Comments on: Moral Philosophy and Economic Growth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: BillKorner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7418 BillKorner Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:05:16 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7418 Yes, Hirsch is indispensible as I think Friedman agrees. One reason philosophers have not emphasized the importance of economic growth is that its importance is too uncontroversial. A better question, I think, is why philosophers have not taken more part in analyzing economic theories of what economic growth is and what's so good about it. This is where the rubber really hits the road in deciding how growth figures into a social welfare function. And I think that philosophers have something to contribute to understanding the nature of such a function and the relation between its role in welfare economics and social policy making. Yes, Hirsch is indispensible as I think Friedman agrees.

One reason philosophers have not emphasized the importance of economic growth is that its importance is too uncontroversial.

A better question, I think, is why philosophers have not taken more part in analyzing economic theories of what economic growth is and what’s so good about it. This is where the rubber really hits the road in deciding how growth figures into a social welfare function. And I think that philosophers have something to contribute to understanding the nature of such a function and the relation between its role in welfare economics and social policy making.

]]> By: BillKorner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7452 BillKorner Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:05:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7452 Yes, Hirsch is indispensible as I think Friedman agrees. One reason philosophers have not emphasized the importance of economic growth is that its importance is too uncontroversial. A better question, I think, is why philosophers have not taken more part in analyzing economic theories of what economic growth is and what's so good about it. This is where the rubber really hits the road in deciding how growth figures into a social welfare function. And I think that philosophers have something to contribute to understanding the nature of such a function and the relation between its role in welfare economics and social policy making. Yes, Hirsch is indispensible as I think Friedman agrees.

One reason philosophers have not emphasized the importance of economic growth is that its importance is too uncontroversial.

A better question, I think, is why philosophers have not taken more part in analyzing economic theories of what economic growth is and what’s so good about it. This is where the rubber really hits the road in deciding how growth figures into a social welfare function. And I think that philosophers have something to contribute to understanding the nature of such a function and the relation between its role in welfare economics and social policy making.

]]> By: Joe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7417 Joe Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:55:58 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7417 Hi. Interesting discussion. By happenstance I stumbled upon your site. I am a recent graduate in Philosophy and Poli Sci, I studied Egalitarianism extensively for my senior thesis and will soon be applying to go to grad school. I have two books that might or might not add to this debate. One is "The Limits of Social Growth", by Fred Hirsch. His main argument that there is social, not physical limits to economic growth. There is a disjunct between material and positional goods, and Hirsch separates these very adroitly. Its a great read. Two, Amartya Sen wrote a great work called "Developement as Freedom". I have only browsed through it, so I have nothing really to add other than it touches on some of the themes here. With economic growth, there is always the murky waters of defining what is "good" for an individual, and how material and positional goods fit into that discussion. Absolute scales don't always work for assigning "value" to goods, so while having more might mean a higher material value, it might not correlate to a higher positional value, or vice versa. Rousseauian paradoxes abound! I love it. Thanks for the time. Hi. Interesting discussion. By happenstance I stumbled upon your site. I am a recent graduate in Philosophy and Poli Sci, I studied Egalitarianism extensively for my senior thesis and will soon be applying to go to grad school. I have two books that might or might not add to this debate. One is “The Limits of Social Growth”, by Fred Hirsch. His main argument that there is social, not physical limits to economic growth. There is a disjunct between material and positional goods, and Hirsch separates these very adroitly. Its a great read.
Two, Amartya Sen wrote a great work called “Developement as Freedom”. I have only browsed through it, so I have nothing really to add other than it touches on some of the themes here.
With economic growth, there is always the murky waters of defining what is “good” for an individual, and how material and positional goods fit into that discussion. Absolute scales don’t always work for assigning “value” to goods, so while having more might mean a higher material value, it might not correlate to a higher positional value, or vice versa.
Rousseauian paradoxes abound! I love it. Thanks for the time.

]]> By: Joe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7451 Joe Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:55:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7451 Hi. Interesting discussion. By happenstance I stumbled upon your site. I am a recent graduate in Philosophy and Poli Sci, I studied Egalitarianism extensively for my senior thesis and will soon be applying to go to grad school. I have two books that might or might not add to this debate. One is "The Limits of Social Growth", by Fred Hirsch. His main argument that there is social, not physical limits to economic growth. There is a disjunct between material and positional goods, and Hirsch separates these very adroitly. Its a great read. Two, Amartya Sen wrote a great work called "Developement as Freedom". I have only browsed through it, so I have nothing really to add other than it touches on some of the themes here. With economic growth, there is always the murky waters of defining what is "good" for an individual, and how material and positional goods fit into that discussion. Absolute scales don't always work for assigning "value" to goods, so while having more might mean a higher material value, it might not correlate to a higher positional value, or vice versa. Rousseauian paradoxes abound! I love it. Thanks for the time. Hi. Interesting discussion. By happenstance I stumbled upon your site. I am a recent graduate in Philosophy and Poli Sci, I studied Egalitarianism extensively for my senior thesis and will soon be applying to go to grad school. I have two books that might or might not add to this debate. One is “The Limits of Social Growth”, by Fred Hirsch. His main argument that there is social, not physical limits to economic growth. There is a disjunct between material and positional goods, and Hirsch separates these very adroitly. Its a great read.
Two, Amartya Sen wrote a great work called “Developement as Freedom”. I have only browsed through it, so I have nothing really to add other than it touches on some of the themes here.
With economic growth, there is always the murky waters of defining what is “good” for an individual, and how material and positional goods fit into that discussion. Absolute scales don’t always work for assigning “value” to goods, so while having more might mean a higher material value, it might not correlate to a higher positional value, or vice versa.
Rousseauian paradoxes abound! I love it. Thanks for the time.

]]> By: Russ Hicks http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7416 Russ Hicks Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:46:56 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7416 I thought of a book I own but haven't read, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak. A quick check of "economic growth" in the index led to a couple of places where he asserts that economic growth is necessary for democracy, but he doesn't really develop an argument on this at least where I checked... I thought of a book I own but haven’t read, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak. A quick check of “economic growth” in the index led to a couple of places where he asserts that economic growth is necessary for democracy, but he doesn’t really develop an argument on this at least where I checked…

]]> By: Russ Hicks http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7450 Russ Hicks Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:46:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7450 I thought of a book I own but haven't read, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak. A quick check of "economic growth" in the index led to a couple of places where he asserts that economic growth is necessary for democracy, but he doesn't really develop an argument on this at least where I checked... I thought of a book I own but haven’t read, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak. A quick check of “economic growth” in the index led to a couple of places where he asserts that economic growth is necessary for democracy, but he doesn’t really develop an argument on this at least where I checked…

]]> By: Francois Tremblay http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7415 Francois Tremblay Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:50:36 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7415 Here is the URL to the answer I posted on my blog : http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/02/morality-of-growth.html My basic point is that the question is too restrictive. Here is the URL to the answer I posted on my blog :
http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/02/morality-of-growth.html

My basic point is that the question is too restrictive.

]]> By: Francois Tremblay http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7449 Francois Tremblay Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:50:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7449 Here is the URL to the answer I posted on my blog : http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/02/morality-of-growth.html My basic point is that the question is too restrictive. Here is the URL to the answer I posted on my blog :
http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/02/morality-of-growth.html

My basic point is that the question is too restrictive.

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7414 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:38:33 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7414 Yeah, I'll put 5 dollars down! (I figured the nanotech joke referced a book maybe tyler cowen or you made fun of a while back.) Yeah, I’ll put 5 dollars down!

(I figured the nanotech joke referced a book maybe tyler cowen or you made fun of a while back.)

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7448 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:38:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7448 Yeah, I'll put 5 dollars down! (I figured the nanotech joke referced a book maybe tyler cowen or you made fun of a while back.) Yeah, I’ll put 5 dollars down!

(I figured the nanotech joke referced a book maybe tyler cowen or you made fun of a while back.)

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7413 Will Wilkinson Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:47:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7413 Tim, The nanotech part was a joke. But I'll put five bucks on it against catastrophic global warming! Tim, The nanotech part was a joke. But I’ll put five bucks on it against catastrophic global warming!

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7447 Will Wilkinson Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:47:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7447 Tim, The nanotech part was a joke. But I'll put five bucks on it against catastrophic global warming! Tim, The nanotech part was a joke. But I’ll put five bucks on it against catastrophic global warming!

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7412 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:04:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7412 "I am shocked because there does not appear to be a single major work on the morally mandatory character of improving the quantity and quality of holdings and life options, which, on its face, strikes me as a lot more important." Well, even if this improvment is more important than equality, meeting basic needs (sufficiency) for all seems a lot more urgent than this improvement. If these two conflict, I do not see how pursuing the improvement for some/many people is "morally mandatory". “I am shocked because there does not appear to be a single major work on the morally mandatory character of improving the quantity and quality of holdings and life options, which, on its face, strikes me as a lot more important.”

Well, even if this improvment is more important than equality, meeting basic needs (sufficiency) for all seems a lot more urgent than this improvement. If these two conflict, I do not see how pursuing the improvement for some/many people is “morally mandatory”.

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7446 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:04:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7446 "I am shocked because there does not appear to be a single major work on the morally mandatory character of improving the quantity and quality of holdings and life options, which, on its face, strikes me as a lot more important." Well, even if this improvment is more important than equality, meeting basic needs (sufficiency) for all seems a lot more urgent than this improvement. If these two conflict, I do not see how pursuing the improvement for some/many people is "morally mandatory". “I am shocked because there does not appear to be a single major work on the morally mandatory character of improving the quantity and quality of holdings and life options, which, on its face, strikes me as a lot more important.”

Well, even if this improvment is more important than equality, meeting basic needs (sufficiency) for all seems a lot more urgent than this improvement. If these two conflict, I do not see how pursuing the improvement for some/many people is “morally mandatory”.

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/26/moral-philosophy-and-economic-growth/#comment-7411 Tim Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:29:23 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=882#comment-7411 That should be "eternal middle age" not "external middle age". That should be “eternal middle age” not “external middle age”.

]]>