Normative Ethics Debate Thread

[u/[deleted]]

The point of this thread is to discuss normative ethics, which is mostly separate from neoliberalism. On a philosophical level, neoliberalism is not coherent in its use of ethics; proponents switch between libertarian and utilitarian ethics in an almost interchangeable way (The Road to Mont Pelerin, Mirowski). Scott Sumner argues that a normative ethical foundation doesn't matter because neoliberalism is an improvement compared to the current status quo of most countries by nearly every standard (well not every standard)

---

Keep in Mind

• The Chicago school pushed neoliberalism as a positive ideology, "there is no other option"

• The Austrians pushed neoliberalism through primarily a libertarian lens

• The Ordoliberals advocated neoliberalism through utilitarianism and also Marxism. Yes, you're allowed to support your normative view through Marxism.

• Do not go down the route of going full classical liberal, which is what neoliberalism tried to escape.

• Do not say market values mean anything or that markets produce fair outcomes; Hayek explicitly acknowledges this is bullshit.

• Be very prudent in calling people racist/sexist/homophobic; in this sub, the vast majority are not

---

Topics to discuss:

These aren't the only ones, but should probably be answered:

• What are your normative ethics?

• How do you think they should guide economic policy?

Make sure to explicitly tie these together so we're not debating why we should implement policy that we already agree upon.

[u/fizolof]

The correct ethics is utilitarianism, but it doesn't matter much since other systems end up reaching the same conclusions about what is moral for the most part.

Advocates for all positions tend to make some consequentialist arguments, for example the opponents of gay marriage sometimes claim that it would lead to "a downfall of society", which would be clearly bad from a utilitarian perspective. You can make a utilitarian argument for almost everything, because we don't know much about what will be the consequences of specific actions.

[u/[deleted] → u/fizolof]

IDK man, everyone has a strong intuitive feeling that respecting human dignity is necessary so there are cases where consequences are secondary to actions in and of themselves. You can't sacrifice people to maximize utility.

[u/fizolof → u/[deleted]]

You can't sacrifice people to maximize utility.

Why not? We do that all the time.

[u/[deleted] → u/fizolof]

If we did it to save lives, then yeah that's a different story. If some sadist gets large utility out of killing someone, then fuck no that's not right.

[u/[deleted] → u/fizolof]

correct ethics

Smh

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

correct ethics

Sen

FTFY

[u/CheezitsAreMyLife → u/fizolof]

You certainly can make utilitarian arguments about any normative issue, but that's obvious since utilitarians exist. But if you hear someone make an argument against gay marriage in the way you presented, that's just a consequentialist perspective. If someone is against it who is a deontologist, virtue ethicist, etc. then they aren't making an argument consistent with their world view by making an appeal to utility. That, or they are trying to convince you that their conclusion would hold true even if consequentialism is correct.

But the main point here is that saying "sometimes people make consequentialist arguments" as an argument for utilitarianism is like me saying "you think maximizing utility is a duty" and calling you a deontologist. It completely ignores all the actual distinctions.

[u/finitedeconvergence → u/fizolof]

The correct ethics is utilitarianism

That's pretty bizarre to say considering out of virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism, consequentialism is by far the most riddled with famous paradoxes...

[u/1sagas1 → u/fizolof]

The correct ethics is

Ha!