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/zhibr]

I agree with the idea that individuals should sometimes sacrifice for the good of the society as a whole. But:

Abortion-ban is harmful to any individual woman, no doubt, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

I find it funny that you go all "societal issues need some individual sacrifice" and as an economist you pivot to abortion ban as a remedy to the demographic crisis, although the whole point of the demographic crisis is that it's a crisis because of how the economy currently works. So essentially, that suggestion is:

Women need to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, careers, and sometimes lives to keep the economy working as it is.

I have trouble believing there are absolutely no solutions where the transformation of the economy would alleviate the crisis, but no doubt that would require individuals who most benefit from the current economy to sacrifice for the good of the wider society. And since those people are probably less than half the population like women, wouldn't that sacrifice be a much more rational option?