Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Maximizing wealth in the red light district
In considering his economic approach to justice and efficiency in light
of the criticism often cited against utilitarianism, Posner argues that the
wealth maximization theory doesn’t suffer from the same faults. I found his
discussion of possible inconsistencies with out moral intuitions, other than
wealth equality, to be the most interesting. He argues that “the ‘utility
monster’ has no place in a system of ethics founded on wealth maximization”
because one’s happiness derived from morally impermissible activities doesn’t
maximize wealth (82). While I might
enjoy torturing Professor Hurley, in order for the torture to be wealth
maximizing I would have to purchase the right to torture him through a
voluntary transaction. Posner believes that the possible victims are “protected
by the rights system, which forces the monster to pay them whatever
compensation they demand” (82). But this assumes that society believes someone
has a right to sell themselves. While thinking of it in terms of monster and
victim is helpful for addressing issues like torture and slavery, I think the
more interesting scenario arises when one willingly sells themselves to commit
an act society deems immoral—think a prostitute. It would be a wealth
maximizing exchange to allow the prostitute to sell his or her services to a
willing client, yet we deem it illegal. Is this a flaw in Posner’s model or is
our law wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Campbell! I like this post and the question it asks.
ReplyDeleteI think Posner would say: "The law has simply places the risk of nonperformance on the party who fails to perform" (75), moreover, it has altered incentives. So although a prostitute could technically sell their body, maximizing wealth, the law is there to disincentives a practice we find morally wrong. That doesn't mean that she cannot, or that men won't be willing to pay. In that sense, the woman would be the utility monster, and she can demand whatever price she wants from her "possible victims". The difference is that the beneficiaries of prostitution are not being tortured--they're getting sex. The law is there to disincentives the practice, but that doesn't mean it's completely banished the practice. It still happens in all major cities of the United States--and in Vegas, it's legal!
I'm still not really sure how Posner squares immorality with wealth-maximization, but it doesn't seem like he's completely opposed, since he did offer segregation as an example... It seems that he would want to look at if the benefits outweigh the costs to society (85). In the case of prostitution, I think that's what he would do. If there were tons of prostitutes everywhere, that would be more harmful to our society than the benefit of sexual pleasure that a beneficiary receives from it in a personal, private transaction.
Hi Campbell and Becca,
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your topic of reconciling immorality with wealth-maximization, I would agree that on a societal level, Posner would argue that while concepts such as segregation are plausible using wealth maximization, they are unlikely when weighing an entire society's costs and benefits. However, on an individual level, I do not think that Posner would argue that we can rely on the same method of analyzing costs and benefits if our goal is to ensure morality. He offers the example of a "white person [who] categorically refuses to associate with blacks because prior experience with some black people has caused him to form an unfavorable impression of them in general, and the costs to him of individualized consideration of blacks exceed the expected benefits, [and] so there is no basis of economic theory for criticizing his conduct...it is wealth maximizing" (86-87). Essentially, the white person has chosen to engage in "individual segregation." Since this segregation maximizes his individual wealth, he is not only reasonable in this segregation, but Posner seems to argue that it is likely since he offers no economic reason why the man would not engage in such actions.
I was also interested in how this discussion of Posner's relationship between rights and wealth maximization can clarify Posner's argument for wealth distribution. Posner clearly suggests that people can sell or barter their rights in exchange for income, and as a result those who are wealthier are those who may work harder, which Posner argues is not arbitrary. Posner goes on to say that, "in a system whose goal is to maximize a society's wealth, the distribution of wealth that results from paying people in (rough) proportion to their contribution to that goal is not arbitrary" (82). However, I am not sure I am convinced by Posner here. If two people attempt to be models and one person is naturally much more fit to be a model than the other, won't the person that is less fit have to contribute much more and still receive less wealth? Natural beauty here seems arbitrary and affects the wealth that a person receives regardless of their proportional contribution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete