Over at BHL, Kevin Vallier asks why are economists so consequentialist in their thinking? In answering his question, he suggests that subjecitivism and consequentialism are in conflict with one another, and he would choose subjectivism.
Do you think that is accurate?
My own opinion is that Kevin is confusing normative decision theory, with descriptive decision theory, as well as individual level of analysis with system level analysis. It is always useful to distinguish between decision making, market theory, and welfare implications, on the one hand, and positive analytics and normative analysis on the the other.
I believe that once we clarify these different issues, the tensions that Kevin identifies fade in significance. Do you think that is correct, or just wishful thinking by an economist who is refusing to see the philosophical conundrum?