From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:15:38 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1ejiabINNlhl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>A law specifying one is to drive on the right hand side of the road does
>not automatically determine that driving upon the left hand side of the
>road is immoral, painful or full of suffering.

The purpose of the law is to reduce accidents (pain and suffering) and
annoyance (minor pain and suffering).  I can't understand why you
think that purpose has nothing to do with morality.

>You are using the notion of economic 'good' versus moral 'good' here, and
>really, you shouldn't mix 'em up because there are plenty of examples
>available of economic 'goods' that you would find moral 'bads'.  

Any opposition between economic and moral goods strikes me as
confused.  If economic "goods" are really good and if they are things
the government should promote it is because they make human life
better somehow.  Morality is the overall system of principles for
making human life as good as it can be.  Where's the opposition?

>Order is a 'good' thing because there is a high cost to chaos.  In some
>areas of life, we prefer to pay the higher cost -- we permit free speech
>for one thing, which enables a whole mess of people to say nasty things 
>to/about/against other people.

Here you seem to be saying that not all good things can be achieved
simultaneously.  That's true, but I don't see why it implies a
fundamental opposition between economics and morality.  The same sort
of conflict arises within economics and morality as well (for example,
we may have to choose between moral evils like lying and knowingly
causing pain to someone).

In the case you mention the considerations include possible economic
losses (from disorder or from enforcing order), possible losses in
civility (people saying nasty things about each other), risks of
tyranny if the government has too much power, the possibility that
free speech will permit people to develop their capacities and find
truth, and so on.  All these considerations can conflict.  It seems to
me that the thing to do is to choose the outcome that looks like it
will make human life best.  What does any of this have to do whether
economics and morality are fundamentally different things with
fundamentally different goods?

>Now, having got this far, do you or do you not recognise
>that 'unreasonable risks' to people include, and in many cases is primarily
>determined by, economic considerations?

I take it you mean that economic considerations are relevant to
whether the risk is unreasonable?  Of course!  If morality is the
system of principles for making human life as good as possible, and if
economic goods can contribute to the goodness of human life, then
economic considerations play a role in determining what we morally
should do.

>Economics is a much simpler explanation, after all, of why societies
>with *competing* religious doctrines ('moral' doctrines if you will) often
>include the *same* legal prohibitions.....

Why shouldn't competing doctrines have a lot in common?  If they
didn't if anything it would support the view that they're all a bunch
of hogwash.

>Economics is also a much simpler
>explanation of those areas where the law is SILENT on moral issues.  

Don't understand.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)