I would like to think I wouldn’t have been friends with slave owners, anti-semites or wife-beaters, but then again most of my friends couldn’t give a damn about the suffering of animals, so I guess I would have been. – Robert Wiblin
There's a guy who keeps stealiing stuff from his neighbors, so I toss him in jail for 2 years. It is impossible, without bending reason past its breaking point, to frame this in a way where I have not made this guy worse off. Even just taking the stuff back that he stole makes him worse off.
How would I deal with this thief in a Pareto efficient manner?
I can't justify my meat-eating on an ethical basis, but I do it anyway because it's convenient. Becoming vegetarian would be a big pain in the ass, and I can't be bothered.
The loss of a hypothetical opportunityto marry someone because they choose to marry someone else is not agood, the loss of which affects Pareto efficiency.
Preventing two people who do want tomarry each other, for example preventing two gay people from marryingsimply because they are gay, does cause cause a reduction in Paretoefficiency.
In a perfect market of all goods, with no externalities, with perfect information, no coercion and in equilibrium, in the limit such a society is Pareto efficient.
Under pretty strong assumptions. Anyway, I don't see how Pareto efficiency corresponds to a notion of good.
An allocation where all the wealth of the world is owned by a single person, and everybody else is his employee, earning a subsistence wage, may well be Pareto efficient.
With the economy not growing as fast, wealthy person X, then must be taxed by an increasing amount to maintain government services.
If you assume equilibrium, then the economy doesn't grow.
"Would you want to live in a place where people were 'free to follow their own hearts' as to whether they killed or robbed their neighbors?"
As far as I can tell, this is exactly the kind of society we live in. Of course, we do an alright job of stopping those destructive people with law enforcement and sermons about morality.
Jayson - It probably goes something like this. Think of all the social norms you can, then divide them into 3 lists: "recently abolished", "recently created", and "other". Compare the sizes of the first two lists and you're done (and possibly incorrect due to bias and incomplete/faulty information).
In a perfect market of all goods, with no externalities, with perfect information, no coercion and in equilibrium, in the limit such a society is Pareto efficient.
What we have now is not Pareto efficient. Existing markets do not cover all goods, ignore many externalities, have imperfect information, use coercion and are not in equilibrium.
Yes, taxing wealthy person X does make person X worse off, but not taxing person X at the appropriate rate also makes person X worse off by causing inefficiencies because more productive activities must be taxed to make up the difference and this causes a drag on growth and the whole economy doesn't grow as fast. With the economy not growing as fast, wealthy person X, then must be taxed by an increasing amount to maintain government services.
If there were perfect information, wealthy person X would appreciate this and would have no issues with paying tax at the appropriate rate. The appropriate rate being the rate that maximizes growth while making everyone better off.
I appreciate that wealthy person X might not want to have perfect information, and may want to ignore the plight of starving children, ignore his/her unpaid externalities and use coercion to exploit his/her employees. I don't consider it to be ethical to assist wealthy person X in maintaining his/her ignorance.
If I'm not mistaken, that's Eliezer Yudkowsky's contribution to ethics. It's really not as much a nonstarter as it might seem at first blush. The problem with it is that it our sense of morality changes with the moral habits we form, which in turn depend on what we do. Often, it's important to deliberately alter our moral sensibilities, and ethical change requires acting contrary to our moral sense. Thus, the project of cultivating one's moral character requires a different functional analysis of morality, which I sketch in "What's morality for?: Integrity versus conformity." — http://tinyurl.com/6mq74zp
I've been straining to understand how you could possibly believe this. For instance, you favor higher taxes on the rich, which would seem to make them worse off. (Why would you *not* want to make some people worse off in the face of rampant inequality?) I've concluded that you must have some idiosyncratic definition of "worse" and "better" that performs all the real work in your claim.
the idea that that single “best” genotype would produce a phenotype that was compatible with any other random genotype/phenotype is also wrong
Within a sexual species, each genotype is compatible with any other genotype, as long as they are of two different mating types (genders).
Third, the idea that if the most perfect person in the world doesn't marry you, results in a loss in Pareto efficiency is not correct unless you happen to also be the person that the most perfect person in the world most wants to marry
First there is no one “best” genome or phenotype, so your fundamental premise is wrong.
Second, even if there was a single “best” genotype, the idea that that single “best” genotype would produce a phenotype that was compatible with any other random genotype/phenotype is also wrong.
Third, the idea that if the most perfect person in the world doesn't marry you, results in a loss in Pareto efficiency is not correct unless you happen to also be the person that the most perfect person in the world most wants to marry, in which case there would be a loss in Pareto efficiency if the two of you (who most want to marry each other) did not marry each other.
It would be unethical to prevent the marriage of two people who most want to marry each other because that does leave some people worse off. This is the whole issue with the anti-gay marriage people. Two gay people getting married has no negative effect on any heterosexual marriage.
There's a guy who keeps stealiing stuff from his neighbors, so I toss him in jail for 2 years. It is impossible, without bending reason past its breaking point, to frame this in a way where I have not made this guy worse off. Even just taking the stuff back that he stole makes him worse off.
How would I deal with this thief in a Pareto efficient manner?
No offence, but fuck you both.
VV, I think they would be forced to use the technique discussed in this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/...
Jack, James, Kate and Juliet are stranded on an island with no other people.
Kate likes Jack and James equally, and so does Juliet, while Jack and James both prefer Kate over Juliet.
All of them want a monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
If Kate marries Jack they make James worse off, conversely, if she marries James, then Jack is made worse off.
I can't justify my meat-eating on an ethical basis, but I do it anyway because it's convenient. Becoming vegetarian would be a big pain in the ass, and I can't be bothered.
The loss of a hypothetical opportunityto marry someone because they choose to marry someone else is not agood, the loss of which affects Pareto efficiency.
Preventing two people who do want tomarry each other, for example preventing two gay people from marryingsimply because they are gay, does cause cause a reduction in Paretoefficiency.
In a perfect market of all goods, with no externalities, with perfect information, no coercion and in equilibrium, in the limit such a society is Pareto efficient.
Under pretty strong assumptions. Anyway, I don't see how Pareto efficiency corresponds to a notion of good.
An allocation where all the wealth of the world is owned by a single person, and everybody else is his employee, earning a subsistence wage, may well be Pareto efficient.
With the economy not growing as fast, wealthy person X, then must be taxed by an increasing amount to maintain government services.
If you assume equilibrium, then the economy doesn't grow.
Current ethics, obviously. "Your brain is the most important organ in your body, according to your brain."
"Would you want to live in a place where people were 'free to follow their own hearts' as to whether they killed or robbed their neighbors?"
As far as I can tell, this is exactly the kind of society we live in. Of course, we do an alright job of stopping those destructive people with law enforcement and sermons about morality.
Jayson - It probably goes something like this. Think of all the social norms you can, then divide them into 3 lists: "recently abolished", "recently created", and "other". Compare the sizes of the first two lists and you're done (and possibly incorrect due to bias and incomplete/faulty information).
In a perfect market of all goods, with no externalities, with perfect information, no coercion and in equilibrium, in the limit such a society is Pareto efficient.
What we have now is not Pareto efficient. Existing markets do not cover all goods, ignore many externalities, have imperfect information, use coercion and are not in equilibrium.
Yes, taxing wealthy person X does make person X worse off, but not taxing person X at the appropriate rate also makes person X worse off by causing inefficiencies because more productive activities must be taxed to make up the difference and this causes a drag on growth and the whole economy doesn't grow as fast. With the economy not growing as fast, wealthy person X, then must be taxed by an increasing amount to maintain government services.
If there were perfect information, wealthy person X would appreciate this and would have no issues with paying tax at the appropriate rate. The appropriate rate being the rate that maximizes growth while making everyone better off.
I appreciate that wealthy person X might not want to have perfect information, and may want to ignore the plight of starving children, ignore his/her unpaid externalities and use coercion to exploit his/her employees. I don't consider it to be ethical to assist wealthy person X in maintaining his/her ignorance.
"Do what you think is moral at this moment."
If I'm not mistaken, that's Eliezer Yudkowsky's contribution to ethics. It's really not as much a nonstarter as it might seem at first blush. The problem with it is that it our sense of morality changes with the moral habits we form, which in turn depend on what we do. Often, it's important to deliberately alter our moral sensibilities, and ethical change requires acting contrary to our moral sense. Thus, the project of cultivating one's moral character requires a different functional analysis of morality, which I sketch in "What's morality for?: Integrity versus conformity." — http://tinyurl.com/6mq74zp
Daedalus,
I've been straining to understand how you could possibly believe this. For instance, you favor higher taxes on the rich, which would seem to make them worse off. (Why would you *not* want to make some people worse off in the face of rampant inequality?) I've concluded that you must have some idiosyncratic definition of "worse" and "better" that performs all the real work in your claim.
the idea that that single “best” genotype would produce a phenotype that was compatible with any other random genotype/phenotype is also wrong
Within a sexual species, each genotype is compatible with any other genotype, as long as they are of two different mating types (genders).
Third, the idea that if the most perfect person in the world doesn't marry you, results in a loss in Pareto efficiency is not correct unless you happen to also be the person that the most perfect person in the world most wants to marry
Not necessarily.
No.
First there is no one “best” genome or phenotype, so your fundamental premise is wrong.
Second, even if there was a single “best” genotype, the idea that that single “best” genotype would produce a phenotype that was compatible with any other random genotype/phenotype is also wrong.
Third, the idea that if the most perfect person in the world doesn't marry you, results in a loss in Pareto efficiency is not correct unless you happen to also be the person that the most perfect person in the world most wants to marry, in which case there would be a loss in Pareto efficiency if the two of you (who most want to marry each other) did not marry each other.
It would be unethical to prevent the marriage of two people who most want to marry each other because that does leave some people worse off. This is the whole issue with the anti-gay marriage people. Two gay people getting married has no negative effect on any heterosexual marriage.
Yes it is ethical, if only because I don't think they would want our help copulating...