Daron Acemoglu: belief

Transcript context

…That’s a good answer, but is it an answer to the question? If we’re Sidgwick, we might say, when values clash, we look to utility, or maybe it’d be cost-benefit analysis to decide which gets priority. You’re not willing to say that, so why not? What’s wrong with that answer? Let me start with what’s wrong with a general-will type answer—I’m simplifying it—but I would say in a general-will type of approach is that we have a book in our hand which says when values clash and when there’s something, here is a higher value and we’re going to follow that. Ultimately, even though he’s a true liberal, John Rawls also goes into that direction. Now, you might think utilitarianism avoids that because it says, “No, we don’t have a book. All we do is we turn everything to utils and then we compare those utils.” Who decides how to compare, how to turn things into utils? When there are externalities that are important? There again needs to be a book. I don’t like that book because who decides what that book is and how can we be certain that book exists? That’s why once we have the building blocks of individual liberty, then I think we have to go back to society and seek consensus on what our temporary book should be. There’s a lot of talk in your book about what you call working-class liberalism, but say today in America, what exactly is working class? Household income, it’s almost six figures. Percentage working in manufacturing, it’s what, 8 percent to 9 percent. Private sector unions are very small. Is this even a meaningful notion today, the working class?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.