DOC PREVIEW
OU PHIL 1273 - Critique of Utilitarian Position within the Market

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

PHIL 1273 1st Edition Lecture 13 Outline of Last Lecture I. Ethics of MarketsA. Markets and JusticeB. “Free Market Army” CaseC. Moral Justifications of the Free MarketD. Utilitarianism and the MarketOutline of Current Lecture I. Utilitarianism in the MarketA. Utilitarian Justifications for the MarketB. Critique of the Utilitarian PositionCurrent LectureI. Utilitarianism in the MarketA. Utilitarian Justifications for the Market1. In free exchange, both parties give up what they want less to gain what they want more, thus both parties have their preferences satisfied2. Preference satisfaction is the gooda. So the consequence of free exchange is goodb. So the exchange is morally rightc. So the system of exchange (the market) is morally rightB. Critique of the Utilitarian Position1. Hausman and McPherson readinga. “When economists go beyond identifying consequences of policies to making recommendations, they typically rely on a theory in which the only normative concern is welfare and its distribution and that mistakenly identifies welfare with the satisfaction of preferences. Their advice about how to increase welfare must accordingly be regarded with caution, and policy makers must not forget that increasing welfare should not be their only goal.” – p. 16b. Not exactly dealing with the market, rather dealing with social policyi. Should public benefits be in cash or “in-kind”?ii. This class does not deal with this issue, but it is interested in the ideas H and M use in their argument2. Argument for cash benefitsa. Cash allows recipient to satisfy preferencesThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.i. In-kind benefits might not be what recipient actually wantsmostii. Utilitarian idea: preference satisfaction equals the goodiii. Thus, the right thing to do is to give in cashb. What is wrong with the argument for cash?i. H and M say that preference satisfaction does not equal the good—not even good for the individual, although, in general, it is to attain preferencesii. People cannot define the good as preference satisfaction- People want things that are bad for them and do not want things that are good for them for all kinds of reasons, including addiction, psychology, and false belief- There are standards of good independent of individual’s preferencesiii. If the good does not equal preference satisfaction, there is no reason to given in cash over in-kind benefitsc. Objection: this leads to paternalism (and coercion)i. Paternalism: “father” knows what is best and has the right to impose itii. H and M response- Agree that coercion is wrong- Does not follow that letting people be free to attain wants is actually good for them- “Father” might actually be right even if coercion is wrongd. Two distinct objections to paternalismi. Utilitarianism- Hinders preference satisfaction, which is the good, or the goal of moralityii. Kantianism- People must respect people autonomy- This is more important than good or bad consequences- One can view something as bad for someone elseto attain as a desire but sustain respect for that person’s autonomy regardless- H and M include Kantian ideaso “Although the value of freedom lurks inarticulately within the standard economic argument for cash benefits, the argument remains within the terms setby orthodox economic theory. There is no mention of opportunity, of rights or of fairness.” – p. 193. H and M’s last argument questions the goal of increasing well-beinga. They are not talking about the market but about government policyb. They say the moral goal is not simply to increase the goodc. One can apply their ideas to arguments about the marketd. Market justified because it increases the good (as seen in preference satisfaction), but there are other moral considerations beyond increasing the good as it is


View Full Document

OU PHIL 1273 - Critique of Utilitarian Position within the Market

Download Critique of Utilitarian Position within the Market
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Critique of Utilitarian Position within the Market and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Critique of Utilitarian Position within the Market 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?