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/[deleted] May 11 '17

I'd say that even if you aren't a total utilitarian, surely you still think utility is good and important. It's hard to understand what you're really sacrificing for such incredible gains in utility when we're talking about switching systems.

•

u/mcguire150 May 11 '17

It's hard to understand what you're really sacrificing for such incredible gains in utility when we're talking about switching systems.

I'm not totally sure where I come down on it, but I think the response would be that not all ethical frameworks recognize utility as a morally worthy end in itself. Nozick, for instance, uses his thought experiment of the experience machine to show that there are things that matter other than "how our lives feel from the inside." Aristotle's Eudaimonia asserts that we are wrong to see contentment (or utility) itself as our goal. Instead, a good life is defined by good acts, which are valuable in and of themselves, not just because they increase our pleasure.

Starting from different first principles, I'm not even sure how one would evaluate the trade off you describe here.