Add in Tyler Cowen on animal welfare, Frances. Really nice piece. Basically argues that we must eat meat if animals get positive utility from existence, but we should tax it to fund transfers to the pet sector to subsidize more happier animal lives.

The other thing that I wanted to get across to is that, in economics, preferences play a dual role. On the one hand, they’re used to explain/predict people’s choices – knowing that I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla you can predict that, all else being equal, I’m likely to choose chocolate over vanilla. On the other hand, they have normative content – the economist says “if a person chooses chocolate to vanilla then she’s better off eating chocolate ice cream than vanilla ice cream.” It’s often hard to convey this distinction – but suddenly, if you start talking about a dog’s preferences, it becomes obvious that what the dog chooses and what is good for the dog might be different things. 

As for the question “why is it acceptable to limit animal’s choices, but not humans?” – it’s summer. Nick Rowe, our #1 blogger, was off canoeing. I wanted to be a little bit provocative just to get the conversation started – though I was thinking of Peter Singer too.

Except that it’s (‘paternalism’) not usually about treating all people that way.  Just some large minorities / small majorities.  The better comparison is slavery.
Hyperbole aside, I like the example.
I like some occasions of paternalism.  I like that Pharmac and my doctor essentially make medicine decisions for me as, like the dog, I’ve got no idea what’s best which no amount of information provision or competition is going to fix (more likely, make worse).
I dislike other occasions.
That’s the point of this post, I suppose.

That is very true.  In that sense using this example would be akin to treating all citizens as people with a poor negotiating position with government – sounds a bit like stock standard communism 😉

I’d suggest that people don’t ignore the dog’s wishes, but that people are in a strong negotiating position and pay a reservation wage to dogs for their service; kibble being much cheaper than chocolate.

Dogs might, perhaps, decide to leave home and take their chances at finding a sympathetic child who brings it home to the child’s family, or be picked up by the RSPCA.

Or they might sulk; withdrawing dog services. After all, how many people know that chocolate is bad for dogs?  It’s something I only recently (last few years) discoverd.  Not by experimentation.

“Do those making policy really think they’re significantly smarter and better informed that all those they’re deciding for and, if so, is that belief justified?”

Yep, sure of course this point is definitely open to debate, not a black and white issue as I perhaps suggested 🙂

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Emma. I think there is generally agreement about the cognitive impairment argument but you underplay the importance of your last thought in parentheses. The implication is that paternalistic policies aimed at the general populace follow the same pattern. Do those making policy really think they’re significantly smarter and better informed that all those they’re deciding for and, if so, is that belief justified? 

Perhaps you think it obvious that it’s true and unjustified but I don’t think that’s a widely held view.

I think our paternalistic treatment of animals (as pets) is more logically consistent than our treatment of eating animals (in general). We see it as okay to override the preferences of animals for their own good, as well as humans with some sort of mental impairment etc (not referring to the poor unwashed masses here). The reason why we see it as okay to limit animals choices but not most humans is because we sensibly lump them in the same bucket as humans with impaired cognitive capacity. Noone’s complaining that forcing old people to take their blood pressure meds is paternalism limiting their freedoms.  I’m sure the author of the above snippet knows this, and  I’m not sure why the reductio above is very thought provoking. (Aside from the implication that paternalists see their subject as mentally impaired, perhaps).

Agreed – children, rather than animals, is the usual example of this type of question among economists. Good to see you mixing things up a bit 😉

When paternalists are the educated elite, they undeniably want to help those of us that are not endowed with the same intelligence … I wish they would just say this out load so that everyone could get back to ignoring their more extreme statements 😀