I had a thought relating to egoistic morality versus amoral egoism the other day, an issue that often trips me up when thinking about conservative values of the sort expressed by Republican voters. Maybe just a short one today? It’s summertime? When the living is easy?
Imagine person A gets the drop on person B and steals B’s wallet. If B is an amoral egoist, he or she would surely object. However, if B subscribes to egoistic morality, he might find the result ethically acceptable. It’s fair. Person A got the drop on B, did what he should have done. Some may suppose conservative, Republican voters are simply amoral egoists looking out for number one, maybe supporting economic establishment elite power and fascism because they suppose once democracy is gone, they’ll get more gold from the deal via market utopianism, trickle down, etc. However, another possibility is some, many, all conservatives, Republicans are actually moral egoists who suppose as long as economic establishment elite power acts in a thoroughly egoistic way, then whatever results flow from it are ethically correct and optimal. It’s about egoism writ large. Some conservatives simply might some not care their lack of power makes their own egoism impotent. They’re greedy as hell; they just can’t get much. It’s fine. Their greed abides. But they would never criticize or object to anyone else seeking power any old way to further his or her own greed.
If one considers the arch way self-interest and profit maximization is handled in anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, one may readily see how familiarity with that sickly rhetoric and loosely related neoclassical welfare economics may generate confusion in that area. How often have you seen people equating individuals choosing things higher in their own preference rank (“utility maximization” in econo-speak) to self-interest? How often profit maximization equated to self interest or indeed “utility maximization?” How often “utility” equated to money? How often have you heard the conservative faux economics mantra, “greed is good,” with no reference to the theoretical limitations, requirements in neoclassical welfare economics relating to when people expressing preferences or firms maximizing profits may be considered ethically, morally good? It’s confused, dodgy ethics to be sure, but hardly spontaneous, more like carefully manufactured, created. One suspects many conservative suppose they’re displaying a knowledge of economics by proposing as long as everyone is as greedy, self-interested as possible, in every context, all is well.
Just something to think about. However, I will say this much: one important basis, I suspect the most important basis, of anti-democracy sentiment in the USA right now is bad economics in the conservative style, a false, loose, confusing rhetorical gloss on neoclassical welfare economics. If anyone cares to really address anti-democracy sentiment in the USA and elsewhere, one might learn about the rhetoric of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, how it works, where it draws its power, how it relates to neoclassical welfare economics. Also, it’s a lot of fun.
