Economics and Human Morality

Once again, I depart from my usual themes of atheism, religion, and how silly everyone is to ramble on about other things I've been thinking about.

I have been reading a lot of Vonnegut lately (as everyone should), and it has helped me fill out some thoughts that I was already tossing around:

Endless debate concerns the ideal system of economics.  Alarmed cries of "socialism!" rise from the conservative crowds, many of whom have no idea what they're talking about.  However, a few of them actually do know a thing or two about economics, and their advocacy of a purely market-driven economy is reasonably defensible.

Pure capitalism is superior to socialism in terms of its respect for property rights.  Property rights include the assumed right that my future self has to control anything my present self has and does not willingly give up.  In addition, they include the assumption that it is my right to decide what happens to "my" things when I kick the bucket.

What are the ethical origins of property rights?  They seem to be inherent to human beings, and they seem to be a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint.  The cleverest/sliest human beings accumulate the most property.  To propagate one's genes, one would be well-advised to accumulate wealth, reproduce, and then make sure that one's offspring receive that wealth so they, too, can successfully live and reproduce.
However, property rights don't have much else going for them in the ethics department.  It is horrifically unfair that some children should be born into great privilege while so many more are born to circumstances so poor that their chance of survival to adulthood is significantly reduced.  It may well even be unfair that someone who works hard early in life can become rich and slough later in life, and someone who sloughs early in life must work hard later in life just to survive.

However, because of how human beings are built, we don't really function without property rights.  The socialist experiments of the 20th century were not very successful for various reasons, and one of these reasons is the innate desire to claim what one is holding as one's own.  In fact, the human race is so attached to property rights that we are more than willing to suspend our other moral intuitions, like that we shouldn't kill people, in order to retain or accumulate more property.

Socialism, on the other hand, is quite disrespectful of property rights... it is built around the idea that wealth should be distributed, or jointly-owned, or some other such scheme that means that I do not necessarily keep the economic value that I manage to create.  It seems unfair in relation to property rights.  However, socialism is built around ideals serving other moral intuitions, like the consideration of the implicit costs to society incurred by society's allowing certain members to go without many very basic needs.  Very few of us could honestly say that we feel that the situation of malnourished children born into filth and poverty is just, and may even feel a little guilty as we cram down doughnuts in front of our wide-screen TVs.

Can these two desires, the altruistic desire that everyone have enough and the desire for "just" property rights where value created is kept by the creator, ever coexist?

Probably, they can never perfectly be reconciled.  We can do what we've always done, which is argue about it and sort of shoot down the middle somewhere, and somewhat satisfy both.  Or we could try to argue that if the haves were more philanthropic, the have-nots would become have-enoughs, and both principles would be served.  However, this does not seem to be the case; many people have unnecessary luxuries like pools or exotic pets or sports cars when people all around them can barely afford shelter, much less education, insurance, or decent medical care.  Philanthropic giving hasn't ever covered the wide disparity between the wealthy and the desperately-poor.

So I am forced to conclude that, in our present situation, there is not ideal system of economics.  Human beings hold to both of the mutually-exclusive desires for property rights and the humane treatment of fellow humans.  We are contradictory beings who want to have our cake and eat it, too.

Lest I end on a terribly-depressing note, however, I will concede that certain circumstances could remedy this dilemma.  A post-scarcity economy, where essentially anyone can have anything they need and much of what they want for very little effort, might remove the problem.  Basically if we find a way to make replicators from Star Trek and also unlimited energy.  Space is still a problem, of course, but the situation is much improved, and if birth control is also widely available, that problem might diminish.

Absolute Morality 'n' Me

Certain things seem to be largely considered universally wrong.  Other things have a lesser wrongness, a subjective wrongness, it seems.

Absolute Moral:  Killing children is bad.  We regard anyone who does it deliberately as sick and unfit for our society.  It is appalling on a pretty deep level.

Subjective Moral:  Living together before marriage.  All of the arguments about this one involve assumptions that are not expected to be universally accepted, usually an appeal to some theology.  This seems to be an intellectual sort of moral judgment rather than an intuitive one.


Absolute Moral:  It is good to be kind to people.  We feel that this is right by virtue of the pleasure we derive not only by having it done for us, but also by doing it for others.

Subjective Moral:  It is good to read the Bible every day.  Once again, an intellectual sort of judgment dependent upon one's personal opinions and worldview.

This distinction is known to most people.  I mean... as a child, a Mormon may condemn anyone who drinks coffee or alcohol.  Adults will find this amusing, because they know better:  this little piece of morality is subject to assumptions that people do not have to make in order to still be considered moral.  Even if those people are wrong wrong wrong, they are simply misled, not bad.
If you happen to belong to a cult that regards random murder as awesome, very few people are probably going to give you the same benefit of the doubt.


This whole idea occurred to me recently while I read part of a talk by Boyd Packer.  He was talking about the sanctity of marriage.  Nothing he said was what would be considered an appeal to absolute morality... it was all subjective, all dependent on Mormon theology.  No one who didn't belong to the minority he belongs to could be persuaded in the least by his arguments.


I don't know that there is something innate or biological about this "absolute" morality.. I'm sure it's subject to culture as well.  However, even if these rules are not technically "absolute," it seems that they are absolute as far as anyone from the society we inhabit is concerned.  They certainly seem absolute relative to the "subjective" rules accepted only by this minority or that.

And so we get the following:

Atheist:  Homosexuality = Okay, Killing = Not Okay
Mormon:  Homosexuality = Not Okay, Killing = Not Okay
Can you think of a group that finds homosexuality okay and killing okay?  If there is such a group, they will not be accepted as even roughly moral people by society.  They will be locked away or killed.

"Absolute" morals ought to be reflected in law.  "Subjective" morals probably shouldn't be in most cases.

Not to say that the prevailing morality is necessarily right, but it certainly is widely-held, and what else do we have?

What America Needs to Get Over

1)  Evolution happened, and still happens.  Sorry guys.  You can't reject it without rejecting the scientific method as a source of truth.

2) Bill O'Reilly is a moron who doesn't understand anything.  Stop listening to him.

3) Glenn Beck is a dangerous moron.  I'd prefer that you listen to Bill.

4) Abstinence education raises the incidence of STDs.  That's why the USA has 100 times the incidence of venereal disease of European nations that educate about safe sex.

5) America basically sucks in every regard compared to other first-world nations.  We are no longer the leaders in science, industry, or culture.  In a matter of years, we will not be the leaders in terms of economic power or military strength.  Soon, our space program will be surpassed by India and China.  Pax Americana is over, get over it or look like a fool.