The Economics Thread

[Einherjar86]

It is not the right question to start with. Instead: "Why are there homeless people?", and then "Why should/could something be done?" and if something should/could be done, revert back to the first question to formulate a plan of action.

Consequentialism would seem to feed an approach that says: "Homeless people are homeless because they don't have homes (and we should do something about it). Give them homes, problem solved!" Very shallow and incredibly assumptive.

That's an oversimplification. A consequentialist asks: "What can we do to create a scenario that benefits the most people at the smallest cost to each?"

They could decide to give homeless people houses; but where do they get the labor and capital to do that? It does not benefit everyone to force those with means to give up some of it, since this is costly to those individuals. A consequentialist has a lot more to consider than simply that it would be good to give homeless people homes.

Also, the misleading aspect of that video above is in calling the categorical imperative a moral law. The categorical imperative, above all else, is a test. One uses the categorical imperative to determine whether or not a maxim can be upheld as a universal moral law. The categorical imperative is not a moral law itself, but a removed, silent, objective construct which a moral law must "pass," so to speak, in order to become accepted as a universal maxim.

As a metaphysical and theoretical construct, the categorical imperative is actually a fine moral examiner. Unfortunately, one can only speculate as to its hypothetical conditions (i.e. "What if everyone started lying all the time?").

 

[Dak]

That's an oversimplification. A consequentialist asks: "What can we do to create a scenario that benefits the most people at the smallest cost to each?"

That's always a dishonest intro. An honest intro would be "What can I/(or limited we) force everyone else to do that I/(or limited we) would find pleasing?

Utilitarianism has cut a bloody and savage path through history, and cannot even benefit a few people at small cost, much less many.

 

[Einherjar86]

But earlier you were saying the actual argument of consequentialism is flawed and "morally bankrupt." It's not the argument itself that is so, it's just the way you're coloring it in your description.

As the structure of an argument, it's not a dishonest intro. The way it has manifested or been manipulated by practitioners wasn't my concern.

 

[Dak]

But earlier you were saying the actual argument of consequentialism is flawed and "morally bankrupt." It's not the argument itself that is so, it's just the way you're coloring it in your description.

It can't be used in another way because:

As the structure of an argument, it's not a dishonest intro. The way it has manifested or been manipulated by practitioners wasn't my concern.

It's inherent. How could you "create a scenario", in a wide scope, without force? It would be very difficult, if not impossible (at least in a lifetime). So if something should be done, you should resort to force, because you perceive the end as "good". You could challenge that as a slippery slope fallacy, but it is the reality of utilitarianism, and I have yet to meet a non-violent utilitarian (although they attempt to classify detractors as the actual violent ones, for not going along IE "Stop resisting!").

 

[Einherjar86]

It's inherent. How could you "create a scenario", in a wide scope, without force? It would be very difficult, if not impossible (at least in a lifetime). So if something should be done, you should resort to force, because you perceive the end as "good". You could challenge that as a slippery slope fallacy, but it is the reality of utilitarianism, and I have yet to meet a non-violent utilitarian (although they attempt to classify detractors as the actual violent ones, for not going along IE "Stop resisting!").

I still think you're projecting historical precedent onto a theoretical concept. Maybe "create" is the wrong word. All I'm suggesting is that the actions of a group of people can, conceivably, lead to a society that does benefit the welfare of all, or at least a majority. That means "coercion" is not inherent.

 

[Dak]

I still think you're projecting historical precedent onto a theoretical concept. Maybe "create" is the wrong word. All I'm suggesting is that the actions of a group of people can, conceivably, lead to a society that does benefit the welfare of all, or at least a majority. That means "coercion" is not inherent.

How would you know? This is probably where the problems revealed by public choice theory make their appearance.

I found a free version of "Beyond Good and Evil" at gutenberg.org. Working my way through it now. Need to see if they have Kant's works when I'm done with this.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm using the structure of the argument itself. Just because its practice has been flawed doesn't mean the actual argument is. You have to distantiate the theory from its historical precedent.

I've never read Beyond Good and Evil, but there's a great used bookstore here in Tampa that has a ton of Nietzsche's stuff for cheap. I'm a fan of On the Genealogy of Morality, which basically lays out the structure of the argument Nietzsche takes on most subjects. It's a fantastic book.

 

[Dak]

I'm using the structure of the argument itself. Just because its practice has been flawed doesn't mean the actual argument is. You have to distantiate the theory from its historical precedent.

My point is that historical precedent on the argument is not an accident or an unfortunate example of extremes. The argument, without force, is ultimately futile. Therefore to begin down that road means to either accept force as a means, or to turn back in despair, knowing that one lifetime will never see a "conclusion" to the matter.

I've never read Beyond Good and Evil, but there's a great used bookstore here in Tampa that has a ton of Nietzsche's stuff for cheap. I'm a fan of On the Genealogy of Morality, which basically lays out the structure of the argument Nietzsche takes on most subjects. It's a fantastic book.

Yeah I prefer to at least sample a book before I buy it, and I don't know of any such good bookstores in my area. Amazon usually has reasonable prices though if I want to make a purchase.

One of the overriding problems I see already in Nietzsche, which he ironically points out in other philosophers, is what I refer to as the "Therefore!" moment (see above lol). A thinker ruminates over all the information he has at his disposal, critiques and eliminates that which he sees to be "false", and then inevitably must have a "Therefore" moment, where the conclusion is laid out, which is always laden with it's own problems, which someone else, not blinded by personal bias, will pick out. Of course then again, only to repeat the pattern.