When I teach it in my classes, I note that killing a homeless guy to save the lives of five scientists would likely pass cost benefit but would still be a pretty awful idea. And that CB gives a good way of ruling out particularly bad ideas, but not necessarily a great way of deciding which of many potentially good things should be done.

I don’t disagree at all: having standard procedures and assumptions allows comparability, which is extremely important. It’s when the BCR becomes synonymous with ‘a good idea’ that I think it’s gone too far and people need to think about the moral component of the analysis. Economists don’t tend to deny the normative element of their analysis, but they pay lip service to its existence and stop there. I’m as guilty as anyone but that doesn’t make it better 😛

James, I have a lot of sympathy with this. But I’m still, always, working hard to stomp on my moral side when doing straight economic analysis. First, I’m probably in a thin tail of the distribution of moral views; having analysis be based on that really limits applicability. Second, there are standard sets of assumptions in things like Cost Benefit Analysis for a very good reason – it makes projects comparable and makes it less likely that differences in world view drive analysis. If you want to deviate, you’ve gotta explain why and make the case for it. 

I’m sure you’ve heard Seamus’ views on how closely most economists hew to a purely consequentialist moral philosophy. I don’t think many economists see their work as bearing on morality, hence their eagerness to brush equitable issues to one side. In fact, I think many CBA practitioners neglect to recognise the moral component of their evaluations at all. Most seem to wave their hands about equitable issues and assume that efficiency is a positive criterion.

But that’s just an example of bureaucratic capture.

To abandon Bentham’s hedonic calculus 😉

What if it was proven by utilitarian principles that the majority of people in a society would be happier if economists were outlawed? If the Crown was your employer, what would your policy advice be?

Why, to satisfy their preferences, of course!