Mike Caprio mikecap@world.std.com	Introduction	Professional Info	Personal Info	Writing

Epimetheus Speaks: Kicking Dogs and Eating Babies (originally published 11/06/93)

Being the sadist that I am, I was watching CNN the other day. It seems that the Nikkei Exchange, the Tokyo equivalent of Wall Street, has dropped about 1100 points the past couple of days. This value is roughly a third of what our own Dow Jones indicator reflects... I don't know if the two parallel at all, or even how much the Japanese market was at before it decreased in value. But, the point is, they're tearing their hair out for the moment. I'm sure the number of suicides has risen drastically, even though they're a ways off from collapse yet. What really interests me though is the manner in which a lot of the traders are acting; they pretend as though their entire lives depend on a bunch of numbers that pass across and LCD screen at the top of the exchange - numbers that don't even technically exist, that are only as real as the people's belief in them. Nothing is more subject to the whims and popular delusions of the people as the stock market is. The concept of value is something that today remains little understood - why is that green piece of paper worth more than a person's life? How does a piece of plastic pay for that brand new toaster?

Value is something I have to establish before I get on with the rest of my discussion. When we use the word value, we say that something has value. Value can be positive or negative; it can be great or small. But what is it exactly? We can say for sure that value is an extremely relative concept - the value of something changes minute to minute and person to person. If you were stuck on a desert island with only 40 cans of stewed giblets to survive on, a can opener is going to be a pretty valuable item. So one could say that value is heavily dependent on demand, or rather supply and demand, to borrow from economics. To return to the stock market for analogy, when demand for a share rises, price is driven up because people want it much more. When there is a large supply of shares floating around, their value decreases because people get the shares they want and satisfy their demand.

There is however, another use for the word "value". It's a common term to find associated with the concept of "morality". When one speaks of morality, one usually calls the component parts of it "one's values". Why is this so? Well, my opinion is that we call certain ideas we hold "values" because they do tend to hold a certain amount of that indefinable quality of morality - a sort of unit of measurement, so to speak. How "valuable" a moral idea is depends on the size and direction of that idea. For example, it's quite a high and positive ideal to want to feed and clothe all the hungry and naked, while it's quite a low and negative ideal to want to use all those people as shark bait or fertilizer.

So if value is a big part of morality, what then is morality? When we say that something is moral, that something is what we consider "right". There's "right" and there's "wrong". The "wrong" thing to do is the opposite if the "right" thing, usually. We say for example, that it's "right" to pay our taxes, but we often do the "wrong" thing and cheat on them anyway. As a start, we have these ideas of right and wrong... where did these concepts come from? It's a safe bet to say that morality and society go hand in hand. Any society one creates has to have a set of morals in order to operate properly. Laws are concrete extensions of a particular set of morality - the earliest example of which would probably be Hammurabi, and his code of laws. Everybody remembers "an eye for an eye", right? Laws exist to try and enact this thing called "justice"; moral equals "just" as well. We say "it is fair and just and moral to do this thing." And if you don't do it, we'll pluck out your eyeballs.

So if morality is a big part of society, then a large portion of our morals are reflected in our government. Morals themselves come from the agreements of the people; the social contract, so to speak. A group of people decide what is "right", then take steps to ensure that the right thing is enforced. But here's the kicker. People don't always agree on what's right and what's wrong. _That_ is what gives us the wonderful miracle of politics. One group of people usually decides that one thing is right, while another decides that it is wrong. They then conflict (in one way or another - war, thumb wrestling, voting) and the winner determines what is right. Did you get that part? The winner is the one who writes history, and determines morality. There's not much more to say about that - you can fret and fume all you want about how the other side is wrong, and you're right, but if they win, they're the ones who decide.

So there's a great big controversy over the relativity of all this. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right that this concept morality, which is so very vital to our beings and societies, is decided over a simple contest. For ages, Man has searched for some kind of concrete, absolute law that works for everybody. A morality that is objective and stands outside societal constraint. This has been the main task of religion for the past 10,000 years. A religion is a particular set of moral laws that make up a certain code of belief. There are certain things in religion that simply cannot be reconciled at any cost. Take for example, the 10 commandments, our own basis for the Judeo-Christian society we live in. They represent a moral code that is irreconcilable - an absolute moral law that must be followed. And yet... things just don't work out that way all the time. While it's a nice idea to try and discover or formulate a universal moral code - it's hardly realistic. There are too many uncertainties and special cases in life for any moral code to work 100 percent successfully for everbody.

So, my idea is, maybe we can do an economics of morals. Let's think about it for a second. Value pretty much represents the same thing in both a system of economics and a system of morals. What price morality? What is the supply of morals in the world today? What is the demand? Think about it. It makes a lot more sense than you'd think at first. There are definite laws that formulate how and why we decide what morals to enforce; it's just a matter of singling them out and defining them further. I think maybe a comparison with economics might bring us a new kind of insight.

But, alas, I really don't have the space to go into it in much more detail. Keep thinking... until next time...

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.