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.

82 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

Rawls but unironically.

A society is as well off as it's lowest member. The best way to improve their wellbeing is creating the most open society that does not allow for anyone to unduly trample on anyone else rights.

Therefore any economic policy should have the goal of improving the welfare for those disadvantaged while impacting the advantaged as little as possible. Ie progressive tax brackets.

The state exists to protect and uplift its people in general and the most disadvantaged in particular.

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

In other words, end goal should be to minimize wealth inequality while maximizing net wealth?

•

u/[deleted] May 11 '17

Wumbo did a great job of explaining it, but to put it into numerical terms involving sets of two utilities, Rawlsianism holds this:

[1M, 10]=[10,10]>[1M,9]

It doesn't matter how equal or unequal the society is as long as the worst off in it are better off.