The crisis is mostly about the failures of rationality[+], although the backdrop (increasing voter distaste for income inequality) also puts questions over the amorality.
[+] Technically of course, part of the crisis is not that people did not behave rationally, more that "rational maximisation" without reference to rules and timeframes just doesn't produce the results the propagandists say it does. (Mostly because in fact their model contain buried rules and timeframes that they tend to prefer to deny.)
They've kept the amorality, but thrown out the rationality.
In an historical perspective, goodness in the state of nature is opposed to the state of nature defined/defiled by original sin, the standard pre-Enlightenment narrative. It's close to the clean slate idea, Locke's tabula rasa according to which we build our own destinies, and are not predestined by our fallen nature.
Amoral rationality (meaning choices are made rationally, and are not subject to moral judgement or do not participate in the moral sphere) is a system that could not have been, or certainly was not, built on the previous doctrine of human nature. In that sense, "essential goodness" can be said to be a basic building block on which free-market theories repose.
Or not. Shoot at it?
But I would maintain that the "absence of original sin" does to some degree at least imply something of the "milk of human kindness."
The "noble savage" is noble because he behaves in a "noble" manner. That "nobility" is not all "milk of human kindness" but I think there are overtones there.
However, I suppose in favour of your argument is that the "state of nature" is often equated with "naive trust" which is also a feature of the most simplistic market models...
One problem today is that social Darwinism remains to some degree implicit in the general free-market doctrine (perhaps more so today than thirty years ago), even though it has been long since discredited. So I see "amoral rationality" as problematic not just on account of its patent inaccuracy, but its implications as well.
I think the anthropologists and behavioral economists already have the makings of a view of humanity that would stand up pretty well in reality. But social Darwinism, even when only implicit, is an extremely comfortable world view if you're at the top of the income pyramid. So as a practical matter, "amoral rationality" will probably be a difficult doctrine to dislodge. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
A basic finding of social-psychology is when a member of a group - even an ad-hoc group - thinks they are out of touch with the group that person experiences anxiety, seeks to relieve that anxiety.
Could it be Social Darwinism is a coping/validating mechanism for the Ruling Class?
What we should properly be engaged in here is the deconstruction of neo-classical economics a la Milton Friedman. It would appear that "homo economicus" was put forward more for his usefulness as a shill and a lookout than for his explanatory power. The whole structure of neo-classical economics best makes sense when viewed as a propaganda tool to cover and enable the looting of the economy by the elite. After all, one only needs to understand a small part of the operation of a bank in order to rob it. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
What Rousseau did was articulate the view (that he was not alone in holding) that maybe "progress" was not all it was cracked up to be. That "progress" was inevitable, and beneficent has been orthodoxy until quite recently. (Though Malthus, who is getting a second look today, had questioned the view early on). Rousseau's sin -- the real reason he was (and continues to be) pilloried -- was his belief in human equality
Both Marx and the Freemarketeers incidentally, believe in Progress.
For a different take on these matters, I recommend the book by Ter Ellingson, The Myth of the Noble Savage. http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Noble-Savage-Ter-Ellingson/dp/0520226100/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&a mp;qid=1223143315&sr=8-1A review on the History Cooperative has this to say: "As Ter Ellingson sees it, the term noble savage was a rhetorical construct rather than a substantive object, and he classifies the myth to which it gave rise as a scholarly hoax that was perpetrated for political reasons. Instead of achieving its purpose, the myth developed a life of its own and became embedded in anthropological as well as popular thought, where it continues to this day." Ellison convincingly demonstrates how in the last half of the nineteenth century the accusation of belief in the noble savage was used by scientific racists as cudgel with which to beat those who opposed slavery and imperialism." http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperat ive.org/journals/jah/88.4/br_6.html
I actually have a high regard for much of Rousseau's work and influence. He was an advocate for the importance of feelings, passions and sentiments, which were given short shrift by Classical rationality and by much of the scientific establishment. You may have noticed that many on this site are not great fans of restraining the expression of our feelings about events and developments. In that regard Jean Jacques is a sort of patron saint. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Like many of his contemporaries he admired the Spartans a bit too much for our taste and he also believed women should be subordinate -- not so good.
I accidentally put an extra quotation mark at the end of my previous post. The final sentence of which is mine not the History Cooperative.
I've come to believe that all this talk about "the fall of man" and being a "realist" is a form of self presentation (advertising) left over from the Cold War.
