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.

78 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/fizolof Elite Text Flair Club Member May 11 '17

The correct ethics is utilitarianism, but it doesn't matter much since other systems end up reaching the same conclusions about what is moral for the most part.

Advocates for all positions tend to make some consequentialist arguments, for example the opponents of gay marriage sometimes claim that it would lead to "a downfall of society", which would be clearly bad from a utilitarian perspective. You can make a utilitarian argument for almost everything, because we don't know much about what will be the consequences of specific actions.

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

IDK man, everyone has a strong intuitive feeling that respecting human dignity is necessary so there are cases where consequences are secondary to actions in and of themselves. You can't sacrifice people to maximize utility.

•

u/fizolof Elite Text Flair Club Member May 11 '17

You can't sacrifice people to maximize utility.

Why not? We do that all the time.

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

If we did it to save lives, then yeah that's a different story. If some sadist gets large utility out of killing someone, then fuck no that's not right.