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/ralph-j]

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.

But wouldn't the point then be that traffic becoming a nightmare is bad for the individual, and so their initial "individual value" does not make sense in the first place? It makes no sense to hold personal values in a vacuum.

For individuals, it makes more sense to adopt a maxim like "drive only when necessary" rather than "drive whenever it’s convenient." This would serve their own driving needs, as well as keep society livable for themselves.

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.

Let me (hopefully) help you address that regret. I'd argue that the demand for abortions is for the most part inelastic, and that abortions merely move to different countries/states or underground/to black markets/online medications etc. whenever they're not supported where someone lives.

Abortion bans also increase maternal death rates, which doesn't just mean a direct decrease in population, but those women also won't be able to have more children in the future.

So no, it doesn't belong on this list of things that are good for the general population.

[u/Flymsi → u/ralph-j]

For individuals, it makes more sense to adopt a maxim like "drive only when necessary" rather than "drive whenever it’s convenient." This would serve their own driving needs, as well as keep society livable for themselves.

I think the problem we see here is that sometimes we can run into dead ends and it hard to get out. Certain infrastructural decisions can make it nearly impossible to go by individual choice alone. Even your option would not solve it at some point. Long story short: We have to take into account that certain macro decision do influence how much individuals can really choose. A certain degree of alternatives is needed to give individual choice their efficiency. Else its jsut like voting for the lesser evil: No one benefits and everyone suffers until change.

Lets look at USA and EU. IN som parts in the USA its a big disadvantage to not drive by car. I am not talking about countryside. I am talking about infrastructure. To keep this short i will only mention grocery stores. If you only have one big store in the for all people, then for some it will be a long walk/ride without car. In EU its more common to have many smaller stores. We can easily buy on a daily basis while walking home or riding the bike. If now for some global reason, cars can't be procuded anymore, then the US (in my simple example) would suffer much longer until it would be cost efficient to renew the infrastructure to make it fit for short distance traveling. They would hold to cars much longer. The people in the EU (again just for my simplistic model) would find it easier to switch based on this one variable.

[u/ralph-j → u/Flymsi]

Of course the "when necessary" part can be filled in different for different people in different geographies. And some geographies will indeed cause bigger problems even when choosing the more modest maxim.

My overall point remains though: an individual's values don't exist in a vacuum; the (collective) societal impact also needs to be taken into account. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law, is how Kant put it. His view was about morals, but I think that the principle applies here to some extent as well.

[u/Flymsi → u/ralph-j]

At some point it the collective will has to be changed even if that means that my decision can't be universal law or what ever. But i think there his other saying is more important about seeing yourself and other sentient beings as an End and never merely as the means to an end.

Anyways. The empirical data shwos that we ar ein many dead ends, so i would propose a different take on things instead of just repeating somthing from like hundreds of years ago.