Disinterestedness and Impartiality: Philosophy of Economy in Kant, Smith, and Ferguson

It is common to treat Kant’s concept of disinterestedness as primarily aesthetic of ethical. Within the context of his system, and especially the negative roles that inclinations or interests play in our capacities for reliable judging, it is clear why the phenomenon of disinterest is important in this regard. However, it is unfortunate that disinterestedness has not been examined within the broader context of practical philosophy, be it history, politics, or economics. It is in this context that I propose to explore the importance of the concept of disinterestedness, and to apply it to philosophical analysis of social dynamics that govern economic relations within a state, and among the states. When Kant mentions the problem of debt in the context of the preliminary articles for perpetual peace, he in effect hints at a deeper problem of unregulated economic relationships between the banking system and states. This broader point deserves to be explored in another context, also fairly underexplored - the relationship between the ideas of Kant and of Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson. In both of the latter thinkers, one of the key notions is that of impartiality. It plays an important role in social and economic analysis, as well as in agent-centered analysis of political dynamics. Thus, the goal of this paper is to explore how Smith’s and Ferguson’s notions of impartiality relate to Kant’s notion of disinterestedness. The upshot of such an approach is threefold. First, we will be able to shed light on the fairly neglected connections between Kant, Smith, and Ferguson. Second, we will show a broader significance of the notion of disinterestedness within Kant’s system. Third, we will attempt to show the relevance of such a Kantian approach to the contemporary debates in the philosophy of economics.