news…

I was the one who morphed things into a free-a-slave-or-get-a-billion-dollars situation, I think. But I don’t think that there is anything especially Randian about my doing so. I’m not a Randian. I used to be. But here I’m just wondering about what Will’s (and others’) views are about how much more weight an agent can give his self-interest. I assume that Will would not give infinite weight to his self-interests, as a Randian would. But I imagine that he thinks it’s okay to give some more weight to one’s self-interest than to others’. (His comment about Schmidtz’s view seems to confirm this.)

I thinkg it is okay to give more weight to one’s self-interest. And I think it’s an interesting project to figure out how much more weight we can, morally speaking, give our interests over those of others. (Separately, I think it’s interesting to see how much weight a person puts on his self-interest, apart from his moral views.) That’s why I changed the course of the discussion a bit. I mean, giving some stranger, who is basically a free person,a billion dollars over freeing some other person, you don’t know, from slavery, IS a no-brainer. I think setting the situation up so that one has to weigh ONE’S self-interest against those of the slave is a bit more interesting.

Finally, good point about the messy facts about the world. But an interesting thing, I think, is that most people who would not take the billion dollars over freeing the slave do not think in economic terms. So, their not going about freeing a slave every once in awhile might still tell us something about their view about morality. And again, I think that could be interesting (and useful).

I was the one who morphed things into a free-a-slave-or-get-a-billion-dollars situation, I think. But I don’t think that there is anything especially Randian about my doing so. I’m not a Randian. I used to be. But here I’m just wondering about what Will’s (and others’) views are about how much more weight an agent can give his self-interest. I assume that Will would not give infinite weight to his self-interests, as a Randian would. But I imagine that he thinks it’s okay to give some more weight to one’s self-interest than to others’. (His comment about Schmidtz’s view seems to confirm this.)

I thinkg it is okay to give more weight to one’s self-interest. And I think it’s an interesting project to figure out how much more weight we can, morally speaking, give our interests over those of others. (Separately, I think it’s interesting to see how much weight a person puts on his self-interest, apart from his moral views.) That’s why I changed the course of the discussion a bit. I mean, giving some stranger, who is basically a free person,a billion dollars over freeing some other person, you don’t know, from slavery, IS a no-brainer. I think setting the situation up so that one has to weigh ONE’S self-interest against those of the slave is a bit more interesting.

Finally, good point about the messy facts about the world. But an interesting thing, I think, is that most people who would not take the billion dollars over freeing the slave do not think in economic terms. So, their not going about freeing a slave every once in awhile might still tell us something about their view about morality. And again, I think that could be interesting (and useful).

[Messy facts about the world: the buy-a-slave-to-free-him-or-her has some unpleaant dynamic effects that should be apparent to libertarians who pride themselves in thinking in economic terms.]

For what it’s worth, I travelled much the same path as Will, and have ended up in mich the same place– and, like him, view the thought experiment as offering a ridiculously easy choice.

Note that the economic benefit to any one person of a 75% reduction in the size of the U.S. government is of the order of magnitude of thousands of dollars per year, not millions. And ending the oppression of women worldwide means, among other things, moving at least hundreds of millions of human beings out of borderline-slavery situations including not only sex slavery but also coerced, child, and violent marriages. This is surely ridiculously easier than the billion-dollars-vs.-one-slave equation. Anyone opting for the U.S. gov’t reduction on self-interested grounds would be morally deficient; but anyone opting for it on nationalistic grounds is morally very strange, since willing to choose lesser-benefit-for-fewer-others over greater-benefit-for-more-others.

[Messy facts about the world: the buy-a-slave-to-free-him-or-her has some unpleaant dynamic effects that should be apparent to libertarians who pride themselves in thinking in economic terms.]

For what it’s worth, I travelled much the same path as Will, and have ended up in mich the same place– and, like him, view the thought experiment as offering a ridiculously easy choice.

Note that the economic benefit to any one person of a 75% reduction in the size of the U.S. government is of the order of magnitude of thousands of dollars per year, not millions. And ending the oppression of women worldwide means, among other things, moving at least hundreds of millions of human beings out of borderline-slavery situations including not only sex slavery but also coerced, child, and violent marriages. This is surely ridiculously easier than the billion-dollars-vs.-one-slave equation. Anyone opting for the U.S. gov’t reduction on self-interested grounds would be morally deficient; but anyone opting for it on nationalistic grounds is morally very strange, since willing to choose lesser-benefit-for-fewer-others over greater-benefit-for-more-others.