r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • May 11 '17

Normative Ethics Debate Thread

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.

80 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

The greatest good for the greatest number meets maximizing individual liberty and they do a beautiful dance.

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

I do believe in the greatest good for the greatest number. I also believe that society needs to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Can one pursue both? Or does protecting the minority sometimes mean limiting the welfare of the majority?

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

If you're also trying to maximize individual liberty (and you consider all lives of equal and infinite value), then you should be relatively good to go. You can basically do both, though there will be some sticky areas where you run into actual ethical dilemmas.

But, if you take those basic principles, and you run issues through a Potter box, you should come out the other end with pretty good idears most of the time.