It occurs to me as far as the ethics of economic power in conservatism goes there are at least five different perspectives in play. You know I like solving puzzles, clearing up confusion, that sort, so let me just say a few words about that this week.
What got me thinking about this topic was that I was discussing the ethics of economic power with a conservative the other day and as soon as I broached the subject he responded with “ethics of economic power” and a laughing emoji, implying the very concept comical. That is, indeed, one of the distinctive conservative takes on the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power. That there’s no such thing. It’s unimportant. No one has ethical views about economic power. But interestingly it’s not the only one. Let’s discuss.
Conservative views on the ethics of economic power are heavily influenced by the theory of neoclassical welfare economics but not directly, more commonly via the twisted version found in anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. As you may recall, I discuss often how the ethical half-theory of neoclassical welfare economics eschews consideration of the ethical issues involved in resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, needs, wants, desires, and thus the allocation of scarce resources. In economic contexts, those ethical issues involve the definition, distribution, and decision to use economic power in markets to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences. Thus, those ethics, the ethics of economic power, are exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. As such, in realistic situations, if any ethical concerns arise relating to resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences or allocating scarce resources, any questions of justice, fairness, equity, (real) utilitarian concerns about welfare, that theory expresses indifference. This distinctive and idiosyncratic form of ethical half-theory can create a lot of confusion, and the different takes on the ethics of economic power in conservative thinking derive from the different forms that confusion may take.
One form of confusion holds that neoclassical welfare economics itself expresses ethics relating to economic power, use of markets, allocation of resources, using only the ostensibly limited normative inputs involving individual preference ranks and unreal conditions. This leads some conservatives to suppose neoclassical welfare economics provides a scientific, mathematical, logical defense of certain ethics relating to economic power, markets, resolving interpersonal conflicts, allocating resources. Those conservatives wrongly interpret any disagreement relating to the ethical conclusions they falsely attribute to neoclassical welfare economics to be a matter of others not understanding the simple inputs, logic, math involved.
Other conservatives understand the exogenous nature of the relevant ethics, but simply assume them as givens in the guise of supporting status quo legal judgments on those issues. However, the ethics of supporting status quo law are exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. Those conservatives propose they’re being neutral or indifferent to the ethical issues exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics by accepting the views expressed in status quo legal arrangements. However, that’s not the correct form of indifference, so it’s fake indifference.
Other conservatives mistake the program of generating an ostensibly uncontroversial ethical half-theory by eschewing consideration of interpersonal ethics for the absurdly controversial program of economists qua economists promoting amorality as far as interpersonal ethics. Those conservatives propose attempts to discuss the ethics relating to resolving interpersonal conflicts of presences, allocating scarce resources, including those relating to economic power and markets, are themselves, unethical.
Other conservatives are confused by the arbitrary restriction of preferences in economic models and use of false, simplifying assumptions in positive, predictive models and suppose neoclassical economics says people, in fact, have no interpersonal ethics. Those conservatives typically propose any attempt to discuss interpersonal ethics, equity issues, fairness, justice, real utilitarian concerns about real welfare as well-being, the ethics of economic power and markets, to be unreal, empty virtue signaling. Ethical views relating to appropriate, proper, ethical resolution of interpersonal conflicts of preference, allocation of resources, in economic and market settings about economic power, are important for most or all, and usually enthusiastically albeit often indirectly promoted.
Other conservatives acknowledge the significance of the ethical issues relating to the definition, distribution, use of economic power, express their own ethics honestly, and make no pretense of basing their theories on anything in neoclassical welfare economics. Those conservatives are doing just fine in my book. People should explicitly discuss the ethics of resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources, the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power. I may disagree their views, of course.
I’m just saying, if one’s impulse upon hearing someone broach the ethical issues relating to economic power, markets, resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources, is to fire off a laughing emoji, one might not actually understand the real issues.
