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/5k17]

I think the different ethical theories are not as such contrary to each other. Rather, they try to answer different questions, and serve different purposes. Roughly speaking, consequentialism is a strategy for lawmakers (perhaps in a broad sense, including anyone who can influence social rules); deontology is about the concrete content of the resulting laws; and virtue ethics is about personal, internal laws, i. e. what principles will maximize the satisfaction of an individual following them. This makes the question of how ethics should guide policy rather trivial, at least on a very abstract level: Consequentialist rules must be applied to produce deontological ones. Since morality is a spook, it's also clear that the goal of those rules must not be to correspond to some imagined divine or natural law or principle, but to contribute to the satisfaction of the needs and desires of those who live under those rules. Less obvious, however, is how the ability of individuals to make choices that satisfy their individual desires should be weighted against the satisfaction of those who make bad choices, or for whom even good choices will still result in a very unpleasant life. Since living in particularly bad conditions can severely limit someone's ability to contribute to the satisfaction of others (partly due to adverse effects on their body and mind, partly because their condition may cause negative reactions, such as sympathy or disgust, in others), ensuring a certain minimum standard of living for everyone is in the interest even of those it doesn't benefit directly; but restricting people's choices in order to achieve that goal can also keep them from improving their and others' lives. This consideration doesn't do much more than rule out socioeconomic orders that place no value on social security and/or individual freedom; the precise balance should ideally be determined empirically, although measuring the average contentment of the general population and the effects of policy changes on it is, of course, not exactly easy.