IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v24y2008i2p343-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Darwin's unpublished letter at the Bradlaugh-Besant trial: A question of divided expert judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Peart, Sandra J.
  • Levy, David M.

Abstract

We examine the competing views of two sets of "experts" in a historical context, the Bradlaugh- Besant trial of 1877. The case was ostensibly about what constituted "obscenity" and whether, specifically, republishing a book at low cost that contained information on contraception, was obscene. Behind the trial lurked two larger questions: whether natural selection yielded felicitous results in humans; and, supposing it did not, what might be done to improve upon the results of unimpeded natural selection? The "failure" of natural selection was said to occur because people chose to pursue happiness as opposed to perfection of the human race The issue was whether it was advisable to have unrestricted access to information on how to limit births. Some experts, including Charles Darwin, feared that as information became widely available at low cost, it would be used by the wrong sorts of individuals and not by others, so that the salutary effects of natural selection on human perfection would be suspended. Others, like Besant, Bradlaugh and J. S. Mill, advocated wide access in order to mitigate the misery associated with unwanted births and extreme poverty.

Suggested Citation

  • Peart, Sandra J. & Levy, David M., 2008. "Darwin's unpublished letter at the Bradlaugh-Besant trial: A question of divided expert judgment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 343-353, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:24:y:2008:i:2:p:343-353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176-2680(07)00105-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M Levy & Sandra J Peart, 2008. "Inducing Greater Transparency: Towards the Establishment of Ethical Rules for Econometrics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 103-114, Winter.
    2. David Levy & Sandra Peart, 2006. "Charles Kingsley and the Theological Interpretation of Natural Selection," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 197-218, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Levy, David M. & Peart, Sandra J., 2009. "Sympathy, evolution, and The Economist," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 29-36, July.
    2. David M. Levy & Sandra J. Peart, 2008. "Thinking About Analytical Egalitarianism," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 473-479, July.
    3. Margaret Schabas, 2015. "John Stuart Mill: evolutionary economics and liberalism," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 97-111, April.
    4. David Levy, 2010. "Paul J. Zak (ed.), Moral markets: The critical role of values in the economics," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 269-274, October.
    5. David Levy, 2008. "Margaret Schabas: The Natural Origins of Economics," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 361-367, December.
    6. Sandra Peart & David Levy, 2008. "Discussion, construction and evolution: Mill, Buchanan and Hayek on the constitutional order," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 3-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Auspurg Katrin & Hinz Thomas, 2011. "What Fuels Publication Bias?: Theoretical and Empirical Analyses of Risk Factors Using the Caliper Test," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 636-660, October.
    2. David Levy & Sandra Peart, 2012. "Tullock on motivated inquiry: expert-induced uncertainty disguised as risk," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 163-180, July.
    3. David Levy, 2008. "Margaret Schabas: The Natural Origins of Economics," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 361-367, December.
    4. Levy, David M. & Peart, Sandra J., 2009. "Sympathy, evolution, and The Economist," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 29-36, July.
    5. David M. Levy & Sandra J. Peart, 2008. "Thinking About Analytical Egalitarianism," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 473-479, July.
    6. Doucouliagos, Hristos & Hinz, Thomas & Zigova, Katarina, 2022. "Bias and careers: Evidence from the aid effectiveness literature," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Everard Cowan & Roger Koppl, 2011. "An experimental study of blind proficiency tests in forensic science," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(3), pages 251-271, September.
    8. Dalibor Roháč, 2012. "On economists and garbagemen: Reflections on Šťastný (2010)," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 173-183, June.
    9. David M. Levy & Sandra J. Peart, 2016. "Group Analytics in Adam Smith’s Work," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 514-527, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:24:y:2008:i:2:p:343-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.