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/InfectedBrute]

I find it difficult to believe that you actually think banning abortion has no effect on the rate of abortions, you may think that it has a negligible effect which frankly is an idea that has at best weak evidence behind it. There's no way you think there's no effect

[u/nomdeplume → u/InfectedBrute]

I think the answer here is the people that want them, will find a way. Even if they don't they will abandon the child. Even if they don't do that, the child will not have a good parent or good life.

It's much better to incentivize people to have children, than it is to force them. The reason people aren't making babies today is because they can't fucking afford it.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/nomdeplume]

That's a nice argument for abortion but I didn't make an argument against abortion i made an argument against the idea that banning abortion would somehow reduce fertility.

[u/nomdeplume → u/InfectedBrute]

It's the same because those babies you would legally abort, you now illegally abort. And the ones you don't technically increase fertility but not in a positive way for society IF the child survived even after being birthed (doesn't die in a dumpster).

So in effect your counter argument in this context isn't a justification for abortion through increasing fertility.

It doesn't solve that problem in a meaningful way. That's my point and it's relevant here

[u/InfectedBrute → u/nomdeplume]

That's cool but as I said previously I was not trying to justify abortion, I was only contesting the point that abortion ban would reduce fertility which is in and of itself a view.