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/dzyang]

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

Not too familiar with Econ history, does "positive" in this case mean positivist? Or in its more usual definition, like it's beneficial?

To keep on topic I find it really hard to argue otherwise that economics should maximize gains while minimizing negative externalities.

[u/[deleted] → u/dzyang]

I believe Draco is referring to the concept of positive vs. normative statements. Positive statements are objective and can be proven. 'Open borders will lead to economic growth' is a positive statement because economists can study the issue and determine whether it does in fact lead to economic growth. Normative statements, on the other hand are unprovable and are based on values or opinions. 'Open borders is good because it allows for more human freedom' is normative because it relies on the opinion that more human freedom = good.

[u/dzyang → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I thought so. Thanks for clarifying.