Why Political Questions are not all Economic

Summary of Selection 33

Our devastated environmental landscape can be seen in 2 ways. Some see it exactly as is - environmental degredation. Others see efficiency, utility, and the satisfaction of wants. Is their vision true? Is this a miracle just like the vision of the Lady of Fatima?

Viewing environmental problems as problems of distribution consider people only as consumers. The value of a thing is based on people's "willingness to pay." But we are not only consumers. We are when we are getting what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens to achieve what is best for the community. These goals are not always consistent! For example, an individual might speed, but wants the police to enfore laws against speeding. How should public finance represent these 2 different roles of people?

As illustrated by the American textile Manufacturer vs. Donovan case, the law does not need to justify its standards on cost-benefit grounds. The Occupational Health and Safety Act proteccts employees from workplace hazards including exposure to toxic substances. But in the case of the American Petroleum Institute vs. Marshall the Supreme Court weighed the benefit of workers health against the cost to the company, and decided that the company's costs were greater; therefore the safety threshold should be lowered. This does not treat workers as "ends-in-themselves" (holding intrinsic value), but as merely a means for the production of overall utility.

There are competing conceptions of what our society should look like.
1) Worker quality and environmental degredation should be protected as long as benefits of protection balance the costs.
2) Neither should be treated as a commodity to be traded for other commodities.
This conflict should be solved by legistlative debate, not cost-benefit analysis.

Values are not subjective, merely statements of preference, attitude or emotion. But cost-benefit analysis treats them this way. This effectively makes whoever can pay the most "right" on any particular issue- no matter how irrelevant, stupid, uninformed or irresponsible that particular issue might be. The Kantian view is that some values are more reasonable than others. Objective standards of reason and criticism must apply. Should public policy be efficiency/weath maximization based, or should policy be justified or refuted on objective grounds? Environmental questions involve more than just economic principles, but also moral and aesthetic. Society is more than a market system, we must take our place as citizens and stop living solely as consumers.