tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post6392606948027738726..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: All ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialistNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17029706789496780992017-01-19T14:02:47.433-05:002017-01-19T14:02:47.433-05:00Exactly. This annoys me too.Exactly. This annoys me too.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09644014090796259879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59352394022720191922013-01-20T01:43:33.334-05:002013-01-20T01:43:33.334-05:00Why can't we be both?
For example, I oppose ...Why can't we be both? <br /><br />For example, I oppose .gov interference in people's lives for a couple of reasons:<br />firstly, because the of the ZERO probability of .gov magically being able to<br />(1) staff itself with only altruistic public servants, and not megalomaniacal rent-seeking sociopaths;<br />(2) stay on any sort of sensible intertemporal budget constraint;<br />(3) accurately determine social preferences for the MASSIVE array of markets in which .gov intervenes (i.e., to determine that its actions are welfare-enhancing, an to determine that with the degree of accuracy necessary to justify violence against the disinterested);<br />(3) actually ameliorate any market failures in ways that do not introduce side effects that are worse than the failure itself; and<br />(4)not grow outside its justifiable bounds (like any entity without a genuine P&L discipline).<br /><br />In other words: the consequentialist in me says that, even if .gov COULD figure out how to get us to a Kaldor-Hicks optimum, having a State sets in train a set of dynamics that lead to patronage, corruption, misfeasance, waste, over-reach and eventually WAR (the biggest destroyer of Harberger triangles ... ever).<br /><br />I <b>also</b> oppose .gov because it's simply wrong to violate the rights of the majority simply to force them to fund the pet projects of the <b>largest interested minority</b> (check the vote totals, folks... the winner does NOT get "50% + 1" of the voting age populace: "none of the above" is the largest single voting bloc). <br /><br />Just as gang rape is not magically absolved of its reprehensibility if the largest interested minority votes for it, neither is anything that claims a 'mandate' by dint of having a third of people supporting it.<br /><br />So by all means, mix deontology with crude utilitarian consequentialism: if you think it through properly, BOTH lead to the same conclusion - the State is a bad thing, both statically and dynamically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4730871550781673252011-02-22T07:41:39.447-05:002011-02-22T07:41:39.447-05:00The type of move you make, to highlight that deono...The type of move you make, to highlight that deonotological and consequentialist systems are mutually reinforcing is along the right track. But I think you need to do some reading in contemporary meta-ethics. <br /><br />Start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86253825365827258952011-02-18T08:30:09.333-05:002011-02-18T08:30:09.333-05:00Noah - the distinction between deontologists and c...Noah - the distinction between deontologists and consequentialists seems related to a distinction that Amartya Sen makes in his recent book on The Idea of Justice. Sen identifies two contrasting approaches to justice - first, a contractarian approach focused on implementing perfectly just institutions that Sen associates with Rawls, Hobbes, Kant and Rousseau, and second, a comparative approach focused on comprehensive outcomes which Sen associates with Adam Smith, Bentham, Mill, Condorcet and Marx. Sen stresses that "comprehensive outcomes" takes a comprehensive view of wellbeing including individuals' desire for procedural fairness as well as health, social inclusiveness, education and other outcomes that economists normally focus on.<br /><br />Sen would place himself and most economists in the second tradition; whereas modern philosophers of justice seem to fit within the first tradition.<br /><br />While it is probably right that most economists are in the comparative comprehensive outcomes tradition, I strikes me that many economist with a libertarian bent seem more focussed on implementing perfectly just institutions even though their discipline is fundamentally outcomes based. That is probably why even strongly libertarian economists (like Sumner?) can legitimately place themselves under the comparative outcomes tradition.<br /><br />I think rather than argue that all ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialists, perhaps the way to think about this is that while some ethical systems (developed by political philosophers) are squarely deontological, very few "practical" ethical systems are purely consequentialists. <br /><br />Oddly, mainstream economics (under the influence of utilitarianism) comes very close to being purely consequentialists. Economists rarely pay attention to procedural fairness, often pleading that they have no expertise in such matters, when (according to Sen) the founder of economics, Adam Smith, had a lot to say about fairness in the comprehensive sense.Kienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643929814291369340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68803353363740333192011-02-17T23:37:36.144-05:002011-02-17T23:37:36.144-05:00Scott - my comment about the hexagon was just to A...Scott - my comment about the hexagon was just to A) lightly poke fun at what seems to me to be a libertarian propensity to classify and categorize philosophies, and B) to segue into discussion of the word "consequentialist."<br /><br />I definitely did not mean to put words into your mouth!Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9803158820761613082011-02-17T22:31:24.195-05:002011-02-17T22:31:24.195-05:00Noah, Your post is written as if you believe peopl...Noah, Your post is written as if you believe people like me disagree with you. But if you read my post (with the hexagon), I never implied that consequentialist and deontological systems were fundamentally different in an is/ought sense. I simply find the two to be useful categories when thinking about US politics. Almost everyone is a mixture of the two. And I agree that consequentialism itself can be viewed as a value system. <br /><br />Sharp lines? Everything in the social sciences and humanities is fuzzy.Scott Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15864819372390187247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35073444682192631462011-02-17T15:33:18.678-05:002011-02-17T15:33:18.678-05:00My point was that even Sasha Volokh is being compl...My point was that even Sasha Volokh is being completely consequentialist with his bat-guano craziness. If he prides himself on not being consequentialist, well, he's just wrong.<br /><br />But yes, I definitely sense that shift toward "pragmatic libertarianism", and I think it's a very good thing.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9836473356266275282011-02-17T15:10:03.327-05:002011-02-17T15:10:03.327-05:00I enjoyed your post. However, let me point out tha...I enjoyed your post. However, let me point out that many libertarians, such as myself (and Scott Sumner for that matter), consider themselves to be consequentialists. Thus we're not all bat guano crazy like Sasha Volokh.Mark A. Sadowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08259309059705236763noreply@blogger.com