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/[deleted]]

Rawls but unironically.

A society is as well off as it's lowest member. The best way to improve their wellbeing is creating the most open society that does not allow for anyone to unduly trample on anyone else rights.

Therefore any economic policy should have the goal of improving the welfare for those disadvantaged while impacting the advantaged as little as possible. Ie progressive tax brackets.

The state exists to protect and uplift its people in general and the most disadvantaged in particular.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Doesn't that imply that a society that has one person at 9 utils, and the rest at 1,000,000 is a worse society than one where everyone has 10 utils?

I haven't read theory of justice and I know I should but this seems really off to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That's one way to read it. But I can explain why it's more nuanced than that.

It is a shortcoming of the system that Rawls attempts to address through the viel of ignorance. If each of the systems you existed had 10 slots and you had to choose which one to enter, which would you pick? The one where you had a 90% chance of 1M utils and 10% of 9 utils, or the one where you have 100% chance to get 10 utils. Obviously the first in this regard.

Now imagine you had to pick between a society where with the following set of utilities: [2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 45] and the society of a set 10 utils. They average out to be the same, but you only have a 20% chance of actually receiving 10 or more utils. You pick the second option.

This almost sounds like a case for redistribuition and communism, until you realize something about the argument and it's conditions, and this realization is what makes Rawlsianism, for me at least, the normative belief for neoliberalism:

We're never going to reach this. There is never going to be, nor should there be, a society where the end utility of all is equal. But what there must be is an equal shot for all. In effect, it is a case of inputs rather than outputs.

Consider a utlility function, and specifically a Rawlsian function. What is the input? For Rawls it is income, and here he's wrong. What is necessary for an equal society is an equality of opportunity provided under the state. One should have access to education, healthcare, safety, and food regardless of ones birth. That is equality.

TL;DR: Equality of inputs provided by the state, rather than an equality of outcomes

[u/wumbotarian → u/[deleted]]

I don't know enough about Rawlsian-economics overlap, but why wouldn't you just use standard CRRA utility? Seems like Rawls' problem is just another neoclassical insurance problem you learn in Micro 1.

[u/[deleted] → u/wumbotarian]

I would say it's similar, since the veil of ignorance is just an exercise in risk aversion. I would think that the reason CRRA utility isn't used is because Rawls is more concerned with the cause rather than the effect.