gee 2002. Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 839865.

R. Verburg 2000. Adam Smith's growing concern on the issue of distributive justice. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 7: 2344.

J.T. Young 1992. Natural morality and the ideal impartial spectator in Adam Smith. International Journal of Social Economics 19: 7182.

L. Zagzebski 2004. Divine Motivation Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *