The Economics Thread
- Thread starter Cythraul
- Start date
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Dak
mentat
I like having the face/voice for human context, but I think both Rothbard and Paul are in their element in the written word vs the spoken.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak and Black,
Which side of the consequentialist/deontological debate do you ascribe to? I only ask because you cite thinkers on both sides, and I'm curious as to which approach you find more credible.
Which side of the consequentialist/deontological debate do you ascribe to? I only ask because you cite thinkers on both sides, and I'm curious as to which approach you find more credible.
Dak
mentat
I haven't looked deeply into that duality, but just on a cursory wiki read, off the cuff I would say I ascribe to a synthesis.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
I haven't really delved into sociological philosophy - or much philosophy at all for that matter, I'm still pretty young in terms of my knowledge pertaining to this subject - so my answer is one that is not well versed in the subject matter. Having said that and after a quick wiki search, I find myself leaning more towards the Deontological ethics. That is to say that my own actions are more closely based on Deontological ethics. When gauging this on a spectrum that goes beyond that of individuals, however, one could come up with numerous hypotheticals that would support both sides, though I do think that the Consequentialists hypotheticals would probably be a bit degrading to the individual man. I'm pretty sure that Mises would fit under the Deontological category.
Dak
mentat
After more reading into deontological ethics (still basically off the cuff), I would have to agree with BO. Kant sounds like someone I need to read.
Edit: However, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
Edit: However, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I just picked up my own copy of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's a fucking beast.
I also don't see them as mutually exclusive; the difference simply lies in where one perceives the force of argument, and the methodology used to get there. The ultimate results are the same. Consequentialists seem to take a more inductive approach (i.e. in its vulgar sense: it is likely that a free market will result in more prosperity and equality for all, thus it is good). I actually like the consequentialist formula because it's a bit more scientific/structuralist, or it appears so to me.
The deontological sphere (which would be thinkers like Mises and Rothbard) follows a process of deductive logic from the a priori claim of natural rights. To me, this is more problematic.
I also don't see them as mutually exclusive; the difference simply lies in where one perceives the force of argument, and the methodology used to get there. The ultimate results are the same. Consequentialists seem to take a more inductive approach (i.e. in its vulgar sense: it is likely that a free market will result in more prosperity and equality for all, thus it is good). I actually like the consequentialist formula because it's a bit more scientific/structuralist, or it appears so to me.
The deontological sphere (which would be thinkers like Mises and Rothbard) follows a process of deductive logic from the a priori claim of natural rights. To me, this is more problematic.
Dak
mentat
What little I know of Hume I have read in Rothbard's crituques of his economic work. An example:
http://mises.org/daily/5077
Edit:
I don't see how someone can claim experience/"results" trumps all (vulgar consequentialism?), when experience and perception of what constitutes "good" or "bad" results is inherently subjective and filtered through some internal bias, both conscious and unconscious.
While I can see where someone might have a problem philosophically with a prior natural rights, the economic framework laid down by Mises and expanded by Rothbard, critical of Socialist/Marxist economics, both an outflow of Consequentialism (Hume/Smith), have proven quite on target as we look at the last 150 years of economic history.
Praxeology, or the action axiom, is not deontological, but Mises was heavily influenced by Kant.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
The deontological sphere certainly is more problematic on a macro spectrum, but I think that deontologicalism is inherently set to a micro level. This goes back to Mises' argument that one cannot denote human action to a structured scientific formula.
Dak
mentat
It is interesting to note that the only argument quoted on wiki against Methodological Individualism is that, paraphrased: "it would make macro-economics a lie/farce, and that just can't be".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism
Pretty sound reasoning right there boy. :Smug:
Macro economics: "Let's just ignore cause and puzzle/make blind predictions over/about the effects!"
It's why Mises could predict the fall of Russia decades in advance and it caught [everyone else] offguard, or how Austrians like RP could predict the current recession a decade or more in advance, which caught most everyone off guard.
Einherjar86
Active Member
So, are you interested in Hume, or Kant? Or Both? Kant is extremely important because articulates a new direction after the intense skepticism of Descartes and Hume.
I think the consequentialist argument has flaws as well, but I think it sets out to establish its legitimacy based on material conditions, which I find more convincing.
I think the consequentialist argument has flaws as well, but I think it sets out to establish its legitimacy based on material conditions, which I find more convincing.
Dak
mentat
Kant. As I read, it appears that a paraphrase of consequentialism would be "The end justifies the means", and I can't even remotely agree with that, for numerous reasons. On the surface I would say consequentialism may even be inherently intellectually dishonest/bankrupt, as pursuing ends without considering the actual effects of the means (or the effects of the ends, and therefore the end itself in either case) is not intellectual at all.
"We are going to do X to achieve Y." When pressed for how X will achieve Y (or why Y is desirable in the first place), the consequentialist turns to mysticism
.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Kant. As I read, it appears that a paraphrase of consequentialism would be "The end justifies the means", and I can't even remotely agree with that, for numerous reasons. On the surface I would say consequentialism may even be inherently intellectually dishonest/bankrupt, as pursuing ends without considering the actual effects of the means (or the effects of the ends, and therefore the end itself in either case) is not intellectual at all.
"We are going to do X to achieve Y." When pressed for how X will achieve Y (or why Y is desirable in the first place), the consequentialist turns to mysticism
You know that David Friedman is a consequentialist, right?
Dak
mentat
I did say they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm really not that familiar with David Friedman, other than a couple videos of his speeches. At least he's not a monetarist (far as I know).
"We should do this, and the outcome is/will be good by default, because we did right" vs "We should do this, because the outcome will be good, because of what we are doing."
From that generalized perspective it is easy to synthesize. The problems come in when you start ignoring cause and just focusing on effects. It's cart-before-the-horse thinking. To borrow from that other thread, "What should be done about homeless people" is consequentialistic, and assumes volumes. It is not the right question to start with. Instead: "Why are there homeless people?", and then "Why should/could something be done?" and if something should/could be done, revert back to the first question to formulate a plan of action.
Consequentialism would seem to feed an approach that says: "Homeless people are homeless because they don't have homes (and we should do something about it). Give them homes, problem solved!" Very shallow and incredibly assumptive.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Those who accept any part of Kants philosophy - metaphysical, epistemological or moral, deserve it.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Dak
mentat
That could be taken either way.
@Zeph. I find it interesting that Nietzsche also appears to operate from a position of individualism. They Kant (hur hur) be that far apart.
Of course, the problem with taking deontology to extremes would be authoritarianism, which is not exclusive to either school. The deontological authoritarian rules you because of some theoretical order/rules, and the consequentialist authoritarian rules you "for the common good", or whatever.
Similar threads
