News I'm sorry Sudanese citizens - the world is too whimpy to help you

[kyleb]

Is return-on-investment calculus moral in these situations? IMO, it is.

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

 

[Njorl]

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

If you use more energy than you need, you raise the price of feul and freeze someone to death.

If you buy more clothing than you need, you raise the profitability of textile manufacture, and make slave laborers in China, who have a high death rate, more possible.

If you own possessions, and expect them to be protected by police, you make necessary police who will inevitably kill innocent people by mistake.

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

Njorl

 

[kyleb]

thank you Njorl, for your very absurd example of moral relativism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

If you use more energy than you need, you raise the price of feul and freeze someone to death.

If you buy more clothing than you need, you raise the profitability of textile manufacture, and make slave laborers in China, who have a high death rate, more possible.

If you own possessions, and expect them to be protected by police, you make necessary police who will inevitably kill innocent people by mistake.

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

Njorl

Nonsense. This is bad economics. The idea that every time I turn around or consume any food or energy, some person dies as a result just won't fly. There are huge slops in the international balance of payments, and things in the fifth or sixth decimal place cannot be counted up. And most people do not starve to death - where they do it's more due to local distribution than supply. Likewise nobody is freezing to death because I drive to the store. You are just waving your hands and making horrors up.

 

[Loren Booda]

If you do nothing, what happens?

 

[BoulderHead]

If you do nothing, what happens?

Then you're still killing people by not producing, haha!

I always insisted on working gratis, and wouldn't let anyone pay me, let alone consider a raise. I felt guilty knowing the cost of my labor would be passed along to the ultimate consumers, destroying them.

 

[Njorl]

Nonsense. This is bad economics. The idea that every time I turn around or consume any food or energy, some person dies as a result just won't fly. There are huge slops in the international balance of payments, and things in the fifth or sixth decimal place cannot be counted up. And most people do not starve to death - where they do it's more due to local distribution than supply. Likewise nobody is freezing to death because I drive to the store. You are just waving your hands and making horrors up.

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

Just because the effect is small does not mean it does not exist. Effects in "the fifth or sixth decimal place" in a population of billions, affect thousands to tens of thousands of people. I think the effect is significantly smaller than you state, but it is not negligible or non-existant.

While it is true that most starvation occurs during famine, and most famine is due to violent disruption of distribution, other starvation does occur.

BTW, I drive to work each day alone, am overweight and eat meat. I like to think that I do more good than harm, though. Since it is not humanly possible to avoid harming others, I believe doing more good is the only alternative.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Then you're still killing people by not producing, haha!

I always insisted on working gratis, and wouldn't let anyone pay me, let alone consider a raise. I felt guilty knowing the cost of my labor would be passed along to the ultimate consumers, destroying them.

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

Just because the effect is small does not mean it does not exist. Effects in "the fifth or sixth decimal place" in a population of billions, affect thousands to tens of thousands of people. I think the effect is significantly smaller than you state, but it is not negligible or non-existant.

While it is true that most starvation occurs during famine, and most famine is due to violent disruption of distribution, other starvation does occur.

BTW, I drive to work each day alone, am overweight and eat meat. I like to think that I do more good than harm, though. Since it is not humanly possible to avoid harming others, I believe doing more good is the only alternative.

Njorl

But isn't the fault in your thinking, that you require a zero sum wealth model?? Simply, that for that to all be true, there can be only a set amount of wealth - but your last statement of 'doing more good' seems to counter that. Either that or you believe that 'doing good' for others is really 'dong bad' to yourself, or another select group.

If 'doing good' offsets 'doing bad' (existing), then the inverse must be true that if something bad is happening to me then something good is happening to someone else. Unless you agree that wealth can be created, not transferred, and then we see the flaw in this whole thinking.

If I do good for someone, you are also saying that I must be doing bad for someone else (taking away to give to another in essence). Are you suggesting we all just share the weight of poor lifestyle at different points in time, as we transfer said burden?

According to you If I exist, I must be taking from someone else. But that is a fallacy so long as wealth, and thus products and services, can be created - not just transferred.

 

[member 5645]

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

Is this sarcasm?

 

[BoulderHead]

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

Njorl,
Do you recommend a ball of some kind for determining that exact magic value?

Actually, I'm more interested to hear your opinion as to government effectively diminishing purchasing power of money through inflation, and starving people, than I am to have the above question answered.

 

[Njorl]

Is this sarcasm?

Yes.

The point is, that one can't be a perfectly moral being. For one thing, one can't know how, and if one did know how, one would fail anyway. One is always harming the innocent.

Since doing harm is unavoidable, a moral calculus is justified. The ultimate example, killing innocents for the greater good, was celebrated with great pomp less than two week ago. We celebrated the successful landing at Normandy, where an estimated 14,000 innocent French civilians were killed.

I will concede this. When one decides to indulge in moral mathmatics, one damn well better get it right.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

 

[Njorl]

But isn't the fault in your thinking, that you require a zero sum wealth model?? Simply, that for that to all be true, there can be only a set amount of wealth - but your last statement of 'doing more good' seems to counter that. Either that or you believe that 'doing good' for others is really 'dong bad' to yourself, or another select group.

If 'doing good' offsets 'doing bad' (existing), then the inverse must be true that if something bad is happening to me then something good is happening to someone else. Unless you agree that wealth can be created, not transferred, and then we see the flaw in this whole thinking.

If I do good for someone, you are also saying that I must be doing bad for someone else (taking away to give to another in essence). Are you suggesting we all just share the weight of poor lifestyle at different points in time, as we transfer said burden?

According to you If I exist, I must be taking from someone else. But that is a fallacy so long as wealth, and thus products and services, can be created - not just transferred.

I certainly do agree that we are not in an economic zero-sum-game. Wealth can certainly be created. While eating a BigMac does not create wealth, living in a free, economically advanced society, of which BigMac consumption is a part, is ammenable to an atmosphere that is likely to be conducive to wealth creation.

I harm the world by eating a BigMac. The free society that let's me eat that BigMac is conducive to my learning physics. The value of the work I do far outweighs the harm of me eating many BigMacs.

Admittedly, I would need to eat more burgers than is humanly possible just make one other person starve, but McDonald's has "Billions served".

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

I don't see how this applies to the situation at hand. Inelasticity in commodities markets only affects short term prices, not long term production. In the long term commodities supply and demand are the most elastic elements in any economy.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

There is so much wrong this, I don’t know where to begin. Are you thinking long-term or short-term, for example? In any event, the conclusion is dubious. Assumed is that costs cannot be cut in other spending to allow for basic subsistence. Ignored is potential for pay increase or even taking on part-time work to help make ends meet. Assumed is this person eats the same items or cannot opt for less expensive alternatives where the cost may have actually moved down (the individual may not even like Big Macs, for instance). Overlooked is that purchases by consumers provide manufactures with financial reward and incentive to increase production. Along a similar line, competitors and entrepreneurs may also see a niche for themselves by catering to public demand. There is much more, of course, but this should be enough to cast doubt on your argument, an argument guilty of Fallacy of Presumption.

 

[Loren Booda]

I recall having heard that there's enough food to go around, but getting it to the hungry individuals consistantly is the primary problem. Secondarily, encourage the conditions under which they may produce to feed themselves.

 

[Njorl]

There is so much wrong this, I don’t know where to begin. Are you thinking long-term or short-term, for example?

Long term. A market that caters to luxury eating requires higher food prices. More land must be brought into cultivation. Rents on lands brought into production are higher than rents on lands necessary for subsistance. The higher rent price is not passed on solely to the overconsumer, it is shared equally by all consumers.

In any event, the conclusion is dubious. Assumed is that costs cannot be cut in other spending to allow for basic subsistence.

Since some people do starve for purely economic reasons, your assumption is obviously wrong. I realize that economic starvation is rare, but it does happen. By starvation, I do not mean death from lack of calories, I mean death from other causes due to vulnerability from lack of calories.

Ignored is potential for pay increase or even taking on part-time work to help make ends meet.

While the luxury eater's demand creates some work, and hence some additional pay, it is necessarily less than enough to compensate for the rise in food prices.

Assumed is this person eats the same items or cannot opt for less expensive alternatives where the cost may have actually moved down (the individual may not even like Big Macs, for instance).

Most calories have a fungible nature. Land used for grain for human consumption can be used to grow cattle feed. Land used for legumes can be used to grow strawberries and asparagus. The dissimilarities of the diet are immaterial. Luxury food displaces subsistance food.

Overlooked is that purchases by consumers provide manufactures with financial reward and incentive to increase production. Along a similar line, competitors and entrepreneurs may also see a niche for themselves by catering to public demand.

This was addressed above. The increased production is, by necessity, more expensive than the previous production. Read David Ricardo on rents.

There is much more, of course, but this should be enough to cast doubt on your argument, an argument guilty of Fallacy of Presumption.

No, my argument is accurate. I am not guilty of the fallacy of presumption, provided any people in the world die either directly or indirectly due to the expense of food. Such indirect causes of death could be due to the expense of food preventing expenditures on other necessities of life, such as adequate housing or medical care. Brazil, for example, has a large population in this circumstance, and exports over half a million tons of beef a year.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

I recall having heard that there's enough food to go around, but getting it to the hungry individuals consistantly is the primary problem. Secondarily, encourage the conditions under which they may produce to feed themselves.

That is true. Most hunger is caused by political conditions, not economic conditions, but not all. The validity of my argument requires only some economic hunger to exist.

Remember though, my real argument is that moral calculus is justified because none of us can ever hope to be morally true.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

That is true. Most hunger is caused by political conditions, not economic conditions, but not all. The validity of my argument requires only some economic hunger to exist.

Remember though, my real argument is that moral calculus is justified because none of us can ever hope to be morally true.

Njorl

Yes and it's just your motivation of that principle that strikes us as unconvincing. You wave your hands and say that if I eat a sandwich, some poor person will starve, and there is no credible causal chain between the premise and the conclusion.

 

[kyleb]

well it really goes wrong when you realize he is implying that since many people will eat a sandwich while letting others starve, droping bombs on inoncent people is peachy.

 

[Njorl]

well it really goes wrong when you realize he is implying that since many people will eat a sandwich while letting others starve, droping bombs on inoncent people is peachy.

Intentional ignorance is a strong defense. The problem is, you remain ignorant.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Yes and it's just your motivation of that principle that strikes us as unconvincing. You wave your hands and say that if I eat a sandwich, some poor person will starve, and there is no credible causal chain between the premise and the conclusion.

The causal chain has been laid out clearly. If you are more comfortable ignoring it, that is just fine. I ignore it most of the time too. Life is easier that way.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

Long term. A market that caters to luxury eating requires higher food prices. More land must be brought into cultivation. Rents on lands brought into production are higher than rents on lands necessary for subsistance. The higher rent price is not passed on solely to the overconsumer, it is shared equally by all consumers.

Can you demonstrate how a high priced piece of land cultivated to grow and sell a luxury food item to the wealthy affects, for example, the price of beans continuing to be grown on some other piece of land?

Since some people do starve for purely economic reasons, your assumption is obviously wrong.

You do not prove your position by misrepresenting mine; I never claimed people do not starve for purely economic reasons. There may be many reasons why an individual starves that can be traced to economics, but not all of them support your assertion. If you cannot demonstrate that your overeating necessarily causes the starvation death of another then your argument must necessarily fail, simple as that.

I realize that economic starvation is rare, but it does happen. By starvation, I do not mean death from lack of calories, I mean death from other causes due to vulnerability from lack of calories.

Do you mean death by malnutrition or a condition related to same? Ok, I won’t argue the expansion of the definition of starvation, I think I can accept your position here, but this could also complicate things for you because now another link must be shown to exist.

I agree that our individual actions play a role in an economy, but I do not think it is possible to define the consequences of a personal action with such precision as you appear to do. In fact, were I to argue anything, I would more than likely assert the impossibility of knowing all the long-term ramifications eating an additional sandwich might have on society.

While the luxury eater's demand creates some work, and hence some additional pay, it is necessarily less than enough to compensate for the rise in food prices.

You have not proven this assertion. For all we know, catering to a luxury eater might result in a technology breakthrough leading to more affordable consumer goods. Who can really say with certainty? Is there some greater percentage of people starving in countries where luxury food is available than in countries where it is not?

Most calories have a fungible nature. Land used for grain for human consumption can be used to grow cattle feed. Land used for legumes can be used to grow strawberries and asparagus. The dissimilarities of the diet are immaterial. Luxury food displaces subsistance food.

I think it is time for contrast with your earlier statement;

“More land must be brought into cultivation…”

As can be seen, the claim was first made that luxury eating must bring new lands into production. Subsequently, a claim is made that luxury food displaces subsistence food (taking over existing land?). Are you attempting to have your luxury food and eat it too?!
In any event, you have not shown either of these contradictory claims will result in someone being starved to death, and that would remain so even if I were to agree prices might possibly increase.

No, my argument is accurate. I am not guilty of the fallacy of presumption, provided any people in the world die either directly or indirectly due to the expense of food.

This is very much incorrect;
First, even allowing for direct/indirect deaths due to expense of food, overlooked are other factors unrelated to your claim which can and do affect the price of foodstuffs, and you cannot be held accountable for all of them by simple overeating.
Second, context is in fact an issue here; you cannot merely throw a blanket statement that so long as 'any people in the world die...', as you must show the relevance to your overeating. You appear to be attempting to lend credit to a specific claim by appeal to a broader observation having other causes.

In any event, you have already defeated what you now attempt to argue by admission;

Admittedly, I would need to eat more burgers than is humanly possible just make one other person starve, but McDonald's has "Billions served".

So, it can be concluded it is not humanly possible for you to starve one other person…case closed…your bold assertion I chose to dispute had no merit.
Now, if you wish to identify with the perceived collective guilt of overeating as something you are to be personally accountable for then feel free. I think it is largely a waste of guilt.

 

[russ_watters]

Dang, I forgot about this thread...

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

No, kyleb, this has nothing to do with moral relativism. I don't know where you get that idea from, but moral relativism simply means that morality is in the eye of the beholder.

What I was describing is Utilitarianism and its a form of moral absolutism.

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

The point is, that one can't be a perfectly moral being. For one thing, one can't know how, and if one did know how, one would fail anyway. One is always harming the innocent.

Well put. My critereon for morality is simply that a person make an honest effort to be moral - and I still am a moral absolutist.

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

But they do also teach in Econ101 (just as they teach in Materials Science 101) that there is no such thing as completely inelastic. That the demand for oil (for example) can be considered "inelastic" simply means that there is low elasticity. Prices could go up 50% (as they have since 9/11 and demand drops by very little - but still does drop.

 

[russ_watters]

If...

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

I'm sure you know that those if's, while accurate according to the equations of economics, are oversimplifications. There are other "ifs" that make a bigger difference:

-If the government would stop paying farmers to grow dirt, there would be more grain available for export.

-If more people would care enough to intervene in situations like the Sudan, famines and genocide could all but be eliminated in the world.

In any case, your point is well taken, though I think most people were too shocked by your content to see through to the point: Whether people like it or not, everyone uses a moral calculus in their daily lives.

So my question (again) is: Is that right (moral)?

 

[Njorl]

Can you demonstrate how a high priced piece of land cultivated to grow and sell a luxury food item to the wealthy affects, for example, the price of beans continuing to be grown on some other piece of land?

For one thing, assuming that beans would continue to be grown on existing plots is erroneous. If we assume the market changes by the addition of demand for luxury food items, we should assume that all aspects of the supply chain are affected by that addition. Each farmer will re-assess his financial situation and determine if he should plant beans or luxury items, and in which fields he should plant them.

Now, if we assume that some of the bean fields have been replanted with cattle feed, more fields must be brought into production. The reason those fields were not in production before is that the cost of operating those fields was too high to warrant planting in them - due to irrigation needs, low mineral content etc. (BTW, the costs associated with bringing land into production is what is meant by "rent" in agricultural economics.)

So we are faced with one of two situations. Either luxury food production displaces some bean production, or it moves some bean production to more expensive land, increasing production costs.

You do not prove your position by misrepresenting mine; I never claimed people do not starve for purely economic reasons. There may be many reasons why an individual starves that can be traced to economics, but not all of them support your assertion. If you cannot demonstrate that your overeating necessarily causes the starvation death of another then your argument must necessarily fail, simple as that.

I have very clearly demonstrated that unnecessary consumption does increase prices. You have accepted that there is economically based starvation. Can I prove that one leads to the other? I don't know what you would accept as proof. Logically, if there are people who are barely not starving, and there are people who are starving I would assume that lower food prices would move people from the latter category to the former.

You have not proven this assertion. For all we know, catering to a luxury eater might result in a technology breakthrough leading to more affordable consumer goods. Who can really say with certainty? Is there some greater percentage of people starving in countries where luxury food is available than in countries where it is not?

This is actually my larger point. Taken in isolation, overeating harms the innocent. A billion people overeating noticeably harms the innocent. A billion people living in free societies which are productive enough to allow widespread overeating and free enough to allow citizens to make a wide range of their own moral choices is beneficial. The good outweighs the bad.

I think it is time for contrast with your earlier statement;

“More land must be brought into cultivation…”

As can be seen, the claim was first made that luxury eating must bring new lands into production. Subsequently, a claim is made that luxury food displaces subsistence food (taking over existing land?). Are you attempting to have your luxury food and eat it too?!

I find your confusion ... confusing. I think I explained this above, but I will recap. Luxury food displaces subsistance food on some land, therefore more expensive land must be brought into production.

In any event, you have not shown either of these contradictory claims will result in someone being starved to death, and that would remain so even if I were to agree prices might possibly increase.

For your view to hold, you must assume that while there are people who are starving due to economic factors, no one in the world is on the borderline - nobody is just getting by, or failing to just get by. This would be a coincidence of staggering proportions.

This is very much incorrect;
First, even allowing for direct/indirect deaths due to expense of food, overlooked are other factors unrelated to your claim which can and do affect the price of foodstuffs, and you cannot be held accountable for all of them by simple overeating.

All this means is that you are moving different people from not-starving to starving than you would have otherwise.

In any event, you have already defeated what you now attempt to argue by admission;

That admission was, in part, to show that I understood the absurd aspects of my own arguement. I know I'm not killing anybody.

So, it can be concluded it is not humanly possible for you to starve one other person…case closed…your bold assertion I chose to dispute had no merit.

I never thought I could starve another person. I'm sure a thousand of me probably couldn't. A million of me might not. A billion of me surely would. How many people have to share guilt before it vanishes? My point is, there is some finite level where I really shouldn't let it bother me. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. I have at least a billionth of a death on my hands. I don't feel guilt about it.

Now, if you wish to identify with the perceived collective guilt of overeating as something you are to be personally accountable for then feel free. I think it is largely a waste of guilt.

I was never trying to make anyone feel guilty. My goal was exactly the opposite. Besides ... guilt leads to overeating.

Njorl

 

[honestrosewater]

Allay your guilt! Donate Now!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3793577.stm
http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=4

 

[kyleb]

Dang, I forgot about this thread...
No, kyleb, this has nothing to do with moral relativism. I don't know where you get that idea from, but moral relativism simply means that morality is in the eye of the beholder.

What I was describing is Utilitarianism and its a form of moral absolutism.

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

you have a overly simplistic concept of moral reltivism which leads to your difficuly in understanding my comments. perhaps this link will help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

In either case, why is killing innocent people always immoral?

i am sorry, i am at a loss as to how i might explain such things to a moral reltivist.

 

[russ_watters]

you have a overly simplistic concept of moral reltivism which leads to your difficuly in understanding my comments. perhaps this link will help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I may have put it simply, but I'm quite comfortable with the concept.

i am sorry, i am at a loss as to how i might explain such things to a moral reltivist.

That's a cop out - especially considering that I'm a moral absolutist. Its not an easy question and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about. Can you answer it or not?

Let me help with a common case-study: Suppose you and a group of your friends are kidnapped. The hostage taker says if one of you volunteers to be executed, the rest will be freed. Otherwise, all will be killed. What do you do and why? Now suppose he selects you to make the choice alone. What do you do and why? Now suppose he selects you to execute one of your friends. What do you do and why?

Tough, aren't they?

I studied this in great detail in college. What was fascinating is that in the beginning, I'd say 90% of the people in my class were relativists - I was one of a small handful of absolutists. By the end, virtually everyone was an absolutist.

A little more on my views - as I have said before, I'm a scientific absolutist: I believe moral absolutes can be arrived at via study like theories. I believe that religious-based moral absolutism is a cop-out that allows people to follow a moral code without ever having to think about it: following the rules because they are the rules (or worse, for fear of retrobution) is not moral.