Mark D. White

Jonathan B. Wight

Superfreakonomics has received a lot of criticism for its lapses in science.  But there's a larger philosophical issue, which is how the authors see the role of technocrats in policy making.  For example, in discussing global warming, the authors propose a geo-engineering solution, e.g., causing man-made volcanic-like cloud eruptions to block the sun's rays. 

Levitt and Dubner write, “Once you eliminate the moralism
and the angst, the task of reversing global warming boils down to a straightforward
engineering problem.”

Ahhh!!!  It's so simple!  It's just engineering!  I thought
public policy actually involved serious discussion about ethical frameworks,
about goals, about acceptable means–economics as a social science. 

It’s
nice to see that these authors have cut to the chase, and can tell us exactly
what we should wish to value (wealth maximization) and how to achieve it.  Who needs ethics?

The American Economic Association’s Commission on Graduate
Education warned in the early 1990s that programs were producing “idiot savants, skilled in technique but
innocent of real economic issues.”^[1]  Hmmm…. 
when did Levitt earn his PhD?

Real economic issues come as bundles of intersecting and
often conflicting moral demands.  The
thesis of this website is that:

·                          
Ethical considerations play a role in the
formulation of economic theories and research programs.  Science is not value free.

·                          
Ethical considerations play a role in the
choices of economic agents and in the outcomes of economic processes.  Doing positive economics requires some
knowledge of and attention to ethical systems.

·                          
Choice of goals (e.g., wealth versus other
goals) and non-goal oriented ethical frameworks inform debate about public
policies.

The glib and shallow way in which the Superfreakonomics authors deal with public policies is super disappointing.