Harvard economist Robert Barro has some unkind (but well-deserved) things to say about Paul Krugman.¹ Krugman's game is to parlay his economic expertise (which is unquestioned, at least by me) into moral expertise. I'm sorry, but expertise doesn't transfer in this way. Economists, as such, have no evaluative expertise, moral or otherwise. They are technicians. Almost all of Krugman's New York Times columns express values (for example, that this society should guarantee health care to all). Who cares what his values are? They are worth no more than anyone else's. He wants his readers to think that because he has technical economic expertise, he should be listened to on moral matters. Many philosophers, sadly, commit the same fallacy. There is as much evaluative diversity among philosophers as there is among people generally. If you don't like what philosopher X says about some moral topic, such as health care, turn to philosopher Y, who will tell you the opposite. Philosophers should stick to what they're expert in, which is the analysis of concepts, and when they make moral judgments, they should inform their readers that they are acting in a nonphilosophical capacity. Otherwise, they mislead their readers (intentionally?). (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)
__________
¹"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).
