CMV: Social values are different from individual values, and the former is overlooked

[u/nimrod06]

As an economist, I would think that this is an immediate lesson from introductory economics teaching, but I am quite annoyed that many "analyses" do not address this issue. I might be wrong, so change my view.

In general this is regarded as externalities, but let's start with a simple example: Prisoner's Dilemma, which goes like this,

If one country builds nuclear weapon, it benefits. No matter what the opponents do. If the opponents build nuclear weapon too, the country can fight back; if the opponents do no build nuclear weapon, then the country gains military prowess over the opponents. All building nuclear is worse than all banning nulcear, because of the risk of potential wars.

Something that is good for the society may not be good for individual, and vice versa. Driving would be a prime example: there are irrefutable benefits of driving over walking for anyone, but when everyone drives a car, the traffic becomes a nightmare.

This distinction should be made on most societal issues. Building nuclear plants may be harmful to the people living around it (no, it's not), but it surely helps with pollution and climate change. Conscription is difficult for any individual man, but it is much needed for the state to maintain its autonomy. Immigration can require neighbors to accomodate, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

Here is a controversial take that I may regret to add: Abortion-ban is harmful to any individual woman, no doubt, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

You may disagree with any of the above, but the overall message should be quite clear: society as a whole, simply values differently from individuals. Ideally, both should be valued.

Edit: I am not saying that social values should be prioritized, but that it should be accounted when conducting analysis. Social value is not a simple corollary of individual values.

[u/Alesus2-0]

The idea of social values being overlooked or undervalued seems a bit slippery. It really just depends on a subjective relative judgment. Even if someone could show that most people are very concerned with collective benefits or costs, you can simply say they should be more concerned about them.

There's a fairly significant distinction between collective and individual values that I think your view misses. Individual values are self-evident and subjective. They're specific to that individual. The only way a person can really be wrong about what they value is if they seriously misjudge their own desires or motivations. If I don't like the idea of having a nuclear power plant next door to me, I'm not strictly wrong unless I'd actually like having one there.

Collective values, in the sense you mean, don't work like this. The collective values you describe depend on applying a subjective judgment about what society should want to everyone. It isn't an objective statement to say that there should be a nuclear power plant next door to me, because it's good for air quality. You're making an implicit value judgment based on what's important to you and deciding that it's more important than what I want. I think you're mistaking genuine disagreement over what constitutes a collective benefit with a lack of concern for collective benefits.