Philosophical Issues in Economics



Yüklə 402,29 Kb.
səhifə1/14
tarix14.12.2017
ölçüsü402,29 Kb.
#15929
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14



Philosophical Issues in Economics
A collection of essays submitted by the MPhil class of 2004-2005

By
The 2004-2005 Economics and Development Studies MPhil students, taking the course, Philosophical Issues in Economics, at the University of Cambridge.


[Note: The standard disclaimer applies]




Table of contents

I. Utilitarianism…….……………………………………………………………..……..2-8


II. Capability……………………………………………………...................................9-36
III. Liberty and Equality…………...............................................................................37-53
IV. Poverty………………………………………………………………….………...54-61
V. Preference, choice and self-interest ……………………….…………………...…62-90
VI. Irrationality and rationality – Keynes……………………...………..……...…...91-101
VII. Happiness…………………………………………………………..................102-116
Notes……………………………………………………………………………….117-118

I. Utilitarianism

Invent an example to illustrate the following form of attack on utilitarianism:

in situation Z, utilitarianism implies one ought to do P; but doing P [or doing P on utilitarian grounds alone] is morally repugnant; so utilitarianism should be rejected. Use the example to illustrate ways in which such an attack could be resisted. Do any leading critical cases in the literature seem especially resistible in one or more of these ways? Do any still seem strong? Does your analysis suggest any conclusions about the effectiveness of this method of criticism?

Essay 1

(by Maryam Tanwir)

Utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. 1

Critics have attacked this theory by constructing examples-say, a situation Z- where utilitarianism implies doing a certain act P, which the critics claim is morally repugnant and hence should be rejected. A possible utilitarian response is to argue that though P is unpleasant it is the best solution in a myriad of bad solutions and should therefore be accepted after all.

Imagine a situation in which a boat is sailing in to the Deep-Sea. It is carrying ten children. I am the eleventh person, the sailor, the only one capable of sailing the boat. Without the sailor the boat will sink. A catastrophe happens. The boat is overweight. It slowly starts sinking. All eleven of us will drown within the next three minutes. There are no rescue facilities available. No help can be relied upon. There is only one hope. If the boat is lighter by a couple of hundred pounds it can stop sinking and stabilize. That means two people from the boat have to jump out. I can’t leave because I am the only one who can manage the boat. The choice is in this situation (Z) to make two children people leave the boat (P) or to put it bluntly throw two of them out. A utilitarian would throw two people out of the boat and save the other nine as opposed to allowing all eleven to die. To minimise the pain of letting eleven people die or forcibly throwing two out, he could ask two to jump out. Hopefully having the solace that they are saving lives of nine people in the process, so their pain of embracing death is minimised by knowing their death is not going to waste, as opposed to sinking with the boat and dying needlessly. Critics say doing P is morally repugnant, and consequently utilitarianism should be rejected, a utilitarian would say it is morally unpleasant, but necessary, not doing it, and averting disaster, is what would be morally repugnant. The utilitarian must triumph in averting the worst-case scenario. The defence that a utilitarian would use is that he offers much better alternative than a non utilitarian would offer, which is allowing all eleven to die.

This analogy can also be applied to other leading examples, where utilitarianism is attacked but seems clearly resistible in this manner. To discuss the leading example by Bernard Williams, where Utilitarianism is accused of not incorporating Jim’s integrity: In this example if Jim shoots one person, he can save nineteen lives. If he does not concede to shoot one, all will assuredly die. Jim is standing at the crossroads trying to come in grips with his moral dilemma of shooting one. The utilitarian would tell Jim to shoot. And here the utilitarian is accused of ignoring Jim’s ‘moral repugnancy’. But should the utilitarian really entertain his moral repugnancy at the cost of nineteen lives? Here the utilitarian and the most rational answer would be that Jim’s integrity should be based on the exaltation of having the opportunity of saving nineteen lives. His moral squeamishness needs to be contained. The fact that Jim might find it difficult to live with psychological state should not be given precedence before minimizing the horror for the extra victims. It is too self indulgent on his part to be find the solution of saving nineteen and shooting one morally repugnant. Why is his integrity not based on saving nineteen lives? He should be noble, put his pleasure aside, for the pleasure of the nineteen lives saved. As J.J.C Smart aptly comments, “It is right for the utilitarian to sacrifice the harmony of his own mind to others”2

To analyse the criticism levied in the example by Bernard Williams on the dilemma of George. George is desperate for a job. His lack of a job is a serious cause of stress and pain for his wife and family. He gets the opportunity to work in a Laboratory, (situation Z) which pursues research in chemical and biological research. George is opposed to the principle. But if he does not accept the job, it will go to his contemporary who is very keen on the job and will be very efficient in promoting the cause. The utilitarian says George should take it (P), since not only will the job minimize the pain at home but also George will actually be instrumental in impeding dangerous research. Just as before why is the utilitarian accused here? What else is a better option? George stays at home, increase the pain of his children and wife, by not providing for them, and allow his contemporary to accelerate the research in chemical and biological warfare and consequently increase the pain in the society. There can be an analogy to this example here. If you have a despot for a ruler, who was evil and irrational, but relied heavily on his advisor, and if you were offered to take on the position, even if you hated him, would you not take it up, so you could minimize the damage he could mete out, or would you lament over your morally repugnancy for the man, and refrain from joining the post as advisor, allowing for the maximization of damage to your country men, by allowing some other man to be an advisor who was in sympathy with the despot ruler? The Utilitarian rejects the dissolution of its doctrine by arguing that there is no loss of Integrity. His integrity should be based on being instrumental in impeding the research, or in the other case minimizing the damage to his country. The act is not morally repugnant and hence utilitarianism should not be rejected.

Another leading example, which is used to discredit Utilitarianism, is the one relating to the survival lottery by John Harris. This example also seems resistible but in a different way. In this situation two patients X and Y are in a dire need of organ transplant. One needs a liver and the other a pair of lungs. If they do not receive the donation they will assuredly die. It is ludicrously proposed here that a utilitarian would suggest that one healthy person should be killed so his organs can be donated to the two. But it is apparent that Utilitarianism is misapplied here. It does not dictate to kill. This is a far too calculated and an extreme response. Here the critics accuse the utilitarian of allowing the murder of one to save two lives. The utilitarian can reply by saying that he is falsely accused of this charge. Fortunately there are other feasible and less drastic methods available to the utilitarian to save the situation. People might be requested to give donor cards on their own free will. Some might donate while living by free will. And when they donate voluntarily, they feel better about themselves, feel the nobleness in their character, hence pain of dying/donating in minimized, as opposed to being killed against one’s will, where the pain would be colossal. So pain is minimized and the pleasure is further enhanced, as the survivors do not carry the burden of dealing with the guilt that they forcibly took someone’s life to save their own. Consequently their pleasure of living is not jeopardised. A utilitarian can also argue that if people were cognisant of the fact that they lived in a survival lottery world, it would assuredly undermine their happiness. So the utilitarian in this situation pleads that he is unjustly accused here. In this situation (Z) he does not dictate to kill (P), so utilitarianism should certainly be not rejected.

A strong support to these examples lies in the fact that Utilitarianism has a very high moral ground; it promotes happiness of all, even if individual has to sacrifice. An apt example is mentioned in “Utilitarianism and its critics” by Jonathon Glover. If I come across a lot of money my personal happiness would be the most maximized by taking a luxury vacation around Europe, but according to the utilitarian the maximization of happiness for the society would be better attained if I spend that money on charity.

The whole essence of utilitarianism is in the understanding of word Happiness.

When it dictates that happiness is the directive rule of human conduct, it is not referring to the individuals own greatest happiness but the greatest happiness altogether. And between his happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.

Those who entertain anything like a just idea of its disinterested character, sometimes find fault with its standard as being too high for humanity. They say it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society’. 3

When the utilitarian such as J.S.Mill postulates that the end aim of morality and conduct is happiness, he is not referring to happiness based on the sensory or physical pleasures or the pleasures the Champagne addict has in A.Sen’s example. The happiness refers to a more profound moral feeling. This word has immense potential. In it lies the greatest defence of utilitarianism. Foremost it is rational. Secondly it is derived out of selflessness. The goal then is an ideal state when one is cognizant of the fact that its actions were guided with rationality, objectivity, selflessness and nobleness of character. And the consequences lead to the greatest amount of happiness for all.

Consequently the leading examples mentioned in the essay break down and don’t seem strong anymore, once utilitarianism is understood the way J.S.Mill expounded it. In addition this method of working with examples to prove or discredit utilitarianism does not work very well. Since all the cases are extreme and have little relation to everyday life. This method of proving or discrediting a theory by attacking it with extreme unrealistic examples is not the best way to realize its worth. It is a moral principle, which dictates the aim of life and should be viewed in everyday situations to evaluate its merit .And if there is an example where Utilitarianism cannot give a pertinent response that should not automatically lead to its dissolution. There are ample exceptions in most moral philosophies where a theory cannot satisfy some extreme example, should that lead to their dissolution?

Of course as a moral philosophy it does not claim to be perfect. It has weaknesses like having too high a moral ground, not easily attainable. It can be faulted as having too high a standard for humanity. It can be too demanding and exhausting to require that people should always act to promote the general happiness of the society. People cannot really measure how people feel about things. It can be impersonal. Also according the A.Sen it does not consider the distribution of utility, or differences between individuals, or the intrinsic value of things other than end-states.

Nonetheless in the above mentioned examples utilitarianism does stand as a morally philosophy where it endeavours to maximize the happiness, and minimize pain of all, and offers the best solution in a myriad of worse solutions. In the examples of a sinking boat, Jim and George’s dilemma what other moral principles would a non-utilitarian apply? Which standards would hold here? Are they better solutions? Utilitarianism assuredly gives the least bad solution in face of much worse solutions.

There is no moral philosophy, which works in every (extreme) situation. What the test is whether the philosophy works well on its basic postulates, and offers better standards than alternative theories. Arguing with extreme examples to negate a theory is a fruitless endeavour, but even then the utilitarian has ample defence for its doctrine.


Bibliography

A. Sen (1999) Development as freedom

J. Glover ed. (1990), Utilitarianism and its critics.

J.S.Mill Utilitarianism



II. Capability
a. Compare the cases of a starving man in a famine, a fasting priest, a person with very expensive tastes in food, and an undernourished Indian wife nourishing her husband, in order to investigate advantages and difficulties in taking ‘the appropriate “space”’ for much evaluation to be ‘that of the substantive freedoms – the capabilities – to choose a life one has reason to value’ (Sen).
OR
b. ‘For many evaluative purposes, the appropriate “space” is neither that of utilities (as claimed by welfarists), nor that of primary goods (as demanded by Rawls), but that of the substantive freedoms – the capabilities – to choose a life one has reason to value’ (Sen). Explain the basis for this view; and outline what problems might arise in making capabilities the evaluative space. How far do you agree with Sen’s claim?

Essay 1

(by Mariah Mansvelt Beck)


In order to assess a state of affairs such as the level of development, wellbeing, or inequality different evaluative approaches have been developed focusing on different informational bases (Sen 1999:57). The capability approach as developed by Sen, which places freedom as its main focus, asserts that income and wealth are “not desirable for their own sake”, but because they typically are a means for having “more freedom to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value” (Sen 1999:14). To investigate the advantages and difficulties in taking “the appropriate ‘space’” to be “that of the substantive freedoms – the capabilities” (Sen 1999:74), this essay will contrast this view with four others with different evaluative spaces, namely those of income, utility, primary goods and the human development index (HDI) while focussing on four particular cases as outlined in the table below.

Income is commonly used to assess the comparative wellbeing or poverty levels within and between societies. By fixing a poverty line in terms of income, comparative analysis has often been facilitated (Sen 1995:102). In contrast, welfarists evaluate a state of affairs by the individual utilities in that state (Sen 1995:43). Utility is defined in terms of a mental condition, such as pleasure, happiness or desire, sometimes as reflected in choice (Sen 1995:53). Rawls on the other hand maintains a wide and less subjective informational basis of primary goods. Primary goods are the resources people need to promote their ends. They include income and wealth, rights, liberties and opportunities, and the social bases of self respect (Rawls 1971: 60-5). Lastly, proponents of the human development approach, who advocate a people-centred view of development, developed the HDI (Stewart 2004:2). The HDI maintains the simplicity of a single numerical value, like income-based approaches (Sen 2004:4). It, however, has broadened its informational base to include not only income, but also health, which is measured by life expectancy and knowledge, which is measured by a weighted average of adult literacy rate and either mean years of schooling or the combined enrolment ratio (Stewart 2004:3).


According to Sen the objective of an evaluative approach should be to concentrate on an individual’s real opportunities to pursue his or her objectives, criticising the above approaches for maintaining a too restrictive informational base (Sen 1999:56-8). To do this the capability approach focuses on the characteristics of commodities that enable a ‘functioning’. Commodities, can be compared to Rawls’ primary goods, whereas functionings are what certain characteristics enable people to do or be. For example a bike is a commodity and it enables the functioning of mobility (Robeyns 2000: 5). Personal, social and environmental conversion factors must be taken into account that influence an individual’s ability to convert the characteristics of the commodity into a functioning (Sen 1999:74). If a person is physically disabled and cannot ride a bike or can ride it with more difficulty, if women are not allowed to ride bikes in a certain society, or if there are no roads, all of these factors restrict an individual’s potential functioning to be mobile. An individual’s potential functionings are referred to as capabilities and all of an individual’s capabilities are referred to as a capability set (Robeyns 2003:12). The capability set thus represents the freedom a person has to achieve certain things. Hence, the capability approach does not merely focus on an individual’s achieved functionings, which form a partial reflection of an individual’s capability set and are, as Robeyns indicates, influenced by individuals’ different ideas of what a good life consists of (Robeyns 2003:14-5).
The following table will be discussed in relation to the capability approach;


FOCUS ON:

CASE OF:

Income

Utility

(as supported by welfarists)

Primary goods

(Rawls)

Capabilities

(Sen)

HDI

(human development approach)

Starving man in a famine

CASE I


Under poverty line



Low utility

Would reflect lack of food

Would reflect lack of capability

Would reflect inadequate levels of health and income

Fasting priest


CASE I


Above poverty line


Most likely normal utility

Would reflect the fact that the priest has adequate access to food

Would reflect that the priest had the capability to be well-nourished

Would reflect the priest’s access to adequate income and lack of health

Undernourished Indian wife nourishing her husband (with an inadequate household income)

CASE II


Would reflect low household income but probably not personal distribution of income

*

Most likely normal utility
*

Unlikely to take this case into account

*

Would reflect lack of capability/choice

Would reflect wife’s lack of health compared to her husband’s and their inadequate amount of income

Person with very expensive tastes in food (and only normal income)

CASE III


Above poverty line


Most likely low utility


*

Not a case of utility injustice but a case of preferences that are own responsibility

Depends on which functionings one is focusing on

*


Would reflect person’s adequate health and income

Yüklə 402,29 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə