Comment by danaris
4 years ago
By that argument, it is not "socially efficient" to make any accommodations to disability.
It would be "socially efficient" to euthanize our elderly once they pass the age at which they can work optimally.
We have, as a society, decided that we value human life and dignity more than any of that kind of "social efficiency".
> it is not "socially efficient" to make any accommodations to disability
More or less. The overwhelming majority of legally mandated disability subsidies in the US are horrendously anti-utilitarian.
> It would be "socially efficient" to euthanize our elderly
This type of absurd claim is a crystal clear indicator of someone who's stuck on a zeroth-order approximation of utilitarianism and isn't factoring in any higher-order terms like people's responses to incentives.
If we started killing old people, would that result in a net decrease in pro-social behavior? Obviously.
If we stopped wasting huge quantities of marginal resources on infrastructure due to e.g. ADA requirements, would that result in a net decrease in pro-social behavior? It would not.
> We have, as a society, decided that we value human life and dignity more than any of that kind of "social efficiency"
Another common refrain of the economically illiterate - claiming to "value human life" while simultaneously working against policies that would actually improve human flourishing. It's also very generous to describe the outcome of selectorate mechanics and lobbying as "we, as a society, decided..."
Spoken like someone who neither knows anyone with disabilities, nor realizes that they, themselves will likely be disabled at some point in their lives, and will both want and need accommodation at that point.
You're making things up about me (all untrue, incidentally) so you can write off my argument as heartless or something instead of actually addressing it.
1 reply →