There has been a timeless debate throughout economic history on the perfect model of ethical economics. Possibly the most famous result of this debate has been Socialism and classical Marxism. These are two theories that are based on corroboration and economic liberation as a means to expand economic productivity, as opposed to the emphasis on entrepreneurship and competition in a capitalist system. Despite a slight revival in recent decades, Social economic thought has mainly disappeared as a serious and actionable system, and thus those interested in applied ethics in economics have been forced to turn their view to the capital system that most individuals practice today (with notable exceptions, thanks for keeping leftist debate alive, Žižek). One of the more popular applied ethical schools of thought amongst academics today is preference utilitarianism, spearheaded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Preference utilitarianism argues that every given action should be weighted in a moral sense based on how well it fulfills the personal interests of as many people as possible. As it pertains to capitalist economic theory, preference utilitarianism has mainly been applied to the utility of welfare. 

Preference Utilitarianism and capitalism are quite a good match. One of the main draws of capitalism to a labor-rights oriented thinker (if such capitalist thinkers really exist enmasse) is likely the freedom of autonomy to work where one chooses, given the demand exists. One’s occupation is usually based on preference when in a market system, while in non-market social systems, one’s occupation is likely exclusively based on necessity and demand (as it appears to economic planners). Preference Utilitarianism is predicated on the idea that individual preferences are unique and that they should be fulfilled, something that a planned economy can simply not account for on the basis that it sees ultimate utility as a measure of basic standard of living metrics. Thinkers like Harsanyi argue that a society based in liberty is the one that allows for the widest range of preferences to be met. This is because no state that exists within reason can have the apparatus to understand and complete every individual’s preferences with the same level of care that an individual could (this is an abstraction, even if a government could exist at this size, the odds that it would attempt to be so caring for every individual is only slightly non-zero). 

In a practical sense, Preference Utilitarianism (as well as classical Utilitarianism) can be applied to the role of the economy, as well as that of welfare. From a Preference Utilitarian perspective, the goal of the economy is to maximize the capability of individuals to fulfill their preferences, rather than to maximize profit and operational efficiency. Despite this, these goals can be linked. From a Preference Utilitarian point of view, capital, more than labor, is the most effective means for someone to achieve their preferences (because capital is scalable). Thus, one might intertwine the previously stated goals to say that the objective of a Preference Utilitarian based economy is the maximization of capital generation for each individual by virtue that they will futile their preferences given the financial means to do so. The application of welfare is a similar one. Welfare is a powerful tool of the government, but is normally not applied effectively. Disregarding bureaucratic waste, this is because those who allocate welfare can simply not account for all unique preferences. Thus, welfare should be given simply in the form of liquid capital, as the individual will fulfill their preference how they choose, thus maximizing hedonistic metrics. A common criticism of this is that often an individual’s preferences are self-destructive and or irrational. For example, someone may use a welfare check to purchase alcohol. This is obviously not beneficial to their long term health, but it was simply their preference. There are two arguments to be made in favor of this person’s purchase from a preference utilitarianism standpoint (however, this is by no means an endorsement of alcoholism). The first would be that the goal of the welfare check was not to ensure that the individual protects their long term interest, but rather to gain satisfaction from their preferences, whatever they may be. As stated earlier, what is one person’s preference is not universal, the government can not invest in someone’s long term preference, if they can not effectively measure what they are. The second would be a general argument in favor of the free market as well as welfare economics. This is the “rational choice” theory, which assumes that most people will make a logical choice for their satisfaction and situation, leading to a net positive aggregate result. 

In the current economic zeitgeist, it can be easy to lose hope that a system that attempts to achieve individual well-being is realistically possible. It seems as though there is a frightening indifference towards suffering. Deaths nowadays are seen as statistics, not an individual world being lost. Pain is so normalized. The vast majority of Preference Utilitarians don’t generally deal with the macro-economic implications, rather, they believe that the most important theory in Preference Utilitarianism is that just as much as the government has a responsibility to use its resources to assist its citizens, people have a responsibility to assist each other. 

Peter Singer, who is–as mentioned–the most notable proponent of utilitarianism today, does not generally talk about the thought’s marco-economic applications, but rather its micro ones. In his work Practical Ethics, he says, “As many as 1.2 billion people — or 23 percent of the world’s population — live in absolute poverty…”Absolute poverty is defined as ‘the lack of sufficient income in cash or kind to meet the most basic biological needs for food, clothing, and shelter.’ Absolute poverty is probably the principal cause of human misery today… The problem is not that the world cannot produce enough to feed and shelter its people…  the problem is essentially one of distribution rather than production… we cannot avoid concluding that by not giving more than we do, people in rich countries are allowing those in poor countries to suffer from absolute poverty… each of us [with the means to do so] has the opportunity to do something about the situation; for instance, to give our time or money.” While this may seem unrelated to preference Utilitarianism, it is because of the belief that net-good is defined by the fulfilling of personal preference, that it is a moral imperative that those who can fulfill at least some of their preference should give to others who can fulfill none of it. If and until there is a society in which every individual has the means to fulfill their preference, remember that you can likely help at least one person get closer to at least material fulfillment.