Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Gaining the Whole World

posted by Frank Pasquale

I want to respond to Ilya Somin’s claim that religious leaders need to learn (some version of) economics before opining on social justice. A curious editorial by Arthur Brooks provides a nice entree into the topic.

Mr. Brooks writes frequently on the WSJ editorial page on charity and religion. He lauds the charitable sector as superior to government-funded services, and offers survey evidence to demonstrate that religious people are both more charitable and happier than their secular peers. Brooks found the revelation of Mother Teresa’s profound and persistent sorrow a reason to re-emphasize that fact that, on average, the religious are statistically more likely to be happier than others:

The happiness gap between religious and secular people is not because of money or other personal characteristics. Imagine two people who are identical in every important way — income, education, age, sex, family status, race and political views. The only difference is that the first person is religious; the second is secular. The religious person will still be 21 percentage points more likely than the secular person to say that he or she is very happy.

On one level, I think this is important data: a classic premise of natural law is that submission to right belief and right action makes for genuine happiness. You only need to watch a few episodes of “Behind the Music” to get a sense of where untrammeled hedonism will lead.

However, the failthful also embrace the negative emotions associated with religious experience. A religious person may feel guilt or self-reproach at how little he’s done to relieve the world’s suffering. Penance is not a fun experience. Perhaps the Book of Ecclesiastes put it best: “in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” As Kierkegaard critiqued a complacent Christendom, so too should the modern believer question any effort to facilely align personal/national prosperity and Christian teaching.

I thus question Brooks’s “validation” of religious faith by its statistical correlation to “happiness”–particularly the crude measures of that state common to survey instruments. Much of religious thought refuses to be contained in our ordinary notions of well-being or success, a point eloquently made in the series of paradoxes posed in the prayer of St. Francis.

These paradoxes also render suspect the many suggestions of market-oriented thinkers that church leaders need to conform social teaching to particular economic models.


First, there are separate economic and cultural spheres, and churches are often more interested in how the former affects the latter than on the growth of the economy as such. For example, Daniel Finn’s The Moral Ecology of Markets makes the following observation:

Economists focus on small, ‘marginal’ changes, investigating the effects caused elsewhere when any one piece of the system changes. But this approach in any discipline tends to ignore the larger institutional framework within which these changes occur and thus often ignores the cumulative change that a long series of marginal changes will cause. Broad cultural shifts can occur, undermining fundamental moral values. (4)

For example, a series of Pareto-optimal, mutually beneficial exchanges may well lead workers to embrace 7-day workweeks, and self-interested votes may lead a majority to end the taxation that currently pays for health care for the disabled and elderly. Such a situation may well maximize GDP. But as George Garvey says in his Catholic critique of law and economics, “The principle of solidarity [evident in Papal encyclicals on social justice] does not permit indifference to the impact of growth-promoting policies on any individual or class of individuals. An economic ‘underclass’ cannot be tolerated as a prices for the growth of aggregate wealth.” (in Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, 240, emphasis added).

Why, then, are so many market-oriented thinkers so eager to constrain religious teachings on social justice? In his book A Secular Age, Charles Taylor notes a curious turn in modern thinking that occurred a few centuries ago:

[The economy] came to be seen more and more as the dominant end of society. . . . Instead of being merely the management, by those in authority, of the resources we collectively need, in household or state, the ‘economic’ now defines a way in which we are linked together, a sphere of coexistence which could in principle suffice to itself, if only disorder and conflict didn’t threaten. (178, 181)

This line of thought culminates in Hayek’s description of the market as a “complex order structured by a spontaneous process” (in Finn’s words). Economic thought breaks free of a moral order, and is increasingly seen as autonomous of accountability to moral traditions or democratic will. Taylor notes a fundamental split in response to that unmooring of economic from moral thought: “What for one school falls into the domain of an objective take on unavoidable reality, may seem to another to be a surrender of the human capacity to design our world before a false ‘positivity’” (184). Somin’s rhetoric is essentially an extension of the former position–the idea that certain economic realities are so unalterable that is inevitably foolhardy to try to counter them.

I’m deeply troubled by that development, but I see why it’s so tempting. Modern life is ruthlessly competitive, both personally and internationally. It would be nice to think that the kind of economic dynamism necessary to support, say, big cars (for highway arms races) or big bombs (for the projection of force in international arms races) is perfectly congruent with the teaching of a sacred text. But I find it hard to square that self-assertion with my own tradition, which urges its followers to “turn the other cheek,” declares “the last shall be first,” and blesses the meek and poor.


 September 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm   Posted in: Religion   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (1)

  1. anon - September 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Isn’t this post obscuring the proper role of economic analysis? Economic analysis (properly understood0 does not dictate proper ends or “just” results; it provides a mechanism for evaluating and comparing results. In other words, asking religious leaders to use economic analysis when making claims regarding social justice is merely asking them to use an evaluative tool – a mechanism by which they can better evaluate who “wins” and who “loses.” In my view, this is a very good idea.

    Economic models do not dictate that building bigger cars is necessarily better than financing soup kitchens. Certainly, they may indicate that building cars increases social welfare more than a given charitable activity, and they could tell us about the distributive consequences of each activity. The model, however, properly understood, would leave it to us to judge whether such a result is “good” or “bad” in a normative sense. This is why I am confused by your apparent belief that there is something incompatible between economic modeling and religious (or other) morals.

    Perhaps the point of your post is that other people (mistakenly) equate increasing social welfare as a better end than some religious social justice views. That’s certainly a good point, but I think its worth making it more precisely.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress