Morality and Economics

I hadn't planned on writing a post tonight, but perhaps now I can get out of writing one tomorrow (although I may anyway). I was trying to think of a good way to introduce an interesting argument, a very compelling one in my current opinion. So wasn't there a famous Bill Nye segment called "consider the following?" Well do it. Consider the following:

The lack of recognition of common humanity is the base of all problems in society. I hope I don't have to explain this, but just in case, I'll take a common example. A 50 year old woman develops breast cancer. She doesn't have health insurance because her 55 year old husband just retired. She's refused treatment on the cancer because she can't pay for it. (This is not an uncommon occurrence.) If we had a recognition of the common humanity of everyone, we would not claim rights to health care for ourselves while denying them to others. Similarly, we wouldn't have genocides, and the number of wars would be greatly reduced. But this begs the question, "why do we not consider our common humanity in these situations?"

I believe that the cause of this obliviousness is capitalism. Suppose we were to undertake an economic analysis of the potential value-added to society of the average person born in a wealthy suburb versus someone born in rural Pennsylvania. The potential economic value-added to society of the person born in suburbia is much higher. Why? She has access to, most importantly, better education. (These are generalizations, obviously. Not all people from suburbia produce more value-added to society than rural Pennsylvanians, but generally speaking this is true.) Consider the differences, then, between the average American and the average African. They are extraordinarily greater. This is a very strong argument (although I disagree with it) for non-intervention in Sudan.

So how do we grapple with economics? It's quite difficult really, and involves a moral philosophy argument. The above argument for why we are inherently unequal, is an economic one (obviously). The moral philosopher, however, asks the question, "are we not all morally equal?" In other words, before, we measured people based on their economic input into society, but now we are measuring people based on their ability to choose right from wrong. Now, before someone jumps on me for ignoring moral relativism, let me brush that argument aside. The morally relativistic viewpoint is somewhat irrelevant here. It doesn't matter in what moral system people are acting, their equality is based solely on the concept that they have equal ability to judge right from wrong. My suggestion then, as I mentioned before, is that we judge people based on their morality instead of their economic output. Hence, one African, one uneducated American, and one highly educated American could have any relative moral worth.

Am I suggesting a weird moral calculus by which we have some governing body that determines how much health care each person is entitled to based on her moral decisions? No, absolutely not. I am suggesting that to truly break with the current system by which we measure human worth, we need to break with the current ideology surrounding capitalism. This is not necessarily a rejection of capitalism, however. In the United States, we view capitalism as individually based. The ideological conception most Americans have of capitalism involves the base assumption that when I pursue what is in my best interest, the entire society benefits. I would suggest a more Rousseau-esque version of capitalism (perhaps a more Eastern philosophy) whereby we pursue our capitalist actions not in what is in our own best interests, but rather in society's best interests (see Rousseau's discussion of the General Will). When our decision making becomes humanitarian-centered rather than individual-centered, we provide both an incentive for people to act in society's best interest and a moral rationale for why they should. In this sense, morality and economics are aligned - a person's commitment to society could be measured by her economic output. Moral righteousness and economic output become the same thing.

A couple things necessarily involved and assumed to be the case. National boundaries cease to exist. We must live in a world community free of political borders. All people must have access to the same basic education/health care (anything used to calculated the Human Development Index). Most importantly, we must all recognize our common humanity. None of this could ever happen (perhaps obviously) without this recognition.

Disclaimer: I am grappling with big ideas. I do not profess to fully understand any of them. In this sense, then, I make it fully transparent that the beliefs expressed here do not represent the beliefs of mine from several years ago, nor will they, I presume, represent my beliefs some years from now. I have used "I believe" to present an argument - one which I currently find compelling. This is by far a better stimulant to discussion than a distant, "they argue." I hope that my readers will challenge the position I have adopted here so that we may all come to a fuller understanding.