This article speaks of the complexities of decision making environmental policies. Between the political and economic values tend to contradict each other."some people have suggested that ideally these should be the same, that all environmental problems are problems in distribution. According to this view, there is an environmental problem only when some resource is not allocated in equitable and efficient ways. This approach to environmental policy is pitched entirely at the level of the consumer. It is his or her values that count, and the measure of these values is the individuals willingness to pay. The problem of justice or fairness in society becomes, then, the problem of distributing goods and services so that more people get more of what they want to buy: a condo on the beach, a snowmobile for the mountains, a tank full of gas, a day of labor. The only values we have, according to this view, are those that a market can price." Mark Sagoff states "In principle, the ultimate measure of environmental quality," as one basic text assures us, "is the value people place on these... services or their willingness to pay." Only those willing to invest in their values will ever be heard, talk is cheap is essentially what he is refers to. "Not all of us simply think that of ourselves simply as consumers. Many of us regard us as citizens as well. We act as citizens to achieve what we think is right or best for the community. The question arises, then, whether what we want for ourselves individually as consumersis consistant with the goals we would set for oursleves collectively as citizens. Would I vote for the sort of things I shop for? Are my preferences as a consumer consistent with my judgements as a citizen?" This may be one reason for so manys dicontent and mistrust in federal goverments since the ethics and economics rarely run paralell. "Shall the courts uphold only those political decisions that can be defended on economic grounds? Shall we allow democracy only the extent that it can be constructed either as a rational response to a market failure or as an attempt to redistribute wealth? Should the courts say that a regualtion is not "feasible" or "reasonable"-terms that occur in the OSHA law-unless it is supported by a cost benefit analysis?". Just filling space with quotes. Sagoff also describes that values are not subjective "The analyst supposes in all such cases that "this is right" and "this is what we ought to do" are equivalent to "I want this" and "this is what I prefer" Value jugdements are beyond critisim if, indeed, they are nothing but expressions of personal preference; they are incorrigible since every person is in the best position to know what he or she wants." Since this a very complicated issue Mark Sagoff talked about value which is worth being quoted as well. "In contrast, consider a Kantian conception of value. The individual, for Kant, is a judge a values, not a mere haver of wants, and the individual judges not for himself or herself merely, but as a member of a relevent community or group. The central idea in a Kantian approach to ethics is that some values are more reasonable than others and therefore have a better claim upon assent of members as such." Sagoff has pointed out that these issue are far from trnasparent and that more vigourous cost-benefit analyisis as well as regualtion. "These distinctions cannot be made out and have no significance within an emotive or pshycological theory of value. To adopt this theory is to imagine society as a market in which individuals trade voluntarily and without coercion. No individual, no belief, no faith has authority over them. To have power to act as a nation we must be able to act, at least at times, on a public philosophy, conviction or fait. We cannot abandon moral function of public law. the antinomianism of cost benefit analysis is not enough."
Citations:
At the Shrine of Our Lady Fatima or Why Political Questions Are Not All not Economic.
by: MArk Sagoff
Picture:
http://www.timescontent.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment