On 10/6/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David brings up an interesting point. To what extent should we allow market
forces
or even then the marketized rationality of cost-benefit analysis determined
questions, which are inherently moral.
Wouldn't the logic of cost-benefit analysis suggests that perhaps more resources
should go into child pornography -- to mention the sort of thing which is
currently
in the news. If people want to spend money for such stuff, the market would say
fine.
there's nothing in cost/benefit analysis that says that it has to be
based solely on market measures of costs and benefits. The cost of
producing child porn could easily include a "moral" cost, just as the
cost of producing steel should include the pollution (external) costs.
This cost would involve things like the way in which the child's life
would be distorted by its use in porn, which easily exceeds any
compensation the child receives. (Of course, when a child makes such a
deal (if it's not the parent or guardian who does it), it's strictly
speaking illegal. Children aren't seen as rational contract-makers.)
It's only the Chicago school of "market-oriented" economists who see
only market costs and benefits as relevant.
The main objection to the idea of bringing in moral costs and benefits
(and the like) is that they usually cannot be quantified. Further, if
they can be quantified, can they truly be _added_ to the market costs
(or benefits)? These are valid points. But we can think of
_democratic_ cost/benefit decisions: all of the costs and benefits
should be listed. Then people can decide democratically about whether
child porn (or whatever) should be banned.
--
Jim Devine / "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at
present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,
ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it
arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict
with the powers that be." -- KM
