Response to Wysocki’s Rejoinder to Block on indifference
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Wysocki (2024) is a critique of Block (2022). The present paper is a response to the former. We are in effect debating the best reaction to Nozick (1977) which criticized Austrian economics on the ground that it makes two claims that are incompatible with one another. On the one hand, the praxeological school is noted for its aversion to the concept of indifference. On the other hand, the Austrian school also accepts supply and demand curves, and diminishing marginal utility. These three concepts imply homogeneous elements that comprise them. But if they are truly homogeneous, people ought to be indifferent between the different elements of them. Hence, the tension, not to say logical contradiction, in this perspective. Block (1980) was an attempt to respond to Nozick (1977). Hoppe (2005a,b; 2009) and Wysocki (2016; 2017; 2021; 2024) who supports Hoppe, maintain that Block’s refutation of Nozick (1977) was not efficacious at all, at worst, or at best, certainly not fully successful.
Specifically, Wysocki maintains that there is a bifurcation between choosing and preferring; for example, no one is even aware of which foot goes first when entering a restaurant, and, yet, one has to make a choice about it. He avers that it is entirely possible to prefer to save either son, equally, while actually picking one, and not the other.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Barnett, W., 2003. The modern theory of consumer behavior: Ordinal or cardinal? The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 6(1), pp.41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-003-1012-4.
Block, W., 2007. Reply to Caplan on Austrian economic methodology. Corporate Ownership and Control, 4(3), pp.312–322. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv4i3c2p8.
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. and Wysocki, I., 2018. A defense of Rothbard on the demand curve against Hudik’s critique. Acta Economica et Turistica, 4(1), pp.47–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/aet-2018-0004.
Block, W.E., 1980. On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian methodology’. Inquiry, 23(4), pp.397–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748008601918.
Block, W.E., 1999. Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(4), pp.21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-999-1029-4.
Block, W.E., 2003. Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 6(3), pp.63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-003-1024-0.
Block, W.E., 2009a. 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].
Block, W.E., 2009b. Rejoinder to Machaj on indifference. New Perspectives on Political Economy, 5(1), pp.65–71.
Block, W.E., 2012. Response to Ben O’Neill on indifference. Dialogue, (2), pp.76–93. Available at: <https://dlib.uni-svishtov.bg/bitstream/handle/10610/2380/DialogueBook2eng2012_76_93.pdf> [visited on 15 September 2022].
Block, W.E., 2019. Rejoinder to Wysocki on Indifference and the Block-Hoppe Debate. Dialogue, 4, pp.1–7. Available at: <https://www2.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/title.asp?lang=en&title=1461> [visited on 25 September 2024].
Block, W.E. and Barnett II, W., 2010. Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again. Reason Papers, 32, pp.141–154. Available at: <http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf> [visited on 15 September 2022].
Caplan, B., 1999. The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations. Southern Economic Journal, 65(4), pp.823–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1061278.
Caplan, B., 2001. Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hülsmann and Block. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 4(2), pp.69–86.
Caplan, B., 2003. Probability and the synthetic a Priori: A reply to block. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 6(3), pp.77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-003-1025-z.
Caplan, B., 2008. The Trojan Horse Example. Available at: <https://www.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/the_trojan_hors.html> [visited on 25 September 2024].
Hoppe, H.-H., 2005a. A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 8(4), pp.87–91. Available at: <https://cdn.mises.org/qjae8_4_6.pdf> [visited on 20 September 2024].
Hoppe, H.-H., 2005b. 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].
Hoppe, H.-H., 2009. Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 12(1), pp.60–64. Available at: <https://cdn.mises.org/qjae12_1_5.pdf> [visited on 15 September 2022].
Hülsmann, J.G., 1999. Economic Science and Neoclassicism. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(4), pp.3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-999-1028-5.
Machaj, M., 2007. A praxeological case for homogeneity and indifference. New Perspectives on Political Economy, 3(2), pp.231–238.
Nozick, R., 1977. On Austrian Methodology. Synthese, 36(3), pp.353–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00486025.
O’Neill, B., 2010. Choice and Indifference: A Critique of the Strict Preference Approach. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 13(1), pp.71–98.
Rothbard, M., 2011. Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics. The Logic of Action: I. Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Economists of the twentieth century. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp.289–333. Available at: <https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1>.
Sotelo, J.A.M.A. and Block, W.E., 2014. Indifference Curve Analysis: The Correct and the Incorrect. Oeconomia Copernicana, 5(4), pp.7–43. https://doi.org/10.12775/OeC.2014.025.
Wysocki, I., 2016. Indifference – in defense of orthodoxy. Societas et Ius, (5), pp.15–30. https://doi.org/10.12775/SEI.2016.002.
Wysocki, I., 2017. A Note on Block-Hoppe Debate on Indifference. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 20(4), pp.360–365. Available at: <https://mises.org/library/note-block-hoppe-debate-indifference> [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].
Wysocki, I., 2024. Rejoinder to Block on Indifference. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce), (76), 49–50. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.76.624.
Wysocki, I. and Block, W., 2017. Caplan on Probability: A Critique. Dialogue, 3, pp.1–11. Available at: <https://econpapers.repec.org/article/datdialog/y_3a2017_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a1-11.htm> [visited on 25 September 2024].
Wysocki, I. and Block, W., 2018. An analysis of the supply curve: does it depict homogeneity among its constituent elements? Another rejoinder to Nozick. MEST Journal, 6(1), pp.132–143. https://doi.org/10.12709/mest.06.06.01.14.
Wysocki, I. and Block, W., 2019. Homogeneity, Heterogeneity, the Supply Curve, and Consumer Theory. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 21(4), pp.398–416. https://doi.org/10.35297/qja.010004.
Wysocki, I. and Block, W., 2020. Crovelli on Probability: A Critique. Revista Procesos de Mercado, 17(2), pp.245–272. https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v17i2.104.
Wysocki, I. and Block, W.E., 2022. A Rejoinder to Crovelli’s “The Courtiers of Confusion”. Revista Procesos de Mercado. https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v19i2.822.