How to Think About Social Issues: 15-16

15. Identify whether a disagreement is over means or ends:

When two people disagree over the desirability of a certain measure, there are two potential sources of this disagreement. The first, which I will call a scientific disagreement, is over what results can be expected from adopting a certain measure. It is a disagreement over whether this particular set of means will produce that particular end or ends, not over the desirability of the ends themselves. The second, which I will call a valuational disagreement, is over the desirability of the ends likely to be produced by the measure.

For example, imagine that someone proposes that the government should take over the grocery industry. What would a scientific disagreement on this measure look like? Well, an opponent of the measure might say that, because the government is presumably not driven by the profit motive once they have taken over the industry, they are not in a position to use capitalist economic calculation to its fullest, rendering it much more difficult for them to determine the relative value of their inputs and outputs in the eyes of the consumer. This, combined with the lack of competitors pushing the government grocers to serve the consumers better, will mean that, from the point of view of consumer satisfaction, the government take-over will be a disaster.

In response, a supporter of the measure might say (falsely I believe) that since without government control production is anarchic and not efficient socially, a government take-over of the vital grocery industry is a must, the industry is simply too important to be left to the arbitrary whims of individual businessmen. Notice that both debaters have the same end in mind, in this case, the most efficient system for producing and distributing groceries. Theirs is a scientific disagreement because one thinks that the measure is not in fact a means to that end and is in fact directly contrary to it, while the other thinks that the measure is the most suitable means for achieving that end. Note that in a scientific disagreement (yes, even in the social sciences), there is no room for relativism, agreeing to disagree because of different world-views or ideologies, or compromise, either the means under consideration are likely to produce the end sought or they are not. Perhaps one debater adheres to a better theory and/or has interpreted the relevant empirical more cogently than the other, and it is up to the observer to investigate this matter with his own intellect to decide who is ultimately more convincing.

Now, let us look at what a valuational disagreement on this measure would look like. In order to better isolate the two sources of disagreement, let us assume for the moment that both debaters agree that the government taking over the grocery industry will significantly reduce the productivity of the grocery industry in the eyes of the consumers but that it will allow the government to pursue egalitarian policies with regards to groceries and to assure that everyone will at least have enough to eat so as not to starve. The two debaters thus agree on the ends that the measure will produce, but now their disagreement is over which set of ends outweighs the other.

The opponent of the measure could argue that productivity in the eyes of the consumer is the most important measure of policy effectiveness, given that people’s happiness depends on them being able to fulfil their desires as much as possible, especially in an area as important as food. He could also argue how the individual’s freedom to pursue his own ends in the way he sees fit is vitally important as an end in and of itself. He may dismiss the so-called advantages of the government being able to pursue egalitarian policies in the grocery industry, because he may be a believer in meritocracy based on peoples’ ability to serve their fellow man as an end in and of itself and he may not place much importance, if any, on the pursuit of the egalitarian ideal.

The supporter of the measure could argue just the opposite. He could say that once a certain material threshold has been met, men should not pursue petty material advantages anymore, and that man’s voracious appetite for more and more material possessions as a consumer is wholly misguided and should be curbed. People should be satisfied with a simple, minimalist diet that the government will provide to them equally and should not indulge in luxurious gluttony. He may say that individual freedom is not important as an end, only the individual that conforms to some philosophical ideal can live with dignity. He may be a great believer in the ideal of egalitarianism, believing that no man should have more material possessions than any other and that it is a proper use of the government’s coercive power to enforce this.

The source of this disagreement is different evaluations of the desirability of the ends that the measure will likely produce. If the valuation is done thoroughly, remembering of course to consider the general principles behind the measure and what would happen if such principles were applied in other situations, then there is no true right or wrong in a valuational disagreement. The observer must consider carefully which set of ends he values more highly and make his decision accordingly. It is important to know what kind of disagreement you are having with another over a social issue so that you know how to convince them, either by educating them on the theory that you believe is correct for a scientific disagreement, or by trying to convince them to change their subjective valuations in the case of a valuational disagreement.

16. Process: Theory, Predicted Effects, Cost/Benefit List and Weighting, Position:

When analyzing a social measure, start with a scientific analysis (determining what ends the measure is likely to produce). This will require subscribing to a social or economic theory that is applicable to the measure in question based on the general reasonableness of that theory (keeping in mind, while doing so, the preceding tips in this compilation of course). Then, you must apply that theory to the particular measure to see what its predictions concerning the likely results of adopting that measure will be. If applicable, some historical or statistical knowledge relevant to the measure may be useful to back up the theory applied or in order to predict which, of the possible results that the theory predicts the measure could bring about, tends to be the most predominant given certain conditions.

Once this is done with a reasonable amount of thoroughness, draw up a list of all the main results that you think the measure will bring about. Remember, as per tip #13, that the general principle behind the measure could be applied in other situations by using the measure under analysis as a precedent, so this eventuality should be factored into your results list. Though tempting, do not draw up the results list as a cost/benefit list at the moment, remember that no one has evaluated these results subjectively yet.

Once the un-evaluated list has been drawn up, consult your own subjective valuations of the results and now organize the list, in a separate location, as a personal cost/benefit list. Remember, and I can’t stress this enough, that you must also evaluate the general principle and its other possible applications.

For example, let us take a measure to ban tobacco smoking completely. Some items on your results list might include: 1. Likely reduction of lung cancer rates. 2. Probable increased black market and criminal activity around this activity, resulting in more policing and jail resources being necessary and a partial crowding-out of above-ground, law-abiding businesses by underground, law-breaking businesses. 3. People would not waste as much time and money on addictive cigarettes which might allow them to be more productive and allow them to accumulate more capital. 4. Restriction of the freedom of individual consumers to fulfil their own subjectively determined desires in the way that they see fit, resulting in a reduction of their utility/happiness. 5. Reduction of the chances of aggression against others via second-hand smoke, which is an invasion of their right to self-ownership because it forces non-consenting people to inhale potentially dangerous substances. 6. General principle: the government has a right and a duty to prevent consumers from using goods that the government considers to be unhealthy. This measure could be used as a precedent for other measures, such as banning large soft drinks, banning fatty foods, banning television and video games, banning alcohol, etc…

The theories that I employed aspects of to come up with this results list includes: Austrian economic theory, Libertarian social theory, the medical theory that accepts the empirical correlation between smoking and lung cancer as causation. As for my cost/benefit list based on my subjective valuations of the results, I would place #2, #4, and #6 as costs, #1, #3, and #5 as benefits. I am not done yet though, as not all costs and benefits are created equal, thus I must compare the complex of costs versus the complex of benefits and see which course I prefer. In this case, I think that the costs far outweigh the benefits. The prohibition era illustrates how effective a spur to the formation of violent criminal organizations the criminalization of popular substances is, thus #2 is a serious problem for my own safety and the general moral fabric of society. Since all values are subjective, who am I to say that people are making the incorrect choice when they accept an increased risk of lung cancer in exchange for the satisfaction that they get from smoking? Thus, I think that #4 trumps #1. But it is #6, the general principle, which really troubles me, for the last thing I want is a busy body government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body and my time. Certain lifestyle choices, such as my enjoyment of sweet Chinese fast food, consumption of large quantities of red meat, and penchant for staring at screens for the greater part of my time, would perhaps not be considered optimal by a government commission, but they contribute to making me happy and thus I choose them even though I know there are certain health implications that come from these choices. As for #3, I don’t believe I have the right to force people to be more productive as I would not want them to force me to be so. And as for #5, while this is indeed a serious problem, there are several ways, such as the designation of certain areas as smoking areas and the treating of people smoking indoors in the presence of unwilling people or children as aggressors, prosecutable in the courts, to address this problem without the outright banning of smoking.

Thus, performing these steps should allow you to make a personal decision about whether you support a social measure or not. After this, you may want to try to convince others to come around to your way of thinking on this issue. For this, I recommend that you show your un-evaluated results list to the person you are trying to convince and ask them to make their own cost-benefit list. If they reach a different result than you, you can then bring up your own cost/benefit list and overall assessment and engage in a valuational debate to persuade them to see the issues your way.