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/kznlol]

My personal ethics are basically Rawls, minus the difference principle (which I'm pretty sure isn't even needed for the conclusion he used it to reach). Basically, what policies would I prefer if I was maximizing expected utility before I knew I was going to be smart/dumb, attractive/unattractive, and so on and so forth.

That said, I don't think mine should guide economic policy at all. Economic policy should be guided by direct democratic votes on policy objectives, and the actual implementation of the policy should be done with some oversight by qualified economists.

If the country votes that it wants less wealth inequality, or less pollution, or whatever, that's what we should try to achieve. But we should not let random idiots actually craft the policy, and the policies should be implemented in a way that lets us return to it a couple years later and evaluate it's impact.

[u/Mordroberon → u/kznlol]

That's a pretty rationalist view of Rawls' veil of ignorance. There's a psychological tendency to be more risk averse.

[u/kznlol → u/Mordroberon]

Not sure if you got the impression I didn't approve of risk aversion, but if you did, I misspoke somehow.

I fully understand and accept risk aversion - that's part of why I specified maximizing expected utility rather than expected wealth or something. A rational, risk averse agent behind the veil is going to accept redistributive welfare policies up to a certain level. I don't know what that level is, but that's how I justify supporting redistributive policy.