Absolutist, Utilitarian and Egalitarians

 Economics presents a tormenting catalog of problems, with Mill's problem topping the list. In addition, these problems encompass a particular theoretical significance because of the associations that exists between economics and ethics, as well as between economics and the theory of rationality. Economics is occasionally associated with the study of management as well as justification of self-interest and material disparity; however, it has an egalitarian core values. A number of economic models presuppose that all persons are motivated by self-interest that is based on reason. Egalitarians tend to favor the equality of all individuals. Egalitarianism in economics is a controversial phrase that has elicited a lot of debate due to the conflicting would-be meanings. In some instances, it may refer to equality of opportunities which translating to a situation where the government tends to provide equality of opportunities to all its citizens. On the other hand, it might mean equality of outcomes where a government appears to promote equal success for all citizens. Mill was opined that good governments ought to enough freedom to allow all individuals of all sexes to practice their own interests furthermore achieve their own potential according to their preferences and choices. These philosophies do have values, which are ordered but are not consistent with the economic markets. One prevailing mode of market adjustment pursues a model laid out by Rawls, where the hypothesizing is self-consciously principle, and the market enters as a reality of life that enforces efficiency limits on distribution. The deduction, resulting from ideal deliberations, is well disposed to the equal allocation of social primary goods; nevertheless, this is to be customized where an uneven distribution turns out to the benefit of the least advantaged. Whereas, today's economic markets selects the subjects it needs through economic survival of the fittest. There are no philosophies’ core value that is not consistent with economic markets since they have an important role in defending interests of different groups.

Mills economic philosophy was inclined to free market though he advocated for interventions in the economy, for instance, a levy on alcohol if proven there is a satisfactory utilitarian ground. He believed in equality of taxation and portrayed progressive taxation as a punishment to dedicated workers who have saved their earnings. Bentham’s utilitarianism is renowned for the expression “the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers.” For Bentham, the correct accomplishment for both person and government is to encourage happiness. Bentham attempts to delineate the limits between “what should be done” and “what should not be done” by government programs from the perspective of the capitalization on universal happiness. It is apparent that the maximization of universal happiness is obviously settled as the decisive criterion in Bentham’s political economy. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes asserts that life devoid of governments was “nasty, brutish, and short” furthermore, people ought to surrender willingly to absolute rulers even tyrannical regimes to facilitate longer and more secure lives. As to the primary function of government, Mill places greater emphasis on the development of humanity through the direct provision of services, founded on general happiness. Economic markets are not consistent with Thomas Hobbes philosophies since the world is currently running free markets. It is apparent that measures of monetary value are founded on individuals’ wants or simply their preferences. Economists in general believe that individuals are in better position to judge what they want as compared to the government. Consequently, the economic valuation theory is anchored in persons’ preferences as well as choices. People convey their preferences through the choices along with the tradeoffs that they make, agreed on certain constraints, for instance, those on earnings or available time.

The practical setback with utilitarianism is how to put a figure and compute utility and disutility (happiness and unhappiness); particularly in an approach, that allows interpersonal comparisons of well-being “social welfare.” Nevertheless, still it is a strong ethical theory since in principle at least an individual is able to decide simply on the right thing to do (Richard, pp.6). On the other hand, Hobbes whose main apprehension was to at all times avoid the excesses of freedoms despite acknowledging to the fact that wealth is power. Hobbes asserts that individuals should enjoy those things (wealth) indispensable for the living of a prosperous and peaceful life. When econometric processes for evaluating cost effectiveness and cost/benefits applied here, it is evident that this philosophies like economic markets.

In most cases, it is common to find advocates of free markets as a social order do not primarily support these institutions for the reason that they represent the ethical theory of maximizing individual freedom, but to a certain extent for the reason that these institutions are also expected to support the general welfare. This makes utilitarianism most ‘market-oriented’ and Absolutists least ‘market-oriented’ in regards to their applicability and interpretations. This is to mean that these philosophies are preferable to certain aspects of economic markets while others are not, most preferably, when individuals’ interests are at stake.