Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Thomas Carlyle on Utilitarianism

Thomas Carlyle on Utilitarianism of his position on the subject and then focuses on his attack on utilitarianismʼs role in the architecture of the New Poor Law of 1834. Finally, economistsʼ opinions on Carlyleʼs statements on utilitarianism are reviewed. It bears mentioning that when reading Carlyle one is as likely to ask, “Is this what he meant?” as to say, “This is what he meant.” His writing style is so challenging that Emerson ([1843] 1941, xi) described it as reminiscent of that of a sick giant. William Henry Smith ([1843] 1971, 217), in a review of Carlyleʼs Past and Present, described him as an author who can be “whimsical and absurd, can deal abundantly in obscurities and contradictions, and can withal write the most motley, confused English of any man living.” Examples of Carlyleʼs whimsy are found in Sartor Resartus ([1834] 1937, 220), where he calls utilitarians the most owlish of owls; and in a notebook (1972, 143–144), where he asks if it is true that “of all quacks that ever quacked . . . in any age of the world, the Political Economists of this age are, for their intrinsic size, the loudest?”3 But buried within these whimsies are sharp attacks http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

Thomas Carlyle on Utilitarianism

History of Political Economy , Volume 38 (2) – Jun 1, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/thomas-carlyle-on-utilitarianism-NzSkbcN7T0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2006 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-2005-007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

of his position on the subject and then focuses on his attack on utilitarianismʼs role in the architecture of the New Poor Law of 1834. Finally, economistsʼ opinions on Carlyleʼs statements on utilitarianism are reviewed. It bears mentioning that when reading Carlyle one is as likely to ask, “Is this what he meant?” as to say, “This is what he meant.” His writing style is so challenging that Emerson ([1843] 1941, xi) described it as reminiscent of that of a sick giant. William Henry Smith ([1843] 1971, 217), in a review of Carlyleʼs Past and Present, described him as an author who can be “whimsical and absurd, can deal abundantly in obscurities and contradictions, and can withal write the most motley, confused English of any man living.” Examples of Carlyleʼs whimsy are found in Sartor Resartus ([1834] 1937, 220), where he calls utilitarians the most owlish of owls; and in a notebook (1972, 143–144), where he asks if it is true that “of all quacks that ever quacked . . . in any age of the world, the Political Economists of this age are, for their intrinsic size, the loudest?”3 But buried within these whimsies are sharp attacks

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Jun 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.