I wrote a similar reply to VMC, but I think it’s also worth pointing out from a historical perspective that most places in history haved been ruled without consent of the governed (or however you’d like to put it), and so the problem has been the concentration of power. Reducing that concentration of power used to be a far more effective way of improving the lives of a lot of people, and so to say those rulers simply had a different but equally legitimate way of thinking about how the world ought to be ordered, is laughable. Matt’s post is far more relevant in a modern context.

VMC – Using Matt’s/Sens logic those exceptions you name are those who believe the world would be a better place with themselves at the top of the pile as part of the elite. It does not rebut the logic at all. You simply demonstrate there is a likely bell curve of moral motivations.

Churchills decision to allow the bombing of Coventry could be seen as “unfair” by the inhabitants of that city, but in protecting the secret of Enigma it served the greater good.

I figured I’ll just throw up another quote from it on Monday, as I won’t have any time to write this weekend – it is gold 😛

I’m surprised I’ve never thought to read any of his books given how much I’ve enjoyed his papers – with a Kindle I had no excuse, and I’m definitely enjoying it.

Stiglitz is great – but I don’t share his view of other human beings in that way.

Economics assumes people make choices, and they do so in a way of “self-interest” indeed. But this doesn’t, and shouldn’t preclude valuing others. However, even when it does (undeniably the value we place on others is lower than the value they place on themselves after all) the key point is that much of the time when people are discussing the costs and benefits of policy, there is a tacit belief that what they are suggesting is for the betterment of society in some way.

Both the left and the right have a fundamental belief that what they are suggesting is in the interest of what their “conception” of society is – and this quote from Sen about equality nicely incapsulates this idea.

In economics there are often “many” explanations for a phenomenon, and we are trying to figure out which one appears to be the most believable given data and theory. At the bottom of the choices often lies a “change in preferences” – this is not because a change in preferences is the most unlikely, but because such as view is “trivially true”. As a result, in order to make sure we give other arguments sufficient chance to show their best hand, we discount this view to justify research.

In the same vein, stating that there is disagreement between two groups because the other group “doesn’t care” is a trivial way of getting difference – by giving them the same credit for caring about society in some sense, and trying to flesh out how and why (and the trade-offs they are trying to make) we can get a fuller idea of their argument. Even in the case where these people do not care, this knowledge can only help – not just in terms of learning about the other side, but in terms of truly understanding our own views.

I’ll be honest, when I see someone demonise the other side of the argument instead of reason about why, I immediately use that as a signal they have not thought through the issue in as much detail as they are pretending. I have yet to be disappointed from my conversations with people who do so – given one of the most common comments I get from them when trying to have a discussion about central parts of their arguments is “look I just don’t have the time to think about those things” 🙂

“Americans have seen how financial firms put their own interests ahead of those of the country – and the world. The vulture funds have raised greed to a new level.” Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/argentina-s-debt-and-american-courts-by-joseph-e–stiglitz#XXQKlcoFDUSMQSpJ.99 So while it might be nice to think that people want to make the world a better place – there are plenty of counter-examples. Furthermore, the prime narrative from economists would generally be that people want to make themselves better off, as Bill picked up earlier.

“What is the implication of recognising the desirability of setting out
and rebutting an opponents moral choices rather than simply using and
winning arguments through caricature?”

Strawmen are disappointingly common AND persuasive. And there is no “final solution” where your argument is clearly and fully described to everyone. As a result, having areas of open dialog and clear descriptions of trade-offs are an essential part of communication – and as a result a central part of helping society make good policy choices.

And this is one of the roles of economics, economics language, and the method of analysis that economists use. Economics is both a tool for all, and a field that really has “many” fields within it tbh – making the term “too vague” to really use as well. I remember my brother making this point to me about a decade ago when he was talking about why he’d decided to study public policy instead.

In of itself, the idea of what economists have the incentive to analyse is an interesting one. Coase who just passed away was pretty certain that economists have been twisted too much towards government and too far away from providing services from business due to the returns involved – and this has influenced the questions economists ask and the advice they give!