Rejoinder to Block on indifference
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper is a rejoinder to Block’s (2022) response to Wysocki’s (Wysocki, 2021) essay on Nozick’s challenge leveled at Austrian economics. Instead of merely reiterating Wysocki’s (Wysocki, 2021) position, we try to highlight that the Blockean account of indifference and preference entails the views which are otherwise unwelcome, given his unyielding commitment to Austrian economics at large. To wit, we argue that Block’s theory still fails to make sense of the law of diminishing marginal utility. Moreover, his extreme idea of choice, sadly, appears to jettison characteristically Austrian subjectivism and thus perilously verges on behaviourism. We conclude that, given all these predicaments the Blockean account is caught in, Block himself (qua Austrian) has a reason to embrace the Hoppean theory of preference and indifference.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Block, W., 2022. Response to Wysocki on indifference. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce), (72), pp.37–62. Available at: <https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/article/view/578> [visited on 25 September 2024].
Block, W.E., 2009. Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 12(1), pp.52–59. Available at: <http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_4.pdf> [visited on 15 September 2022].
Broome, J., 1991. Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publ.
Davidson, D., 2001. Agency. Essays on Actions and Events. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.43–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246270.003.0003.
Hausman, D.M., 2011. Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare. 1st ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058537.
Hayek, F.A.v., 1952. The Counter-Revolution of Science. Glencoe: Free Press.
Hoppe, H.-H., 2005. Must Austrians embrace indifference? Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 8(4), pp.87–91. Available at: <https://mises.org/library/must-austrians-embrace-indifference> [visited on 15 September 2022].
Mises, L.v., 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Scholar’s ed. Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Moore, J., 2001. On Distinguishing Methodological from Radical Behaviorism. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(2), pp.221–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434196.
Moore, M.S., 1993. Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and its Implications for Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore, M.S., 2020. Mechanical Choices: The Responsibility of the Human Machine. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Rothbard, M., 1997. Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics. The Logic of Action: I. Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Economists of the twentieth century. Cheltenham [etc.]: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.211–254. Available at: <https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1> [visited on 9 January 2023].
Wysocki, I., 2021. The problem of indifference and homogeneity in Austrian economics: Nozick’s challenge revisited. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce), (71), pp.9–44. Available at: <https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/article/view/554> [visited on 24 January 2022].