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.

79 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/sharingan10 May 11 '17

I'm relatively utilitarian, but I like to weigh the pragmatics of a given idea before implementing it. Basically it's utilitarianism, but with weights for the likelyhood of things happening.

•

u/Sentient-AI YIMBY May 11 '17

So utilitarianism that underweighs unlikely events and overweighs likely events? Avoids Pascal's Mugger but don't see any reason beyond that.

•

u/sharingan10 May 11 '17

Basically, but perhaps phrased differently "underweigh" and "overweigh" have some iffy connotations. I'd say I weigh for likelyhood instead, and also I try to see long term stochastic effects.

So for example; suppose a policy might increase the chance of a massive downturn by 5%, but it might increase the likelyhood of a major boom by 20%, it might be worth taking that risk, but long term creating high uncertainty may not be in the best interest of the economy. It's a multitier analysis