Morality

[Roxanne Appleby]

Let's up the ante. How about $5 million to blind the child with a hot iron? I understand, that is a huge jump in consequences, but the payoff has grown significantly too. Granted, sticking the pin in the hand leaves very little physical trauma, but we are really unsure what emotional trauma would ensue.

Assuming you split the money equally, the child would get $2.5 million. Which, if left alone and correctly invested, would give that child around $10 million at age 21. That should create a wonderful trust fund that would allow that child to live quite nicely without ever having to work or to touch the principle.

Fool, it pains me engage in contentious disputation with someone I admire so much for his gifts, but the deliberate obtuseness of this post can't be taken as anything but an insult not warranting a substantive response.

With all due respect.

 

[The_Fool]

Fool, it pains me engage in contentious disputation with someone I admire so much for his gifts, but the deliberate obtuseness of this post can't be taken as anything but an insult not warranting a substantive response.

With all due respect.

Interesting. Since I was merely quantifying how much pain and how much damage is acceptable in an economic exchange. So, the use of the needle is an acceptable situation for an economic exchange, but the situation I described is not. We have at least established some limits.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No. There's the problem. Viewing economics as a tool when it's a means of measurement. Which cancels cancels your next two paragraphs, particularly this point:



A liberal or socialist system accepts that money has to go round. The use of economics as a tool is using a steam hammer to drive a nail. There are only broad consequences to be gained from monetary manipulation and this is where your policies go badly awry. The people at the sharp end, on the shop floor are inconsequential to any monetarist policy because they are individuals that only appear on the capitalist radar as a homogeneous unit. There are no individual voices in the world of economics only ebb and flow, saving and spending in the millions.

Economics, by it's very nature cannot take into account one person buying a pound of potatoes, because it isn't measurable on any scale in the world of high finance.



It's not true on my part (and I sincerely doubt that it plays any part in Cant's ideology) that I equate beliefs with the person. But the espousal of those beliefs as a be all and end all for societies ills is frankly beyond belief and leads me to inevitably question the reasoning of such a person.

Saying that you feel for the poor and that they are much better off now than they were, denies the evidence of our own eyes. You cast aspersion on our integrity.

Feeling for the poor and displaced and dying does nothing for your cause when you tacitly admit that this is an inevitable situation given the nature of people, and that you are happy for it to be this way

We (and I realise I'm taking a great liberty using the term we) but we liberals, socialists, call us what you will are dissatisfied with the price that you seem to be willing to pay.

A great example of liberal policy is in the area of health care. The NHS was first mooted as a method of reducing the physical ills of the nation. Spend a few millions on free health care and the population will be healthy and able to man the shop floors with minimum down time. This is/was a purely economic plan to put an end to medical costs for the workforce of the future. It was supposed to be downsized just as soon as everybody was fit enough, it included such ideals as free school meals, free milk for growing kids in school, the reduction of death and disease simply in order to ensure a large workforce for the future.

But now it costs too much, not because the health problems didn't go away, they did; TB, bronchial pneumonia, scarlet fever, infant mortality. They went away, but all the time there were other diseases being visited on an otherwise healthy population because they had become better off. Heart, liver and lung disease, bone breakages and cancers, the list is endless and will always be, because of a changing health and dietary society, not to mention new ways of becoming ill; asbestosis, black lung, radiation poisoning and of course AIDS.

The NHS is a perfect example of why economics doesn't work as a tool. Attacking one part of a dynamic system has unforeseen effects in a chaotic universe. And there is nothing more chaotic than money. They buy and sell the fucking stuff. THEY BUY AND SELL SOCIAL AGREEMENTS ON BARTER.

I'll return to the rest shortly, as my tea is ready and I'm hungry, and Scrubs has just started.

You are using "economics" in too narrow a sense.

The fault is mine for not defining my terms.

Economics describes the allocation of scarce resources, including time and materials. It applies to individuals, homes, communities, societies, civiliations, humanity. Economics is an inevitable fact of life, because scarcity is an existential reality. Most fundamentally, each human only has a finite, scarce amount of time in this life.

A single person on a desert island deals with the coercive fact of economics. He must determine how to allocate his time in various activites. It's inevitably a balancing act - should he spend more time in drudgery that adds food to the larder, or trade some of the security that brings for a more pleasant activity, such as painting, or just daydreaming?

Matters get more complicated when there is a second person, because it makes possible a division of labor that adds to the well being of both. None here would disagree that justice and reasonableness should be the watchwords in establishing the details of the exchanges that this division of labor entail.

Matters get still more complicated as the scale increases, but the economic problem is essentially the same. You mentioned the national health care system, and bemoaned the fact that it is considered too "expensive." "Expensive" relates to price, which is just a useful measurement tool for performing the balancing act of allocating resources. NHS consumes around 10 percent of the output of all your labor and tools. That's 10 percent of your income that can't be used to support something else, like painting or daydreaming on the beach. That's fine. When I say "fine," I mean I'm not focusing on the outcome of the allocation here, just on the act of allocating. Twenty or thirty percent is fine.

Note that demand for health care is essentially infinite, so however much you allocate it won't satisfy every desire. Obviously you can't spend 100 percent of your income on health care, so you must prioritize, knowing that every bit of output added to health care means less painting, or daydreaming, or whatever other scarce goods people desire. That's fine too - the exact mix is up to you.

That's the existential reality of scarcity. That act of balancing one scarce resource against another is what I mean by economics, and it applies in every facet of human life.

I don't want to debate particular economic systems with you here. That is an enormously complex and somewhat ambiguous subject that is not appropriate for this thread, or relevent to my apologia to which you are responding.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In my previous posed I defined economics as the act of allocating or prioritizing the use of scarce resources. I stated that this act in an intrinsic part of every facet of human life. In my previous substantive post before that one, I suggested that the world view of many people, including most here, denies that, and imagines that there are areas of life that are “above” economics. I stated my belief that this is wrong, and that the its unintended consequences are untold amounts of human sorrow and pain.

Here is an example.

An article on Yahoo Finance today, “Five Purchases Pricier Than They Appear,” includes buying a pet. It says, “The retail price for a pet is just the beginning. Food, toys, pet care products and boarding are just some of the costs that also should be considered, but usually are not.”

Choosing to own a pet is an economic act. One balances the resources described in above with the subjective value of the pleasure the pet provides, which is real and not to be dismissed. It is a “resource” or “good” in an economic sense. One might call it “priceless” and condemn me as heartless for recommending that this decision be viewed in terms of prioritizing scarce resources. One might direct my gaze to the joy on the face a child with a puppy and say, “You can’t put a price on that.” In other words, the act of acquiring a pet is “above” economic considerations.

Now here are the unintended consequences of that way of thinking applied to this situation: According to the U.S. Humane Society, “Every year, between six and eight million dogs and cats enter U.S. shelters; some three to four million of these animals are euthanized because there are not enough homes for them.”

More common is the fate of “the puppy” who over time becomes a penned up and lonely “outside dog” as the interests and circumstances of a thoughtless owner changes.

That’s the price I put on the face of that child being licked by the puppy, whose parents turn off their scarce-resource allocating brains because they view the act of acquiring a pet as above economics.

Nothing is priceless. The “price” of the sight of child was used as a slap against me here. The price of that is very high. To preserve the sight a child close to me I would likely trade my life, if that was the price. But even the sight of a child is not priceless. It is not worth a trillion dollars, say – 8 percent of the U.S. economy – because the allocation of that many resources away from other uses would undoubtedly yield an even greater number of tragic outcomes. The unintended consequences would be a mountain of other human tragedies and pain.

Some here will probably condemn me for thinking of such a thing in these terms. Why should I not condemn you for refusing to, when the consequences of your refusal are always even more tragedy and pain?

Economics happens whether you think about it or not. If you do think about it, you get better outcomes – a net increase in happiness and decrease in sorrow - whether the matter is a personal one like acquiring a pet or a public policy one like allocating health care resources.

 

[gauchecritic]

In my previous posed

Oops, your Freudian slip is showing.

Are you now saying that resources need to be allocated? By whom? What happened to the free market?

Increasing scales, rather than individual requirements are not, repeat not just exactly the same in terms of any kind of economics.

A vegetable garden has no intrinsic similarity to feeding a continent except that food grows in the ground.

As RR is fond saying; the free market will ultimately decide on which companies succeed and which fail, which is patent rubbish when you look at companies such as microsoft and Nike.

Even the companies themselves disregard the basic tenet of production i.e scales of economy and sell their goods at a price which the market will stand which in no way resembles a reasonable profit but the greatest mark up possible. (as a side note a mark up of over a point less than 100% is mathematically impossible since mark-up is expressed as a percentage of sale price)

And like I said previously (and on many occasions) using economics as a tool is impossible to predict because it relies on individuals all doing exactly the same thing with their extra or lessened pay cheque. As Reagan discovered, as Thatcher learned as the world bank knows; people do as they like not what they are predicted to do.

 

[The_Fool]

You are right Roxanne, I did post that as a rebuke for your post on the economic feasibility of sticking a pin in a child’s hand. Bad example. I should have used castration of male children. While I cannot say there would be no market for blind children, it is so limited as not to be notable. But there was in various cultures, a market for eunuchs and for boys that sang soprano after the time they would normally reach puberty. These actions were economic. Within the culture they occurred, they were even considered moral, or at least legal. In many of these countries, this led to a much higher standard of living than that boy would have enjoyed otherwise.

Many of us here are quite aware of the concept of Total Cost of Ownership, having to deal with it on a daily basis. The concept of applying it to pets is certainly a different slant, but I even had a similar discussion concerning children. I certainly did not consider the costs of having children when we did. Nor did I consider the repercussions of their quality of life before we had children. Not that I would change things. But back to the original title of this thread.

In your consideration, there was an economic decision to make. Can I afford the puppy? There is a moral decision to make. Can I take care of this puppy? The questions are mutually exclusive but require a positive response in order to make a proper decision. A negative response to either can lead to the same outcome. The pound.

Take that to the business world. Purchase decisions made must be based on total cost of ownership. Included in the decision is the determination of opportunity cost. Essentially what decision makes the best use of recourses and generates the most money. Oh yes, I forgot a few things that need to be considered in that decision. Does it break any laws? How does this decision fit within the culture of the organization? Does this decision go against any organizational policies? Does then decision go against the organization’s Code of Business Conduct? If this is a global organization, how is this decision affected by the cultures of other countries we do business in?

I am a firm believer in the desirability of globalization. I am a firm believer in the free-market economy. I also believe there is a price for anything and everything. I have great faith in the morality of the people I know. My view point on corporations is that they are as moral as required to make a profit. But I also know that what I hold as moral is not the same as someone from another culture.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oops, your Freudian slip is showing.

Are you now saying that resources need to be allocated? By whom? What happened to the free market?

Increasing scales, rather than individual requirements are not, repeat not just exactly the same in terms of any kind of economics.

A vegetable garden has no intrinsic similarity to feeding a continent except that food grows in the ground.

As RR is fond saying; the free market will ultimately decide on which companies succeed and which fail, which is patent rubbish when you look at companies such as microsoft and Nike.

Even the companies themselves disregard the basic tenet of production i.e scales of economy and sell their goods at a price which the market will stand which in no way resembles a reasonable profit but the greatest mark up possible. (as a side note a mark up of over a point less than 100% is mathematically impossible since mark-up is expressed as a percentage of sale price)

And like I said previously (and on many occasions) using economics as a tool is impossible to predict because it relies on individuals all doing exactly the same thing with their extra or lessened pay cheque. As Reagan discovered, as Thatcher learned as the world bank knows; people do as they like not what they are predicted to do.

As I said, I'm setting aside the issue of different economic systems in this discussion.

Regarding your garden, it is indeed an economic proposition. You make choices to allocate/prioritize time and other scarce resources to the garden or to other activities, whether you think about it in those terms or not. It may be that the garden is not a production value but a recreation value. It's not the equivalent of my desert islanders drudgery to add to your security, but daydreaming on the beach. Either way, it involves allocating scarce resources.

And in this it is like feeding a continent. Both involve decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources.

One thing I have not gotten into is utility maximization. We seek to optimize or maximize the utility or value we get when we make those allocation decisions. Do not think that I think that the subjective value of a puppy or daydreaming on the beach are to be dismissed in those maximizing calculations. Just because they are subjective does not mean that I think they have no value. My optimal economic solution for my own life may involve working and earning less and beach daydreaming more. All of us will be different. Some things are constant - we all need about 1,800 calories a day and eight hours of sleep to survive.

Your addidas example does not compute. A firm will balance the quantity it can sell at a given price with the combined fixed and marginal production costs, and calculate with all that the profit-maximizing price/quantity solution. It's ever changing as those factors change, and there is uncertainty about some of those factors. It might also include other considerations, like the desire to increase market share, etc. (Why are we talking about this here?)

" . . . using economics as a tool is impossible to predict because it relies on individuals all doing exactly the same thing with their extra or lessened pay cheque"

This is rather tangled. As I've been saying, economics is not a "tool," it is fact intrinsic to every facet of human life. It is true that humans value things differently. We all seek to "maximize utility," but we define utility differently. Yet certain tendencies hold true in the aggregate, and upon these one can make predictions. Other things being equal, people will prefer a job that pays more to one that pays less, for instance. People tend to work harder if the potential rewards are greater. People tend to be more willing to take a risk of certain level if the potential reward is greater. You can probably sense where this is heading, and that's enough for now.

 

[slyc_willie]

Small amounts of pain are worth money. In addition to one's time, they are what manual laborers trade in return for a wage, for example.

Forget kids for a moment. If you and I were friends or close acquaintances to the extent that trust relationship existed, and out of the blue I gave you a good stick in the hand, like the equivalent of a nurse drawing blood, and then handed you $50 bucks, would you feel violated? You might. How about $100? How about $500? $1,000? At some point aren't you going to say, "Hey, thanks Roxanne! Damn, this is a good deal - I'm glad you chose me for this experiment." Probably you will. Remember we have a pre-existing trust relationship, so this is not some creepy, disturbing event involving a stranger

Let's say it's a two year old, same level of pain, also have a trust relationship, and it's $20,000 into a college fund. Is that really "one of the most shallow, materialistic arguments I have ever heard?" If you are that kid 17 years later trying to figure out how to pay tuition, and I say you coulda had $20k except I thought it was immoral, how are you going to feel? Like kicking me, most likely.

Don't make me post "The Meaning of Money." Oh the heck with it - where's Ami? Ami, post the "Meaning of Money," wouldja?

However, if you or the kid get nothing out of the deal, its immoral, no matter how much I get. That's clear.

I would still say it's immoral out of hand. Rationalizing pain by offering a reward doesn't make an action any more or less moral/immoral. It just makes some people more willing to accept it.

Easier to stomach, as well, if both parties were adults. But a young child? Uh-uh. Immoral, period.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I would still say it's immoral out of hand. Rationalizing pain by offering a reward doesn't make an action any more or less moral/immoral. It just makes some people more willing to accept it.

Easier to stomach, as well, if both parties were adults. But a young child? Uh-uh. Immoral, period.

I don't think that is an invalid position. I would be making a decision that should be yours, so even if we have a pre-existing trust relationship and the decision is one that after the fact you agree with, it's still dodgey.

Actually, with the kid it's a bit more complicated on that basis, since we necessarily make decisions for children all the time. On what basis is it wrong for me to take away the opportunity to have a $20,000 college account in return for getting his finger pricked, but right for me to let the nurse prick his finger for a blood test, say as part of a routine check-up. There's no difference to the child - it hurts, and he cries.

 

[cloudy]

Actually, with the kid it's a bit more complicated on that basis, since we necessarily make decisions for children all the time. On what basis is it wrong for me to take away the opportunity to have a $20,000 college account in return for getting his finger pricked, but right for me to let the nurse prick his finger for a blood test, say as part of a routine check-up. There's no difference to the child - it hurts, and he cries.

In one case you're doing it for money, in the other, you're having it done for the child's health - a valid reason.

Really, Roxanne...we can play word games all you like, but it serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't think that is an invalid position. I would be making a decision that should be yours, so even if we have a pre-existing trust relationship and the decision is one that after the fact you agree with, it's still dodgey.

Actually, with the kid it's a bit more complicated on that basis, since we necessarily make decisions for children all the time. On what basis is it wrong for me to take away the opportunity to have a $20,000 college account in return for getting his finger pricked, but right for me to let the nurse prick his finger for a blood test, say as part of a routine check-up. There's no difference to the child - it hurts, and he cries.

However, as the child grows, he understands that the nurse pricking his finger did so for a valid and readily reinforced reason. The nurse and parent are able to explain why they needed blood, and the memory the child has becomes less traumatic over time.

In the other instance, a child is not likely to understand the abstract concept of money and what it means to him; therefore, he only understands that he was hurt for no apparent reason. There is no explanation other than "this was for your own good, and you'll eventually be rewarded for it." A child is not likely to accept that.

 

[elsol]

How much money would it take to get you to stick a pin into your palm? How much to stick it into the palm of a child you don’t know? How much to slap a friend in the face (with his or her permission) as part of a comedy skit? What about if your father took the place of the friend?

How you answer such questions may say something about your morality, even your politics. Conservatives, for instance, tend to care more about issues of hierarchy and respect; liberals focus more on caring and fairness.

1. Depends on how deep I have to stick it. But $5 -> 100 bucks should cover all the in betweens as long as I can choose the pin and the location.

2. Depends on whether it's a boy or a girl, where their parents are standing, and whether I have a child or not.

$20 -> $1000 should cover it, unless I have a child of my own... if I do have a child, the answer is no amount of money and I'd shoot the tester, because you might carry this to another level and involve MY child.

3. Slap a friend... I've done it for free.

4. I don't like either my real father or stepfather... so free would be cool.

With a latin person, the question should really be your mother.... the answer to which is a FUCK OF A LOT OF MONEY.

So what does that say about my morality?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To apply the economic way of thinking I’ve been describing in earlier posts to the example in the previous post, lets say it’s my child, and I’ve determined that a college account is so important for his future that I will take a second job to provide it, even though this will mean I have less time to spend with my child. I’m willing to make that painful tradeoff involving scarce resources and two competing values – time-with-child vs. higher education of child.

Along comes some bizarro social scientist (or Ringo and Peter Sellers - google “The Magic Christian”), offering $20,000 if I prick the baby’s finger. This will enhance my life and my child’s, because I won’t need to take the second job that requires giving up quality child-time for his higher ed.

 

[WRJames]

How much to stick it into the palm of a child you don’t know?

Well, the arguments so far seem to ignore the fact that children are being sold into prostitution and slavery on a widespread basis as we chat. The grim reality of our contemporary economic system is that many parents are willing to do far worse than stick a pin into a child, one of their own, and at a relatively modest price.

 

[elsol]

However, as the child grows, he understands that the nurse pricking his finger did so for a valid and readily reinforced reason. The nurse and parent are able to explain why they needed blood, and the memory the child has becomes less traumatic over time.

In the other instance, a child is not likely to understand the abstract concept of money and what it means to him; therefore, he only understands that he was hurt for no apparent reason. There is no explanation other than "this was for your own good, and you'll eventually be rewarded for it." A child is not likely to accept that.

Actually... you're in a bad way here.

1. You don't KNOW the child, so you can't reinforce the reasons or even explain them.

What you've done is tatamount to teaching the child it is okay to hurt others.

 

[WRJames]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

Hey -- if I snapped at you the other day -- I'm sorry. I think we are probably in violent agreement on most things. It would be a shame to have you leave just as I've met you.

 

[S-Des]

Well, the arguments so far seem to ignore the fact that children are being sold into prostitution and slavery on a widespread basis as we chat. The grim reality of our contemporary economic system is that many parents are willing to do far worse than stick a pin into a child, one of their own, and at a relatively modest price.

Icky, but completely accurate. There isn't enough time someone could spend in jail for abusing their own child (but I'd be in favor of tatooing MOLESTOR on their forehead before giving them life...).

Money means nothing to me. It doesn't figure into my morality. I won't bother explaining what I gave up for just a little time with my daughter, but it was life altering. I wouldn't hurt anyone for any amount of money...although I'm morally ambiguous enough to consider accepting money for someone I'd hurt anyway (See above quote).

 

[slyc_willie]

Actually... you're in a bad way here.

1. You don't KNOW the child, so you can't reinforce the reasons or even explain them.

What you've done is tatamount to teaching the child it is okay to hurt others.

I think you may have gotten something backwards, there.

 

[WRJames]

Icky, but completely accurate. There isn't enough time someone could spend in jail for abusing their own child (but I'd be in favor of tatooing MOLESTOR on their forehead before giving them life...).

Well, these people are necessarily molesting their own children -- they are "just" selling them to be molested.

But -- there is a lot of BDSM on this site. I write some myself. Things that go well beyond pins. What is it about the example that makes us say "that's out of bounds." The fact that it's a child? The fact that we don't know the child? The age of the child?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In one case you're doing it for money, in the other, you're having it done for the child's health - a valid reason.

Really, Roxanne...we can play word games all you like, but it serves no purpose whatsoever.

"you're doing it for money"
In the example, my two year old child gets a college savings plan with an initial investment of $20,000. By the time he's 18 this will have grown enough to pay for most of a four year degree program. Earning a degree will mean better life for the child in countless ways.

That is not just a "word game."

In the example, the alternative to the finger prick is that I will take a second job to provide for a college fund, depriving the child my personal attention for hours each day. Who is prepared to declare that this choice is really as unambiguous as some are asserting here?

 

[cloudy]

"you're doing it for money"
In the example, my two year old child gets a college savings plan with an initial investment of $20,000. By the time he's 18 this will have grown enough to pay for most of a four year degree program. Earning a degree will mean better life for the child in countless ways.

That is not just a "word game."

In the example, the alternative to the finger prick is that I will take a second job to provide for a college fund, depriving the child my personal attention for hours each day. Who is prepared to declare that this choice is really as unambiguous as some are asserting here?

It is a word game. Besides, no one said it was your child, in the example it's "a child." There are other ways to pay for a child's college. Either way, playing with the the wording seems to be an "acceptable" way to get around answering a question, or defining a position.

 

[slyc_willie]

Who is prepared to declare that this choice is really as unambiguous as some are asserting here?

I am. And I've already explained why.

We can argue this all day, all week, all month long and we will just keep going in circles. Morality is a perception, and we all see it differently.

I've said my bit.

 

[elsol]

It is a word game. Besides, no one said it was your child, in the example it's "a child." There are other ways to pay for a child's college. Either way, playing with the the wording seems to be an "acceptable" way to get around answering a question, or defining a position.

Actually the question in hand from Dr Mab's posting says 'a child YOU DON'T KNOW'.

So they're going to stick a child you've never seen before in front of you and say:

$20 dollars... no?.
$40 dollars... no?.

The example is slated in that exact sense because it REMOVES all the extenuating circumstance of 'college money' like Roxanne and others are adding.

 

[The_Fool]

“Since the time of the Enlightenment,” Haidt said, “philosophers have celebrated the power and virtue of cool, dispassionate reasoning. Unfortunately, few people other than philosophers can engage in such cool, honest reasoning when moral issues are at stake. The rest of us behave more like lawyers, using any arguments we can find to make our case, rather than like judges or scientists searching for the truth. This doesn’t mean we are doomed to be immoral; it just means that we should look for the roots of our considerable virtue elsewhere.”

I think we are proving him correct...

 

[cloudy]

I think we are proving him correct...

Indeed.