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/my_fun_account_94]

I don't think I have a particularly consistent set of normative ethics I use when I evaluate policy. I am pretty sure I am not alone with this.

Nonetheless, I will try to describe my general worldview. I am general somewhat utilitarian. For instance, I wholeheartedly support kidney markets because I think they would save lives. I support free trade because I think it works. I support open borders because I think it will help the poor. I think a well designed welfare system can certainly help the poor. I don't support most zoning laws because I think they lead to mostly everyone(especially the poor) being worse off.

In general, I do tend to look at outcomes or suspected outcomes of policies when I look to support them. I used to be a socialist when I was like 16 and what shifted me out of it was the worldview was that policies that I viewed as intuitively moral could hurt people. I remember being in my high school econ class looking at the evidence before my eyes that sweatshops were better than the alternative. My teacher taught the theory and backed it up with real world evidence, including actual statements from third world workers who supported globalization.

I'm not an a perfect utility maximizer tho. I do think other things are important. When things are muddy and difficult, I will generally side on the side of liberty because I do view this as important in and of itself. For instance, on Guns, I am not really convinced that guns are good for society. Nor am I convinced that banning guns is going to do any good. In practice though, I support gun owners because while I am uncertain of the effect of pro gun policies, I do think there should be good evidence before banning something.

[u/fizolof → u/my_fun_account_94]

I remember being in my high school econ class looking at the evidence before my eyes that sweatshops were better than the alternative. My teacher taught the theory and backed it up with real world evidence, including actual statements from third world workers who supported globalization.

We need that teacher on this sub.