As an economist, I’m trained to apply positive models and empirical methods to (hopefully) illuminate important phenomena in the real world. That is what I want to do in this blog, preferably in an engaging and helpful fashion.
But what really interests me is the moral groundwork of public policy analysis. Unfortunately, my fellow Pileus bloggers know far more than about moral philosophy than I. Fortunately for me, moral philosophy has accomplished precious little in the past three millennia , so I am not that far behind.
So, what do I think a moral groundwork should consist of? Here is my view. I will call it Sven’s Principles of Public Morality:
* Human autonomy and freedom must lie at the bedrock of any human society that has a claim of moral legitimacy.
*All human beings have equal moral value.
* Any moral system that ignores the centrality of human happiness and flourishing is fundamentally silly. (Technical terms such as “silly” will not be defined at this point).
* Freedom without responsibility does not lead to human flourishing, though it can lead to a lot of fun.
* The factors determining human happiness and human flourishing vary across individuals, but the most important determinants are human relationships.
* Communities can have strong instrumental value in producing a society of free, responsible, and happy individuals.
* The idea that communities have non-instrumental value, meaning they contain something worth promoting independent of the people belonging to or affected by the community, is very silly (not to mention the whole slippery-slope to totalitarianism thing).
* Similarly, the State can be a useful concept with instrumental value as long as we remember that it does not really exist. People exist.
* Other intellectual constructs such as “social contracts” or the “state of nature” can be useful, but only to the extent that they are not used to obstruct moral principles, such as the equal moral value of all human beings.
* Some notion of positive liberty is useful, even necessary. However, public policy should generally be concerned with negative liberty (freedom from coercion) and avoid the explicit promotion of positive liberty (the capability to act).
* Limited coercive power is necessary in a free society. But citizens should be greatly concerned about any concentration or use of coercive power.
* Morality is not the product of the biological or natural world, even though many moral norms often make sense from an evolutionary perspective. Indeed, many natural human tendencies are profoundly immoral.
* Moral reasoning requires the specification of true moral axioms. Otherwise, we are just playing games.
* As far as I can tell, my moral axioms are the true ones—though I reserve the right to change my mind.
Fundamentally, a policy analysis focused on justice and right is about weighing and balancing core public values—liberty, utility, equality, community. So I have no patience with those who say I have to pick just one value and run with that. To be useful and relevant moral philosophy must acknowledge the need for balancing. Determining the appropriate public policy that accounts for all these principles is not a simple endeavor.
Now some would say that these propositions are not internally consistent, ignore a variety of nuances, and rely on different philosophical traditions (or no tradition at all). Others might say we would need a lifetime to define and discuss all the terms used and how they relate to one another. But I don’t care. I want them all.
Read Full Post »