Your piece gets to the heart of the 'common good' debates. When economists wade into philosophizing, ideological or personal preferences can end up cloaked in the analytical rigor of economics. The reverse is also true. Non-economists often discount or twist the analytical insights of economics in support of a particular set of moral or policy ends. I like the art in this piece! I think a good first step is for each to be in dialogue, respecting the limits of their expertise and methods. then true interdisciplinary work MAY emerge. Many examples of this being poorly done.
Yes, philosophers have failed, but true interdisciplinary engagement is very hard. And the social status differences between philosophers and economists (which vary from culture to culture) create a special complication. Look at the way Harvard Law School seemed for decades largely impervious to the goings-on of a Harvard philosophy department that included the likes of Rawls, Nozick, Scanlon, Korsgaard, etc.
yeah this is right, too, on my view. i think that true interdisciplinary engagement, in the sense of excellent people from different valuable disciplines talking with each other about important questions, and sharing their different kinds of methodological expertise, is VERY rare. but i am lucky to work somewhere where i do get to experience it every day.
Thank for your writing. I'm uncertain about the boundaries and the status of "moral facts". Do these exist only for human beings, and no other creatures? If so, how is this justified? When in our evolution did this become the case for only humans? Can you state an example of a moral fact? Would "murder is immoral" be one? Would the killing involved in warfare then always be immoral?
How about when it happens in the setting of an agonistic conflict of some other sort, in conflict over some particular resources? How does one draw a line that will separate the objectively immoral from the merely unfortunate consequences of our competition over valued resources? I apologize for my ignorance on these questions and realize that they probably cannot be answered briefly. Thanks.
Abstract arguments against liberalism are becoming more commonplace across disciplines and in think tanks. And shockingly, they tend to come from people with a poor understanding of the liberal tradition.
If liberal philosophers are too quiet and don’t confront these arguments publicly, then more people will turn against liberalism. You can see it already on the right, where poor critiques of liberalism haven’t been properly dealt with, and now large numbers of conservatives consciously think that liberalism is a failed, left wing ideology. The only redeeming aspect of the left in this regard is that most illiberal political commentators on the left seem completely oblivious to the fact that they are abandoning liberalism. And so the average person at least isn’t consciously opposing it.
This seems like a situation where AI can be very helpful. Not as a plug-and-play substitute for multidisciplinary education, but as a safety net for incomplete thoughts and potentially interesting threads. If the incentives for interdisciplinary engagement aren’t aligned with practical realities, then AI is a low cost testing ground for thinking outside one’s own boxes.
Is it possible that Acemoglu is right about values? Do ALL philosophers agree that values are objective? Do even a majority of them see things that way?
they don't all agree that by any means! but most get that it is an important debate to be had, rather than something you slide into (or even slide over) via an entirely different debate.. that's the point i'm making here
Your piece gets to the heart of the 'common good' debates. When economists wade into philosophizing, ideological or personal preferences can end up cloaked in the analytical rigor of economics. The reverse is also true. Non-economists often discount or twist the analytical insights of economics in support of a particular set of moral or policy ends. I like the art in this piece! I think a good first step is for each to be in dialogue, respecting the limits of their expertise and methods. then true interdisciplinary work MAY emerge. Many examples of this being poorly done.
thank you! i couldn't agree more re importance of, and route to, true interdisciplinary work -- i feel very lucky that we get to do this every day!
Yes, philosophers have failed, but true interdisciplinary engagement is very hard. And the social status differences between philosophers and economists (which vary from culture to culture) create a special complication. Look at the way Harvard Law School seemed for decades largely impervious to the goings-on of a Harvard philosophy department that included the likes of Rawls, Nozick, Scanlon, Korsgaard, etc.
yeah this is right, too, on my view. i think that true interdisciplinary engagement, in the sense of excellent people from different valuable disciplines talking with each other about important questions, and sharing their different kinds of methodological expertise, is VERY rare. but i am lucky to work somewhere where i do get to experience it every day.
delighted to hear it, because genuine interdisciplinarity is very rare, and there are many incentives against it in academia.
agreed! it is special
Thank for your writing. I'm uncertain about the boundaries and the status of "moral facts". Do these exist only for human beings, and no other creatures? If so, how is this justified? When in our evolution did this become the case for only humans? Can you state an example of a moral fact? Would "murder is immoral" be one? Would the killing involved in warfare then always be immoral?
How about when it happens in the setting of an agonistic conflict of some other sort, in conflict over some particular resources? How does one draw a line that will separate the objectively immoral from the merely unfortunate consequences of our competition over valued resources? I apologize for my ignorance on these questions and realize that they probably cannot be answered briefly. Thanks.
Abstract arguments against liberalism are becoming more commonplace across disciplines and in think tanks. And shockingly, they tend to come from people with a poor understanding of the liberal tradition.
If liberal philosophers are too quiet and don’t confront these arguments publicly, then more people will turn against liberalism. You can see it already on the right, where poor critiques of liberalism haven’t been properly dealt with, and now large numbers of conservatives consciously think that liberalism is a failed, left wing ideology. The only redeeming aspect of the left in this regard is that most illiberal political commentators on the left seem completely oblivious to the fact that they are abandoning liberalism. And so the average person at least isn’t consciously opposing it.
This seems like a situation where AI can be very helpful. Not as a plug-and-play substitute for multidisciplinary education, but as a safety net for incomplete thoughts and potentially interesting threads. If the incentives for interdisciplinary engagement aren’t aligned with practical realities, then AI is a low cost testing ground for thinking outside one’s own boxes.
Is it possible that Acemoglu is right about values? Do ALL philosophers agree that values are objective? Do even a majority of them see things that way?
they don't all agree that by any means! but most get that it is an important debate to be had, rather than something you slide into (or even slide over) via an entirely different debate.. that's the point i'm making here