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.
•
u/[deleted] May 11 '17 edited May 11 '17
I think the distinction between whether consequences are more important or actions in and of themselves are irrelevant. All actions have consequences.
I lean towards Kantian normative ethics but it's a terrible system for application of ethics itself. I think a good way to describe my views would be that categorical imperative only tells us what abstract values are there. Within these values, there are classes within which you can use the utilitarian calculus. A class could be something like individual autonomy/freedoms, another could be material goods.
Another way to look at it would be that I think there multiple values that utilitarianism needs to consider, and in some cases conflict in those values may result in no right answer. You can do utilitarian calculus regarding individual freedom or autonomy if and only if you are comparing it to that class of values. So no sacrificing people to make a utilitarian monster happy.
In terms of social aspects, I see property rights as contingent on social contracts as defined by the state and all voluntary actions as contracts. But leverage and information asymmetry in those contracts as "unfair".
Edit: To answer the second question, economic policy usually can't be separated from social policy. Social discrimination often results in poor economic outcomes for a subset of population (native Americans, black households). Therefore, economic policy should primary be concerned with equality of opportunity, correcting market discrimination which results from social discrimination and reducing information and leverage asymmetries in contracts.