Comments on: Meditations on Collective Action and Moral Norms

By: Hampers

Hampers — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:48:18 +0000

Different people, differing views if we talk about government norms. If only one view that is generally acceptable and will surely benefit the general public is practice, I think the word argument will now be a thing of the past. But reality is not like this. The gifts given should now be made with real occasion and not the other way around.

By: Gregory J Hoffman

Gregory J Hoffman — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:50 +0000

nice article! nice site. you're in my rss feed now
keep it up

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:04:26 +0000

Ethical vegetarians can be very evangelical but don’t seem to be very interested in banning or taxing meat at all. Why not?

Because they’re rational enough to realise they have exactly zero chance of achieving that goal, perhaps?

The way they get instantly dismissed, laughed at, or funny looks if they suggest a ban on meat would tend to discourage, if not such a goal, then at least mentioning it.

(Achieving it by admitting that’s their goal, at any rate – I suppose they could sneakily have that goal and have a “moral softening-up” agenda already.)

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Ethical vegetarians can be very evangelical but don’t seem to be very interested in banning or taxing meat at all. Why not?

Because they’re rational enough to realise they have exactly zero chance of achieving that goal, perhaps?

The way they get instantly dismissed, laughed at, or funny looks if they suggest a ban on meat would tend to discourage, if not such a goal, then at least mentioning it.

(Achieving it by admitting that’s their goal, at any rate – I suppose they could sneakily have that goal and have a “moral softening-up” agenda already.)

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:55:31 +0000

Matt, Sure. But I’m talking about the conventional conception of rational choice in which the effect on the individual’s welfare determines the preferences ordering.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:55:00 +0000

Matt, Sure. But I’m talking about the conventional conception of rational choice in which the effect on the individual’s welfare determines the preferences ordering.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:50:04 +0000

“Indeed, I think the fact that we do successfully solve so many of them basically refutes strict rational choice assumptions.”

Aren’t rational choice assumptions perfectly consistent with these solutions given preferences for being moral?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:50:00 +0000

“Indeed, I think the fact that we do successfully solve so many of them basically refutes strict rational choice assumptions.”

Aren’t rational choice assumptions perfectly consistent with these solutions given preferences for being moral?

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:42:25 +0000

[...] Wilkinson muses about collective action, moral norms and culture wars, while Ophelia ponders the question of when scorn and mockery should be seen as permissible in [...]

By: John

John — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:54:52 +0000

Will,

Are you ONLY making the descriptive claim? Because what you say in the third paragraph – that “if we’re talking about whether or not a certain constraint on self-interest ought [your emphasis] to be normatively binding … I think there’s a good answer to that: because heeding the constraint will tend to make the person who heeds it better off, conditional on others heeding it, too” – sure seems to have a normative dimension as well. (Or am I missing something?)