NationStates Jolt Archive

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

Tasty

marvelous (said in posh accent)

practical

marvelous (said in posh accent)

Parentheses don't get you out of that shameful rule breaking. Call to power, in one word:

CHEAT

correct.

Damn you for challenging me to be concise!

Fun thread...

Hmmm.... Thinks.

Humanistic. That is the word I would use.

Moist.

Jackhammer.

Holistic.

practical

you' know simple often goes with practical ;)

Call to power, in one word:

CHEAT

don't blame me I'm a politician!

correct.

so you just copy the nerd sitting next to you?

Moist.

I did a google search to find out if you loved Mao but only found this (http://blog.humuhumu.com/wp-images/aku-aku-moist-towelette-from-th.jpg)

Reality.

I did a google search to find out if you loved Mao but only found this (http://blog.humuhumu.com/wp-images/aku-aku-moist-towelette-from-th.jpg)

Moist, not maoist!



Hmmm. Perhaps buoyant works better.

vacillating

Political.

you' know simple often goes with practical ;)


are you saying simple or simpleton?

One word?


Twat.

Defenstration.
Or possibly 'Vierwaldstätterseedampfshiffsfahrtsgeselschaftskapitänsmützensternlein'.

My political philosophy is a paragon of post-modernist thought, combining parts from all major political affiliations to create a synthesised 'super-politik' (tm) to be used to provide interactive solutions to mid- to large-sized governments from all over the globe; furthermore, it has increased my personal turnover by 350% allowing me to spend the equivalent of an annual salary for 90% of the world on consumer electronics and a monthly change of automobile.

Defenstration.
Or possibly 'Vierwaldstätterseedampfshiffsfahrtsgeselschaftskapitänsmützensternlein'.

Damned Germans.

Worthless...

Reality.

I always figured you as more a fruity fellow (http://youtube.com/watch?v=caIS7eYfpMA&feature=related) :confused:

Hmmm. Perhaps buoyant works better.

so you plan on using the density of the working class to cheat gravity!

are you saying simple or simpleton?

I think the answer is very simple:)

principled

Tasty

Dreamer.

Dongs.

so you plan on using the density of the working class to cheat gravity!

Nooooo, the density of the ground essence of homeless guys.

Supercallifragilisticexpealidocious.

Artie's politics:

PERFECT!!!

Cap you stole mine!

One word to describe my politics: explosions!

Amicus omnibus amicus nemini.

Piratical. :)

Constitutionalist

Manbearpig

Nonetheless.

It is as if somebody made the word just by adding three together...

Amicus omnibus amicus nemini.

Cheater.

Kinky.

Freedom.

Tasty

That's the most popular answer so far.

As if we needed any further proof that this board has a bias toward the delicious

gainsaying

Truthiness

Investment.

Cynical

Forgiving.

Humanitarian.

Correct

Archaic.

Balanced.

Freebird

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

freedom

Freebird

You offer the Bird freely ?

New

Awesome.

this thread is wack

this thread is wack
Your face is wack.

SCORE! YUS!

You offer the Bird freely ?

The Lynyrd Skynyrd song free bird. Your god, listen to music man.

Fuck

Your face is wack.

SCORE! YUS!

seriously though, was there any point in even making this thread. If it was possible to sum ideologies up in a single word we wouldn't be talking so much. This is stupid, a complete waste of space for what could have been a waste of space in debate form.

The Lynyrd Skynyrd song free bird. Your god, listen to music man.

I object to Lynyrd Skynyrd being called music.


Anyway, my politics in one word: Superior.

I object to Lynyrd Skynyrd being called music.


Meh, its alright if its not Ronnie's brother singing...and if you dont play Sweet Home Alabama...

Other than that theyre ok...

itsChristianhumanitarianismmixedwithsomesocialism.

One word. :D

Jackhammer.

Insatiable.

Equality.

Everything else should be calculable from there.

"Freebird" isn't a word. How about Freebase or Freeboarder ?

power

(That's what it's all about)

How about Freebase?
No, but "mainlining" is fine :p

fucked.

Defenstration.
Or possibly 'Vierwaldstätterseedampfshiffsfahrtsgeselschaftskapitänsmützensternlein'.

I believe you win this thread.

You have both cheated, and followed the rules at the same time, in a ridiculous display of complete awesomeness.

As for my answer: Conservative.

Though that is a relatively useless label, as it does not take into account many of my non-conservative beliefs.

itsChristianhumanitarianismmixedwithsomesocialism.

One word. :D

Doesn't count, it's not in German. ;)

Fuck Bush

Sorry, that's two.

Semiliquid

Fuck Bush

Sorry, that's two.

Deep thoughts indeed.

Fat. The best way to describe my politics in one word is fat.

Hopeful

Military

complicated.

kinky

or perhaps "zesty"

I'd like to change mine to "political."

Describe your politics in one (1) word

Mine.

Supercalifraglisticexpialidocious.

Reform. Specifically, into an either ultra-liberal Commune System society (NOT Communism), or, paradoxically enough, an ultra-Capitalist Public Capital System. Both systems were made by my pen, and are basically polar opposites. Some day I'll make a thread about each.
But, ahem. The word is "Reform"

Fuck Bush

Sorry, that's two.

Ewww... you want to?

You know what, I'm going to step this nonsense up a notch. I'll describe my politics in a single character:

.

Ewww... you want to?

Meaning 1: Yes. I am male, that's kinda what most of us are all about.

Meaning 2: Well, he's been fucking the country for 8 years. It would only be fair.

It

No one likes to agree with me, so I think this fits.

Deep thoughts indeed.

What can I say? I'm a philosophisizer.

Spelunking

Conservationist

Truth

Military

:fluffle:

We should make a government together.

Accountability.

controversial

Appalled.

Or.

Maybe.

Cannibalistic.

Responsibility.

armadillo

for a single word i would have to say either reality or zero, or maybe environment.

=^^=
.../\...

Grün.

Fenian.

Optimal.

Optimal.
A rather arrogant assessment, though. No politics are optimal, therefore a pluralistic balance is necessary to avoid one specific direction screwing everyone over.

Rechtstaat - a lot easier in German where you can just join words together into really long compound words...

Rechtsstaatlich - a lot easier in German where you can just join words together into really long compound words...You need to spell them right, though :p

You need to spell them right, though :p

*blushes*

juicy

No politics are optimal, therefore a pluralistic balance is necessary to avoid one specific direction screwing everyone over.
Which is, according to you, an optimal thing. If I had more words, I'd also have explained that I actually aim to provide a framework within which everyone can do as they please as much as possible, which is all the pluralism you can possibly have.

To me optimal just means finding the best way to do things. Everyone wants to, I'm just more committed than most because I don't beat around the bush and try to accommodate the sub-optimal. Not in setting the general rules of the game.

So yeah, I think "optimal" summarises quite well what my politics is about. Politics is just an application of economics, and economic problems are approached with optimisation in mind.

Which is, according to you, an optimal thing. If I had more words, I'd also have explained that I actually aim to provide a framework within which everyone can do as they please as much as possible, which is all the pluralism you can possibly have.Not really. Optimal in my mind would be an entirely green government.
To me optimal just means finding the best way to do things. Everyone wants to, I'm just more committed than most because I don't beat around the bush and try to accommodate the sub-optimal. Not in setting the general rules of the game.

So yeah, I think "optimal" summarises quite well what my politics is about. Politics is just an application of economics, and economic problems are approached with optimisation in mind.See, that's not optimal at all.

So yeah, I think "optimal" summarises quite well what my politics is about. Politics is just an application of economics, and economic problems are approached with optimisation in mind.

My powers tell me you're studying economics....

Not really. Optimal in my mind would be an entirely green government.
An optimal for me would be a dictatorship with me in charge (lol, now I really sound like Melkor). Ultimately a political system must be some sort of compromise then, and I seek to minimise the compromise in order to let everyone have as much of their optimum as they want. The only exception are ideologies or people that really are just about getting everyone else to act a certain way...but you can't go around enforcing those with violence.

See, that's not optimal at all.
Think about it: if you try to secure the best possible outcome by choosing between alternatives, you're already in the realm of economics. If you then specify it to politics, 95% of which is about the allocation of resources (the other 5% being about people wanting to force their beliefs on others without any material background), you can't be in any other discipline.

Government, the state and the rule of law are parameters both within the market and imposed upon it. The market exists regardless of what laws we have, but at the same time the way the market works is influenced by them. Any other such parameter we'd try to figure out with economics, trying to find the best outcome. But with laws people somehow insist on trying to make the very same decision but without refering to the discipline that is designed to make it.

My powers tell me you're studying economics....
Your powers never cease to amaze.

Yes, I'm in the final weeks of my undergrad program.

'Vierwaldstätterseedampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützensternlein'.
You need to spell them right, though :p
Grün.

Right. I wonder how many other countries there are where "Jamaica" or "traffic-light" would be perfectly understandable, viable answers for this question.

Better.

An optimal for me would be a dictatorship with me in charge (lol, now I really sound like Melkor). Ultimately a political system must be some sort of compromise then, and I seek to minimise the compromise in order to let everyone have as much of their optimum as they want. The only exception are ideologies or people that really are just about getting everyone else to act a certain way...but you can't go around enforcing those with violence.Indeed. No one person or party is right all the time.
Think about it: if you try to secure the best possible outcome by choosing between alternatives, you're already in the realm of economics. If you then specify it to politics, 95% of which is about the allocation of resources (the other 5% being about people wanting to force their beliefs on others without any material background), you can't be in any other discipline.

Government, the state and the rule of law are parameters both within the market and imposed upon it. The market exists regardless of what laws we have, but at the same time the way the market works is influenced by them. Any other such parameter we'd try to figure out with economics, trying to find the best outcome. But with laws people somehow insist on trying to make the very same decision but without refering to the discipline that is designed to make it.Incorrect. Economics merely searches for the least wasteful outcome. That that is actually the best remains to be proven.

Right. I wonder how many other countries there are where "Jamaica" or "traffic-light" would be perfectly understandable, viable answers for this question.I'm actually not that keen on the yellow parts of Jamaica and traffic lights... =P

I'm actually not that keen on the yellow parts of Jamaica and traffic lights... =P

Neither am I, hence my careful wording of "viable" rather than "good" or any such nonsense ;P

Economics merely searches for the least wasteful outcome. That that is actually the best remains to be proven.
It is, necessarily. If there is something wasted, it could be distributed in some way to produce a superior outcome without making anybody worse off.

There is no arguing with the methodology, only with the specific parameters or functions used. The methodology is so general as to be inpenetrable.

It is, necessarily. If there is something wasted, it could be distributed in some way to produce a superior outcome without making anybody worse off.

There is no arguing with the methodology, only with the specific parameters or functions used. The methodology is so general as to be inpenetrable.Depends on the definition of waste. In economic terms, many unquantifiable things count as "waste" despite being key to human happiness. Depending on how you see it, luxury and free time are all waste.

In economic terms, many unquantifiable things count as "waste" despite being key to human happiness.
No, they don't. I have personally taken part in a project for the local council that was about applying an economic cost-benefit analysis methodology to things like sports parks and community centres. Do you really think the only thing the council cares about is money when thinking about these things? Of course not, if they did they would have called an accountant.

And that's the problem: economics is getting a really bad rap in public discourse, moreso than any other science or discipline. And because of that, people keep using words like "unquantifiable", which are inappropriate in pretty much every context.

Better.
;)

And because of that, people keep using words like "unquantifiable", which are inappropriate in pretty much every context.

The value of not murdering someone.

The value of not murdering someone.
Can be quantified in the sense that it can be assigned a number to give it a place in preference orderings. That can be done for everyone, and we end up with numbers we can work with.

Every possible action can be integrated into a utility function framework, meaning it can be quantified. Every possible event has some impact on this, which is therefore also quantified. And going beyond such ultra-basic theory, the value of things can also be estimated through looking at things like opportunity costs, replacement values, willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation.

Boosh!

No, they don't. I have personally taken part in a project for the local council that was about applying an economic cost-benefit analysis methodology to things like sports parks and community centres. Do you really think the only thing the council cares about is money when thinking about these things? Of course not, if they did they would have called an accountant.

And that's the problem: economics is getting a really bad rap in public discourse, moreso than any other science or discipline. And because of that, people keep using words like "unquantifiable", which are inappropriate in pretty much every context.Incorrect. You can always add a price tag to something, but by that means, you cheapen it. You see, the CBA actually reduces the value of the parks and community centers by putting them into terms of money. Once the price is right, they can go. By putting a price on them, you're not just saying how much they're worth, you're also allowing the possibility for someone paying that price to get rid of them. From an economic standpoint, you should be happy, since you've been properly compensated. But that's probably not going to be much consolation to someone who's cultural heritage has just been ripped to shreds because the price was right.

There's a lot of things that simply should not be quantified. You're showing us that plenty of economists are unable to grasp that.

Can be quantified in the sense that it can be assigned a number to give it a place in preference orderings.

I didn't say it couldn't be ordered, I said it couldn't be quantified. The whole point is that it has no price--not even relative to other examples of itself. You cannot murder someone even if you think it is the only way you will avoid murdering many others in the future.

So you have a case where the "optimal" policy result (which assumes numeric comparison) and the right policy result (which in some cases refuses to admit such cost-benefit balancing) might conflict.

That can be done for everyone, and we end up with numbers we can work with.

Trouble is, it's not clear they mean as much as is sometimes supposed.

Here, assuage my doubts. What does it mean for one thing to have more "utility" than another?

Can be quantified in the sense that it can be assigned a number to give it a place in preference orderings. That can be done for everyone, and we end up with numbers we can work with.

Every possible action can be integrated into a utility function framework, meaning it can be quantified. Every possible event has some impact on this, which is therefore also quantified. And going beyond such ultra-basic theory, the value of things can also be estimated through looking at things like opportunity costs, replacement values, willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation.Yup. And that's why CBA's are monstrous. You can excuse anything with them.

Skeptical.

Powerful

Fucked.

Utopian

Kinky

Kinky


I alreay took taht one. You'll have to fight me for it.

That's not tsay it couldn't bge a kinky fight...

Incorrect. You can always add a price tag to something, but by that means, you cheapen it.
That makes no sense. It made no sense last time, and plenty of people told you.

If something is becoming cheaper, it means that its price falls. You already added a price tag, it's just bigger than that suggested by a market, or market-imitating process.

If your price is infinite, you're stuck. If a life is worth infinity, then you would be indifferent between saving one life and saving two, since infinity * 2 is still infinity. You're not, hence the value you place on life is finite.

Furthermore, you are not right now doing everything possible, including sacrificing your own life, to save some random person in Burma. It is therefore apparent that you value your own life, or that of the people you know, over those of some others.

Just because you have no explicit idea of the number doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It plainly does.

From an economic standpoint, you should be happy, since you've been properly compensated. But that's probably not going to be much consolation to someone who's cultural heritage has just been ripped to shreds because the price was right.
Think about what you're writing. You have been "properly compensated", but that is "not much consolation".

Do you see the problem?

There's a lot of things that simply should not be quantified. You're showing us that plenty of economists are unable to grasp that.
Making a decision without some attempt at quantification means making a decision without rational basis. How this is something we should be doing is beyond me.

I didn't say it couldn't be ordered, I said it couldn't be quantified. The whole point is that it has no price--not even relative to other examples of itself.
But a price is simply the result of such orderings. In fact, a price only follows if there is some sort of exchange - but economics works even if there is none. Exchanging is the only way that resources can be allocated between individuals, but a single person can still allocate resources even if there is no one else around.

You cannot murder someone even if you think it is the only way you will avoid murdering many others in the future.

So you have a case where the "optimal" policy result (which assumes numeric comparison) and the right policy result (which in some cases refuses to admit such cost-benefit balancing) might conflict.
So that is the case where the life is valued at infinity. Of course, no one can possibly act that way, and no one does.

What does it mean for one thing to have more "utility" than another?
It means I prefer it to something else.

If I can have an apple or an orange, and I pick the apple, then the apple has greater utility. In reverse, if the apple has greater utility, I take it.

I can say the orange has 1 "smile" (my favourite measurement of utility) and the apple 2 smiles, or that the orange has 1 and the apple 27 billion. As far as utility is concerned, it doesn't matter since we're talking ordinality, not cardinality.

That's a matter of observation though. I myself am able to assign values to apples and oranges that are cardinal as well as ordinal - the outside observer just wouldn't be able to know them. Generally I wouldn't be explicitly aware of them myself. As soon as I start interacting with others though, and the trade-offs I have previously been doing in my head are now also done with others, prices start to develop, which reflect not so much the value of something to me personally, but the relative aggregate values of things. However, since the prices are measured in a convenient way, ie currency, the things we can now infer about how many smiles I get from apples and oranges are also a bit more detailed than before.

So that's the relationship between ordinal utility and cardinal prices.

Yup. And that's why CBA's are monstrous. You can excuse anything with them.
You can only excuse the things that do in fact provide a net benefit. The thing you consider monstrous is that it may be possible that your preferred option does not.

I alreay took taht one. You'll have to fight me for it.

That's not tsay it couldn't bge a kinky fight...

Oooo I'll fight you, and you'll like it. ^_^

Oooo I'll fight you, and you'll like it. ^_^

Exactly. ;)

Silent

I alreay took taht one. You'll have to fight me for it.

That's not tsay it couldn't bge a kinky fight...

Oooo I'll fight you, and you'll like it. ^_^

'Scuse me? I'm pretty sure I was the first one to use it in this topic. So you'll have to fight me for it.

Now then, mud or syrup and whipped cream?

Kinky

Ditto.

Furthermore, you are not right now doing everything possible, including sacrificing your own life, to save some random person in Burma. It is therefore apparent that you value your own life, or that of the people you know, over those of some others.
Sure, but the use of 'value' here doesn't necessarily mean 'monetary value'. We can value something without any notion of fiscal worth.

I value my friendship with my peers, but it would be rather silly and meaningless to put a monetary value on said friendships.

liberty

Describe your politics in one (1) word
Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

The best, and really only way for me to describe my politics in word is:

Mine

Eurocommunism.

Damned Germans.

Swiss. The Vierwaldstättersee is in Switzerland (Four Canton's Lake = Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden and Luzern). Beautiful place.

Cynical.

Psychotic. Or possibly chaotic. Either works.

Psychotic. Or possibly chaotic. Either works.

Fail.

One word.;)

That makes no sense. It made no sense last time, and plenty of people told you.:rolleyes:
Just because you can't understand that by giving something invaluable a value you make it less valuable doesn't mean that this isn't the case. Nor does people agreeing with you matter.
If something is becoming cheaper, it means that its price falls. You already added a price tag, it's just bigger than that suggested by a market, or market-imitating process.Invaluable is higher than any sum you can come up with, I guarantee it.
If your price is infinite, you're stuck. If a life is worth infinity, then you would be indifferent between saving one life and saving two, since infinity * 2 is still infinity. You're not, hence the value you place on life is finite.See, that's just taking the argument ad absurdum for the purpose of disproving it.
Furthermore, you are not right now doing everything possible, including sacrificing your own life, to save some random person in Burma. It is therefore apparent that you value your own life, or that of the people you know, over those of some others.Yup.
Just because you have no explicit idea of the number doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It plainly does.Oh, undoubtedly. You can put a price tag on anything. That this is the best means of dealing with that is not the case.
Think about what you're writing. You have been "properly compensated", but that is "not much consolation".

Do you see the problem?I do. You apparently can't seem to understand that some things simply have no proper compensation. I mean, how much money would someone have to pay you to compensate for killing your mother? Or if you're unwilling to accept money, what quantifiable resource in it's stead? Would you be consoled and happy once this has been paid?
Making a decision without some attempt at quantification means making a decision without rational basis. How this is something we should be doing is beyond me.Key here is some. I'm not arguing to get rid of CBA's, merely that they are not the best means to make decisions. Sometimes you really shouldn't use a CBA, because the end result can very well be that your life isn't worth as much as a bunch of phonecalls.

Fail.
Interesting choice. :p

DeBushification

Snip

From what I grasp of your posts, and I believe this is what the others are getting at. That you, and economist like you, try to add a value to everything. And the reason this is monstrous is because when you have a value for everything that means there is a risk and reward of it. Your policies exist on a basis of doing what is best based on what offers the higher profit, the greater reward. But in that method, a person could justify any action by the qualifier of such profitability. In relative terms, if you value a human life at x amount of dollars. Say 1 million. And someone offers you 2 million dollars for a person's life then, based on the profitability, to sacrifice that life is the best route.

Now this is more or less what your stance seems to be. That everything has a value and we should do things based on that value and the resultant profit it would fetch. This could be wrong. But it's what I have infered from your posts.

Fail.

One word.;)

Psychotic is one word. So is Chaotic :P

Psychotic is one word. So is Chaotic :P

Yeah, but you used them both on the same post. Therefore, fail.;)


Interesting choice. :p

Fail was for Croatoan Green's post.
My politics are described as WORTHLESS.:p

Boring

Fluffy.

confused

objective

Yeah, but you used them both on the same post. Therefore, fail.;)


I used them alternatively. My politics can be considered one or the other. Which one is still unclear. :P

I am still describing it in a single word so I win. YOU LOSE LAWBREAKER.

I used them alternatively. My politics can be considered one or the other. Which one is still unclear. :P

I am still describing it in a single word so I win. YOU LOSE LAWBREAKER.

Those terms were used, both, in the same post. You might have used them in two different sentences, but you still used two terms. The title clearly states that you have to describe your politics in just one (1) word. You didn't. That's why, once again, YOU FAIL!;)

Those terms were used, both, in the same post. You might have used them in two different sentences, but you still used two terms. The title clearly states that you have to describe your politics in just one (1) word. You didn't. That's why, once again, YOU FAIL!;)

I defined my politics as Psychotic. Then noted it could be alternatively described as Chaotic. But was not defining it as such. So hah! Roundabout manipulative logic wins!

Minimalist.

I defined my politics as Psychotic. Then noted it could be alternatively described as Chaotic. But was not defining it as such. So hah! Roundabout manipulative logic wins!

You used two terms to alternately describe your politics, regardless of them being in two separate sentences. The objective of the thread is to use just one (1) word, which you failed to do. Do remit to the great majority of the posts...

Ex:
Minimalist.


Did it? What did you notice?

One word, right?

That's what I thought.

Epic fail.:)

But a price is simply the result of such orderings.

No, it isn't. A price assumes that the value of each thing can be expressed in terms of the other. Ordering makes no such assumption.

To say that something "has no price" is to say that its value is independent, intrinsic, absolute: it cannot be expressed in terms of the value of other things. To set a price to it, any price, is thus always to cheapen it--or, more precisely, to degrade its intrinsic value to value merely as a tool, as a means to pursue some other end.

So that is the case where the life is valued at infinity.

You're missing the point. Why assign it a quantity at all? It's not a quantifiable thing; it has nothing to do with that kind of value.

An example might help. In what sense is 1 + 1 = 2 "better" than 1 + 1 = 3? It is correct. It is right. It makes no sense to speak of recognizing the former over the latter in quantitative terms... the superiority of the former has nothing to do with "quantity". It's a different kind of judgment.

Of course, no one can possibly act that way, and no one does.

"Possibly" is a strong word. Justify it.

It means I prefer it to something else.

"Preference" is of the same brand. I don't understand it either.

If I can have an apple or an orange, and I pick the apple, then the apple has greater utility.

So "utility" is just an ordering of what I will pick? It says absolutely nothing about mental states, just behavior? Well, that's a start... a rather deterministic start, and one that doesn't mesh well with notions like rational individuals "maximizing their utility", but it makes more sense than some of the alternatives.

Adaptable

My politics in one word?

"Holyshitmanwe'reenteringbatcountry!"

Scattered

hypernationalism

Its totally one word

biblical

oh yes i said it >:3

Logical.

Euarsteric.

It's a word I made up. It means "The political system which believes in relative freedom in private life counterbalanced by the ruthless monitoring of large business conducted by a mostly transparent, slightly corrupt government."

It has a secondary meaning, which is "the ability to solve any dilemma via the creative examination of existing limitations."

Dead

Rational

Militaristic

socialistic

Social

Doesn't count, it's not in German. ;)


We can make it german!

Equal.

Just because you can't understand that by giving something invaluable a value you make it less valuable doesn't mean that this isn't the case. Nor does people agreeing with you matter.
The point is that nothing can be invaluable. It's impossible, you can't talk about it or make any decisions based on such a statement.

Invaluable is higher than any sum you can come up with, I guarantee it.
So invaluable > X for any number X. So invaluable = infinity.

Regardless of the question of whether infinity is a number or not, we also have to check whether you would actually assign an infinite value to something. You can't, hence what is wrong is your statement.

See, that's just taking the argument ad absurdum for the purpose of disproving it.
You're talking about the life of a human, but talking about trade-offs between human lives is taking it ad absurdum?

I don't think so.

Oh, undoubtedly. You can put a price tag on anything. That this is the best means of dealing with that is not the case.
Can you come up with an alternative way that cannot be expressed in terms of numbers, and which comes up with another outcome to the one based on numbers?

If you can't, whatever it is you're doing is in fact the same as doing it with numbers, you're just not aware of it. Which is the case for most people making most decisions.

I do. You apparently can't seem to understand that some things simply have no proper compensation. I mean, how much money would someone have to pay you to compensate for killing your mother? Or if you're unwilling to accept money, what quantifiable resource in it's stead?
I don't know the number, but I know it's less than infinity. If it wasn't, I'd be willing to destroy the entire universe minus my mother in order to avoid killing her.

Would you be consoled and happy once this has been paid?
By definition, yes. Even if I'm not happy, I'd be happier than if I had chosen the alternative.

Sometimes you really shouldn't use a CBA, because the end result can very well be that your life isn't worth as much as a bunch of phonecalls.
How can that be the end result? Just tell me the assumption that needs to be made to get this result, and we can see whether we can do the CBA without using it.

No, it isn't. A price assumes that the value of each thing can be expressed in terms of the other. Ordering makes no such assumption.
I think it does. If you choose an apple rather than an orange, there is a trade-off. There is always an opportunity cost associated with choosing something of which there is a finite amount, and that can be expressed in terms of the things you didn't choose.

We don't know the ratio until we have a price, but we can say that an apple is worth X oranges, where X > 1.

To set a price to it, any price, is thus always to cheapen it--or, more precisely, to degrade its intrinsic value to value merely as a tool, as a means to pursue some other end.
The thing with an intrinsic value is that we don't know it. We can all say a life has an intrinsic value that can't be expressed in something else, but we may well be wrong. The simplest example would be that we can express the value of one life in other lives, which is what we do all the time.

So really, this intrinsic value is unknown and people don't actually follow it. And not just that, it also paralyses any decision making process that involves this value. If you need to choose between saving one person and saving many people, if there really was an intrinsic value that does not follow the same rules as numbers do, we would have to be indifferent between either choice.

An example might help. In what sense is 1 + 1 = 2 "better" than 1 + 1 = 3? It is correct. It is right. It makes no sense to speak of recognizing the former over the latter in quantitative terms... the superiority of the former has nothing to do with "quantity". It's a different kind of judgment.
I can judge it in terms of its usefulness. If I were to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, I'd be wrong and any actions I take based on it would not have the outcomes I wanted. So you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who would choose it over the correct statement and stick with that.

"Possibly" is a strong word. Justify it.
It would be irrational. If one of something is good, then ceteris paribus two of the same thing are better. Fair enough, it is possible to imagine a person whose values are such that he or she assigns exactly the same utility to two things that are very obviously not the same, but it would be coincidental, and there is no such person. Nonetheless, I could imagine one.

There are, by the way, evolutionary imperatives for picking one over the other. There have been lots of experiments, and people consistently choose to save many over few.

"Preference" is of the same brand. I don't understand it either.
Preference means what it says in the dictionary. There is no trick to it - if I choose something over something else, I prefer it.

So "utility" is just an ordering of what I will pick? It says absolutely nothing about mental states, just behavior?
It's different from what Bentham and Mill would have called utility. Economists realised the shortcomings of their view and modified things so as to be more general and make fewer assumptions about how people work.

Well, that's a start... a rather deterministic start, and one that doesn't mesh well with notions like rational individuals "maximizing their utility", but it makes more sense than some of the alternatives.
It meshes in well enough, because when we're maximising, we're not relying on the cardinal values of the utility, we just care about being on the highest point possible.

Now this is more or less what your stance seems to be. That everything has a value and we should do things based on that value and the resultant profit it would fetch. This could be wrong. But it's what I have infered from your posts.
It's precisely my stance. I just don't see how it could be wrong, unless we assign the wrong value to something.

If we find that X is worth $100, and I offer you $101 for X, but you still don't take it, then that means my initial estimate is wrong. It doesn't mean that X doesn't have a dollar value.

'Scuse me? I'm pretty sure I was the first one to use it in this topic. So you'll have to fight me for it.

Now then, mud or syrup and whipped cream?

Syrup and whipped cream sounds tastier.

Cancer

Syrup and whipped cream sounds tastier.

I belive the correct response should be
"Whaddya mean 'or'?"
as you order the oil, milk and chopped nuts.

The point is that nothing can be invaluable.No, the point is there are things that are cheapened when a specific value that can be quantified is attached, because plenty of values can't be quantified or do not exist in economic terms. Not even with a willingness to pay survey. It's impossible, you can't talk about it or make any decisions based on such a statement.Not in terms of a CBA, no.
So invaluable > X for any number X. So invaluable = infinity.

Regardless of the question of whether infinity is a number or not, we also have to check whether you would actually assign an infinite value to something. You can't, hence what is wrong is your statement.This was never about adding an infinite value to something, it's about not attaching a specific monetary value to something.
You're talking about the life of a human, but talking about trade-offs between human lives is taking it ad absurdum?

I don't think so.No, not talking about trade offs. The "infinite value" thing is what's absurd. That's not what I'm talking about, even if you keep claiming that's what my arguments imply.
Can you come up with an alternative way that cannot be expressed in terms of numbers, and which comes up with another outcome to the one based on numbers?

If you can't, whatever it is you're doing is in fact the same as doing it with numbers, you're just not aware of it. Which is the case for most people making most decisions.I propose looking at the inherent value of human life and well being instead of how economically valuable an individual life is.
I don't know the number, but I know it's less than infinity. If it wasn't, I'd be willing to destroy the entire universe minus my mother in order to avoid killing her.

By definition, yes. Even if I'm not happy, I'd be happier than if I had chosen the alternative.But here's where the monstrosity of the CBA comes in: The economic value of your mother's life is going to be influenced by how much she earns and how much her needs or wants cost. In the end, her ability as an economic actor, plus whatever you'd be willing or able to pay to keep her alive is going to determine her value, in a CBA. That you love her will be measured in how much of your paycheck (or which organ) you're willing to sacrifice to keep her from dying. In the end, you can come up with a price, and under the CBA, once its economically viable for your mother to die, it becomes acceptable. I don't agree with that kind of assessment of human life.
How can that be the end result? Just tell me the assumption that needs to be made to get this result, and we can see whether we can do the CBA without using it.The specific case was a CBA done by the mobile phone industries in order to oppose legislation that banned using your mobile phone while driving. The end result was that enough revenue is generated from these phonecalls that society would gain more, even when the costs to society caused by the deaths of individuals due to traffic accidents which would have been prevented if said legislation were passed, are subtracted. I'd have to go look for the specific case though, since I don't have it at hand.

There is this case (http://www.safetyforum.com/fordfuelfires/), though, which got featured in Fight Club, so you may have heard of it. Ford managed to calculate that remediation action would cost them less than prevention measures. Considering for a moment that the only reason Ford eventually did do the recall it wanted to avoid was public outrage on discovery of the practice, one has to realize that a human life was worth $ 200,000, and added up, it was perfectly acceptable for people to have their lives ruined, because compensating them and making them happier than they were after being burned was still less expensive than spending $ 11 per vehicle to drastically reduce this happening.

Another example as to why CBAs aren't very good at determining the true value of something:
The Lacoma ponds in Brandenburg have been destroyed to allow Vattenfall to get at the coal underneath. In return, they were required to remediate another area of equal value. But how can you express the value that the Lacoma ponds had due to their being ancient landscapes? How many more acres of remediated land will be adequate for destroying natural heritage? (Not that there actually has been a greater amount of land remediated in return.) You can't return a landscape to its original state, hence the entire remedation isn't really remediation at all. It's the creation of new "natural" landscapes. Lost is the value of the old landscape, the heritage. Can you seriously find the right amount of money that can compensate for that loss, even with taking willingness/ability to pay into account?

Constitutionalist.

I object to Lynyrd Skynyrd being called music.

Lynyrd Skynyrd is, hands down, one of the greatest rock bands in the history of rock-n-roll. What I object to is hip-hop.

True.

Libertarian.

Fair

jumpoff

jumpoff

Democratic. (Not the U.S. political party.)

jumpoff

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

Correct.

I object to Lynyrd Skynyrd being called music.
Object all you want, it's still music, just not music that you like.
and if you dont play Sweet Home Alabama...

Actually that's one of my favorite songs of theirs...

It's precisely my stance. I just don't see how it could be wrong, unless we assign the wrong value to something.

If we find that X is worth $100, and I offer you $101 for X, but you still don't take it, then that means my initial estimate is wrong. It doesn't mean that X doesn't have a dollar value.

It's not so much as wrong as viewed as a bad basis for political decisions. After all. When dealing with politics where you are in charge of many people. If we assign a value to everything, then everything can be brought or traded. After all, what does the death of a few million people matter when we can eliminate the national debt? Slavery is just fine, I mean it stimulates the economy and they're being brought for a fair price right? You see the downward spiral such things result in? Then by the proxy, if we have things the we consider to be say... priceless... then certain things like War would be rendered useless as their profit isn't worth the expenditure.

socialist

Environmentalist.

Better.

Best.

Contradictory ;)

If you choose an apple rather than an orange, there is a trade-off.

Maybe. Maybe not. You're begging the question.

There is always an opportunity cost associated with choosing something of which there is a finite amount,

That's right, there's always an opportunity cost. But an opportunity cost of what?

and that can be expressed in terms of the things you didn't choose.

That's right. The opportunity cost of choosing the apple can be expressed as one orange. The question, however, is whether the benefit of choosing an apple can be expressed in terms of oranges.

We don't know the ratio until we have a price, but we can say that an apple is worth X oranges, where X > 1.

Again, question-begging. I see no reason to believe you.

The thing with an intrinsic value is that we don't know it. We can all say a life has an intrinsic value that can't be expressed in something else, but we may well be wrong.

We may be wrong about anything. So? The question is, do we have good reason to believe it? More importantly in this context, do you have good reason to believe that we could never have good reason to believe it?

The simplest example would be that we can express the value of one life in other lives, which is what we do all the time.

Every life has incomparable, absolute, intrinsic value. What does not have such value is a particular effort to save life.

Positive duties, negative duties. Not equivalent.

So really, this intrinsic value is unknown and people don't actually follow it.

What difference does what people follow make?

Among the many problems plaguing economics when it comes to "value" is a conflation of normative and positive value. To be a part of a theory of practical rationality, economic utility must be normative... but to be part of a theory of behavior, economic utility must be positive. (A similar problem plagues libertarian notions of "freedom.")

If you need to choose between saving one person and saving many people, if there really was an intrinsic value that does not follow the same rules as numbers do, we would have to be indifferent between either choice.

No, we wouldn't. What we cannot do is accept that any person should die (against his or her will). But this only obligates us to see unwanted death as a tragedy, not as something we need to do something about. And between stopping one tragedy or multiple tragedies, reason pulls us more toward the latter (though there is nothing wrong with choosing the former instead.)

Why do you assume that ethical obligations can be neatly captured by numbers?

I can judge it in terms of its usefulness.

Yes, you can, but this does not at all capture the value of the difference.

If I were to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, I'd be wrong

That's right. You'd be wrong. Not because of any non-optimal balancing, but because you're simply incorrect.

and any actions I take based on it would not have the outcomes I wanted.

Maybe, maybe not. In a world where unreason governs, reason is not always useful. Do you doubt that plenty of religious fundamentalists derive happiness from their delusions? Or that plenty of people are much happier believing that their governments are always right than questioning them? Indeed, perhaps the happiest and most successful are the least rational of all: they maintain the perfect doublethink, using reason when it suits them, when they need to, and dropping it whenever they don't and it tends toward conclusions they find unpleasant.

The standard for truth is not "utility." It degrades the very idea of reason to pretend it is.

There have been lots of experiments, and people consistently choose to save many over few.

Yes, to save many over few. What about to kill few to save many? People's choices are decidedly less consistent there.

Preference means what it says in the dictionary.

The relevant definition of "prefer" from the first dictionary I found:

"2: to like better or best" (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)

But what I "like better or best" is certainly not what I necessarily choose. I may choose on any variety of other bases... I don't particularly like a lot of the things I do, but I do them anyway.

It meshes in well enough, because when we're maximising, we're not relying on the cardinal values of the utility, we just care about being on the highest point possible.

But if it says nothing about mental states, what does it mean to maximize one's utility?

What is it being "maximized"?

Scientific.

mine

Beatnik.

Libertarian.

Undeniable.

TrueChristian

I.e. based on the actual teaching of Jesus Christ, not the Inquisition's Interpretations of these teachings. Universal Love through Education, that kind of thing, not the "Lets bomb them till they accept our Democracy in the name of..." kind of thing.

Utilitarian.

I'll admit that's rather more economics-philosophy than politics, but that's a non-trivial part of the point.

gratifying

nonidiological

fantastic

cuddlie

empowering

universal

=^^=
.../\...

internets

Reasoned.

Please note that my intended usage here does *not* imply that reasoned political beliefs are the same as logical political beliefs--because there *is* a difference.

Also, I would like to note a few things about the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of using cost-benefit analysis to determine appropriate actions in a matter:

Firstly, there is an interesting distinction in the definitions of "value" that are being used. On the one hand, the anti-CBA posters appear to believe/argue that the unqualified word "value" is, strictly and always, "monetary and/or physical value," and distinct from the qualified phrase "intrinsic value"; neither of these things is not at all obvious, nor has either been proven in the structure of the argument (nor referenced from some other source). Then, on the other hand, the pro-CBA posters appear to use the term "value" in a very different, and not necessarily monetary/physical sense, which again, has not been established nor referenced as established elsewhere.

Furthermore, the very idea of an entity, action, or state having some immeasurable, unobservable, a priori value (no matter what definition of "value" is really intended for discussion), has neither been demonstrated nor proven. Need I reference the Allegory of the Cave, or perhaps the Brain-in-a-Vat, to show that such statements are philosophically meaningless unless you can prove that anything exists (let alone the self, and furthermore external entities!)? ((Please do note that at least this section is argued in Devil's Advocate mode, as I definitely believe in the self and external entities, in part because I am Christian.))

It also comes to my attention that Isaac Asimov already did a great deal of thought in this regard, when one considers his famous Three Laws of Robotics. The First Law is, generally speaking, something akin to this idea of life having an "intrinsic" or " 'valueless' value." And we already know what happens to the vast majority of the "classic" robots which adhered to the Laws in their strictest logical definition, when faced with a dilemma over multiple lives: they short-circuited. The purely logical brain of a robot could not handle the cognitive processes necessary to deal with the comparative values of multiple human beings. Such a brain could understand that a human life was irreplaceable, but when one forced it to decide between the non-mutual saving of one irreplaceable life over another, it locked up.
This is the difference between logic and reasoning--deduction, the general but certainly not universal method of logic, cannot accept any situation where the premises can be true and the conclusion false. Reasoning, on the other hand, is the 'fuzzy logic' which human beings work in in all contexts, and which mixes deduction and induction freely. If CBA is taken as being a method of reasoning and not a method of logic, where things are done not for their logical truth-value but for their utility in describing the world, then there is no inherent reason why one should not use them. On the other hand, if you anticipate a rigorously deductive proof that CBA is the best method for conducting one's political choices, then you'll be waiting long after the end of time.

As a final note, I found the discussion quite interesting, even if it wasn't really conducted with the rigor that either side seemed to lay claim to. Also, since the fallacy appeared with alarming frequency in this topic: there is a massive distinction between something being false and something not being known to be true. The fallacy of assuming that "falsehood = unproven truth", or even "unprovABLE truth" must be dealt with very, very carefully as it is altogether too common in modern discourse. For more information, you can check out the Wiki article on the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

Reasoned.

Please note that my intended usage here does *not* imply that reasoned political beliefs are the same as logical political beliefs--because there *is* a difference.

Also, I would like to note a few things about the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of using cost-benefit analysis to determine appropriate actions in a matter:

Firstly, there is an interesting distinction in the definitions of "value" that are being used. On the one hand, the anti-CBA posters appear to believe/argue that the unqualified word "value" is, strictly and always, "monetary and/or physical value," and distinct from the qualified phrase "intrinsic value"; neither of these things is not at all obvious, nor has either been proven in the structure of the argument (nor referenced from some other source). Then, on the other hand, the pro-CBA posters appear to use the term "value" in a very different, and not necessarily monetary/physical sense, which again, has not been established nor referenced as established elsewhere.

Furthermore, the very idea of an entity, action, or state having some immeasurable, unobservable, a priori value (no matter what definition of "value" is really intended for discussion), has neither been demonstrated nor proven. Need I reference the Allegory of the Cave, or perhaps the Brain-in-a-Vat, to show that such statements are philosophically meaningless unless you can prove that anything exists (let alone the self, and furthermore external entities!)? ((Please do note that at least this section is argued in Devil's Advocate mode, as I definitely believe in the self and external entities, in part because I am Christian.))

It also comes to my attention that Isaac Asimov already did a great deal of thought in this regard, when one considers his famous Three Laws of Robotics. The First Law is, generally speaking, something akin to this idea of life having an "intrinsic" or " 'valueless' value." And we already know what happens to the vast majority of the "classic" robots which adhered to the Laws in their strictest logical definition, when faced with a dilemma over multiple lives: they short-circuited. The purely logical brain of a robot could not handle the cognitive processes necessary to deal with the comparative values of multiple human beings. Such a brain could understand that a human life was irreplaceable, but when one forced it to decide between the non-mutual saving of one irreplaceable life over another, it locked up.
This is the difference between logic and reasoning--deduction, the general but certainly not universal method of logic, cannot accept any situation where the premises can be true and the conclusion false. Reasoning, on the other hand, is the 'fuzzy logic' which human beings work in in all contexts, and which mixes deduction and induction freely. If CBA is taken as being a method of reasoning and not a method of logic, where things are done not for their logical truth-value but for their utility in describing the world, then there is no inherent reason why one should not use them. On the other hand, if you anticipate a rigorously deductive proof that CBA is the best method for conducting one's political choices, then you'll be waiting long after the end of time.

As a final note, I found the discussion quite interesting, even if it wasn't really conducted with the rigor that either side seemed to lay claim to. Also, since the fallacy appeared with alarming frequency in this topic: there is a massive distinction between something being false and something not being known to be true. The fallacy of assuming that "falsehood = unproven truth", or even "unprovABLE truth" must be dealt with very, very carefully as it is altogether too common in modern discourse. For more information, you can check out the Wiki article on the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

Good post, though I hope you understand that most people won't read something that long, particularly in a thread that asks for short answers.

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

Skew

Traditionalist

On the one hand, the anti-CBA posters appear to believe/argue that the unqualified word "value" is, strictly and always, "monetary and/or physical value," and distinct from the qualified phrase "intrinsic value";

Really? I'm pretty sure both Laerod and I have used "value" in other senses. Our point (at least mine, and I'd tentatively suggest that Laerod's is similar) is that "value" within the framework of cost-benefit analysis tends to adopt this feature... that is to say, it reduces all kinds of value to one kind of "value", some vaguely-defined sense of "utility."

Indeed, my argument depends on the realization that there are many kinds of "value", and that it's not at all clear that we can just abstract from their particularities and pretend we are speaking meaningfully.

Furthermore, the very idea of an entity, action, or state having some immeasurable,

"Unquantifiable" is not the same as "unmeasurable"--not unless you want to argue that any standard of measurement is quantitative, which I think is just begging the question as to whether non-quantifiable values exist.

unobservable,

Is any value "observable"?

has neither been demonstrated nor proven.

As I have said, it is connected to the "value" of reason, which gives us a sense of rational necessity that is not quantitative.

2 + 2 = 4, to use Orwell's famous example. That's right. Other answers (say, 5) are wrong. "Right" and "wrong" here are in no respect matters of quantitative value.

Need I reference the Allegory of the Cave, or perhaps the Brain-in-a-Vat, to show that such statements are philosophically meaningless unless you can prove that anything exists (let alone the self, and furthermore external entities!)?

You need reference neither, because neither remotely demonstrate your point. Since when have we needed "proof" of our existence for anything? And when has it been remotely productive to bring out radical skepticism in the context of any discussion of any kind?

The purely logical brain of a robot could not handle the cognitive processes necessary to deal with the comparative values of multiple human beings.

Shame. Too bad they weren't programmed with a more nuanced sense of ethics: one that collapsed neither into consequentialism nor into contradiction.

If CBA is taken as being a method of reasoning and not a method of logic, where things are done not for their logical truth-value but for their utility in describing the world, then there is no inherent reason why one should not use them.

Well, first, it should be noted that I have no problem with cost-benefit analysis in many, even most cases... I merely have a problem with the insistence that it is the way to make decisions.

Second, insofar as cost-benefit analysis gives to us a practical (normative) method for decision-making, it must move beyond describing the world. A mere description of the world doesn't help me make a decision. I need to know how I should make it--I need principles of decision-making, not descriptions of the way things work.

Third, as a descriptive theory, in some crucial ways cost-benefit analysis (in the sense being discussed here) is untestable. How do you measure "utility"? How do you know the basis behind someone's decision? It must survive on theoretical grounds, not empirical ones.

Changeable?

Discarnate

fair

Timber!

Reasoned.

Please note that my intended usage here does *not* imply that reasoned political beliefs are the same as logical political beliefs--because there *is* a difference.

Also, I would like to note a few things about the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of using cost-benefit analysis to determine appropriate actions in a matter:I'm interested.
Firstly, there is an interesting distinction in the definitions of "value" that are being used. On the one hand, the anti-CBA posters appear to believe/argue that the unqualified word "value" is, strictly and always, "monetary and/or physical value," and distinct from the qualified phrase "intrinsic value"; neither of these things is not at all obvious, nor has either been proven in the structure of the argument (nor referenced from some other source). Then, on the other hand, the pro-CBA posters appear to use the term "value" in a very different, and not necessarily monetary/physical sense, which again, has not been established nor referenced as established elsewhere.If I'm not much mistaken, the word "value" in context of a CBA is strictly and always monetary, because that's what a Cost Benefit Analysis does. It assigns a monetary value to all aspects of the analysis.
Furthermore, the very idea of an entity, action, or state having some immeasurable, unobservable, a priori value (no matter what definition of "value" is really intended for discussion), has neither been demonstrated nor proven. Need I reference the Allegory of the Cave, or perhaps the Brain-in-a-Vat, to show that such statements are philosophically meaningless unless you can prove that anything exists (let alone the self, and furthermore external entities!)? ((Please do note that at least this section is argued in Devil's Advocate mode, as I definitely believe in the self and external entities, in part because I am Christian.))Does a pond landscape that's been around for thousands of years have the same value of an equally large pond landscape that has just been created? If not, can how much new landscape would you have to add to compensate? Is it even possible to compensate heritage?
It also comes to my attention that Isaac Asimov already did a great deal of thought in this regard, when one considers his famous Three Laws of Robotics. The First Law is, generally speaking, something akin to this idea of life having an "intrinsic" or " 'valueless' value." And we already know what happens to the vast majority of the "classic" robots which adhered to the Laws in their strictest logical definition, when faced with a dilemma over multiple lives: they short-circuited. The purely logical brain of a robot could not handle the cognitive processes necessary to deal with the comparative values of multiple human beings. Such a brain could understand that a human life was irreplaceable, but when one forced it to decide between the non-mutual saving of one irreplaceable life over another, it locked up.
This is the difference between logic and reasoning--deduction, the general but certainly not universal method of logic, cannot accept any situation where the premises can be true and the conclusion false. Reasoning, on the other hand, is the 'fuzzy logic' which human beings work in in all contexts, and which mixes deduction and induction freely. If CBA is taken as being a method of reasoning and not a method of logic, where things are done not for their logical truth-value but for their utility in describing the world, then there is no inherent reason why one should not use them. On the other hand, if you anticipate a rigorously deductive proof that CBA is the best method for conducting one's political choices, then you'll be waiting long after the end of time.I agree.
As a final note, I found the discussion quite interesting, even if it wasn't really conducted with the rigor that either side seemed to lay claim to. Also, since the fallacy appeared with alarming frequency in this topic: there is a massive distinction between something being false and something not being known to be true. The fallacy of assuming that "falsehood = unproven truth", or even "unprovABLE truth" must be dealt with very, very carefully as it is altogether too common in modern discourse. For more information, you can check out the Wiki article on the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).Perhaps. Just remember that this is an internet debate and not all participants have the time or energy to fully expand their arguments even if they are capable.

It assigns a monetary value to all aspects of the analysis.
It expresses value in terms of dollars, because dollars is a unit of value. That doesn't make it "monetary" value as opposed to any other kind. Indeed, there is no other kind of value.

No, the point is there are things that are cheapened when a specific value that can be quantified is attached, because plenty of values can't be quantified or do not exist in economic terms. Not even with a willingness to pay survey.
Look, the life of your mother has a certain value to you. I don't know where that value is coming from and there is little chance that I can find out.

But from the way this value affects your decisions, I can see that it exists. And from the way you may choose other values to be greater (in some way - we're talking ordinal rather than cardinal), I can construct a ranking of possible choices. Chances are that your mother's life will be very high up top on those rankings. I make no value judgement on that, the only one making judgements is you.

I don't need a rigorous CBA to make a decision for you, I only need it when we have decisions that concern many people and where your particularly high opinion of your mother can't be said to be the be-all and end-all of things. And when we have that, we must use some sort of proxy for what you call the unquantifiable values people give to things. Market prices, or approximations of them, are necessarily such proxies. There is nothing about the way they come about that excludes certain values but not others - the principle is the same. Of course mothers' lives aren't normally traded, so market prices won't exist, but we can still try and figure out some value by pretending that the trade does exist and simply asking you. Is the number likely to be accurate...well, that I'd say it depends on how I ask you.

But you have to be very clear that the dollar figures we use in a CBA are proxies. All prices are.

Not in terms of a CBA, no.
How do you make a decision when confronted with a choice between saving ten people and saving your mother?

This was never about adding an infinite value to something, it's about not attaching a specific monetary value to something.
Well, first of all I don't think you could call infinity "specific". And secondly, what reason can you give me why I should not be able to give something a number? I can rank things, and in absence of other influences we could call each place in the ranking a "utility". That's already a specific number attached to something, and we haven't made any judgement or imposed any constraint on how you make your decision.

No, not talking about trade offs. The "infinite value" thing is what's absurd. That's not what I'm talking about, even if you keep claiming that's what my arguments imply.
The thing is that you don't make a very coherent argument to the contrary. You need to make some case on a very basic, conceptual level to be able to say that attaching a number of the various things you can choose at a point in time is invalid. If you can't do that, then there is little you can do from there on to argue against making that number a dollar value and then combining these with the dollar values from other people to come up with something akin to a market price resulting from trade.

I propose looking at the inherent value of human life and well being instead of how economically valuable an individual life is.
And how do you look at this inherent value? And once you've figured it out, and you presumably attach that value to someone, what's stopping me from expressing it in numbers and going from there?

But here's where the monstrosity of the CBA comes in: The economic value of your mother's life is going to be influenced by how much she earns and how much her needs or wants cost. In the end, her ability as an economic actor, plus whatever you'd be willing or able to pay to keep her alive is going to determine her value, in a CBA. That you love her will be measured in how much of your paycheck (or which organ) you're willing to sacrifice to keep her from dying. In the end, you can come up with a price, and under the CBA, once its economically viable for your mother to die, it becomes acceptable. I don't agree with that kind of assessment of human life.
I know it doesn't seem very nice. It's not like I particularly like the idea either. But fact of the matter is that the alternative doesn't make any sense. If I can't attach a value to her, I can't make a decision when her survival and something else exclude each other. There are many things that can be reasonably expressed in dollar terms. Would you say that her life can should be saved when this means sacrificing the entire planet's traded things, everything that is expressed in dollars, and everything that implies? Would you wipe out all the world's stock of goods, services, labour, food and so on to save her?

If not, we've already made the leap. By then you don't have to be offended by the dollar value attached to her anymore, because it's become obvious that you are in fact comparing apples with apples when it comes down to it. By then the only thing to sort out is just exactly how high this dollar value should be.

The specific case was a CBA done by the mobile phone industries in order to oppose legislation that banned using your mobile phone while driving. The end result was that enough revenue is generated from these phonecalls that society would gain more, even when the costs to society caused by the deaths of individuals due to traffic accidents which would have been prevented if said legislation were passed, are subtracted. I'd have to go look for the specific case though, since I don't have it at hand.
But is this not possible? Driving is also responsible for many deaths, but we don't outlaw driving, because the costs outweigh the benefits. If preserving life was the only thing that mattered, we'd sit in sterilised rubber cells.

I think the only problem you could have is with the figures, not the principle.

There is this case (http://www.safetyforum.com/fordfuelfires/), though, which got featured in Fight Club, so you may have heard of it. Ford managed to calculate that remediation action would cost them less than prevention measures. Considering for a moment that the only reason Ford eventually did do the recall it wanted to avoid was public outrage on discovery of the practice, one has to realize that a human life was worth $ 200,000, and added up, it was perfectly acceptable for people to have their lives ruined, because compensating them and making them happier than they were after being burned was still less expensive than spending $ 11 per vehicle to drastically reduce this happening.
Yeah, but that's a CBA done for only one party, with no attention being paid to the other side. If that's what you have a problem with, I suggest you stay away from any organisation which has to decide how to spend scarce resources.

A CBA done for public policy should include all sides to the argument. That's almost the first step: you identify all the stakeholders.

It's the creation of new "natural" landscapes. Lost is the value of the old landscape, the heritage. Can you seriously find the right amount of money that can compensate for that loss, even with taking willingness/ability to pay into account?
Of course we can. Unless you're saying that old landscape and heritage has some value independent of any form of interaction or non-interaction (="existence value") with any human being on earth, we can find its entire value.

If we assign a value to everything, then everything can be brought or traded. After all, what does the death of a few million people matter when we can eliminate the national debt? Slavery is just fine, I mean it stimulates the economy and they're being brought for a fair price right? You see the downward spiral such things result in?
You have to understand though that the value I'm assigning to things is not inherent and objective, it's not independent of the people who are judging it. If nobody in the world likes strawberries, I'd assign a value very close to zero to them. If suddenly a person is born who likes strawberries, their value would have to increase in my analysis.

So if you're saying slavery and mass death would come out as a good thing, that presumes that the people who live in the country consider it so. CBA doesn't imply any value judgements. If people don't value something, a CBA can't create such value out of nowhere. And by the same token, it can't destroy it either.

Then by the proxy, if we have things the we consider to be say... priceless... then certain things like War would be rendered useless as their profit isn't worth the expenditure.
That's not necessarily a bad thing...

And if it wasn't for South Park starting now I would be preparing an answer to Soheran's post, but that might have to wait a bit yet. :)

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

Libertarian

Deluded?

Freedom.

Yes, I know it isn't an adjective, and yes, I know it's cliched. Nyah.

Deluded?

Freedom.

Yes, I know it isn't an adjective, and yes, I know it's cliched. Nyah.

I have a little saying about that word. In need, freedom is latent.

Paul.

Machiavellian.

Machiavellian.

^

Evil.

^

Evil.
^

Wrong.

-snip-

-snip-

In one word for Chrissake! :p

Libertarian

In one word for Chrissake! :p



I'minterestedIfI'mnotmuchmistakenthewordvalueincontextofaCBAisstrictlyandalwaysmonetarybecausethat's whataCostBenefit-
-AnalysisdoesItassignsamonetaryvaluetoallaspectsoftheanalysis.Doesapondlandscapethat'sbeenaroundforth ousandsofyearshavethesamevalueof- -anequallylargepondlandscapethathasjustbeencreatedIfnotcanhowmuchnewlandscapewouldyouhavetoaddtocompe nsateIsitevenpossibletocompensate- -heritageIagreePerhapsJustrememberthatthisisaninternetdebateandnotallparticipantshavethetimeorenergyt ofullyexpandtheirargumentseveniftheyarecapable.

Fixed.

^

Wrong.

^

Right.

^

Wrong.
^
Would like to describe itself as pragmatic realist, but in reality is one step this side to basically authroitarianism. Assuming, of course, that you are basing off of The Prince. If not, well, then, disreagard the above.

Inquisitional!

Inquisitional!

Egads!

I wasn't expecting that.. especially from you.

Egads!

I wasn't expecting that.. especially from you.

Why ever not?

Why ever not?

Because...no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Because...no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

:D

Not 2 words, not 0 words, one word.

A change from the manifestos we've been seeing lately.

Soleichunnism :p.

^
Would like to describe itself as pragmatic realist, but in reality is one step this side to basically authroitarianism. Assuming, of course, that you are basing off of The Prince. If not, well, then, disreagard the above.

The Discourses.

^

Right.

Clarify, please.

Sexy.