Comments on: Gaining the Whole World http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/09/the_nature_of_r.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: anon http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/09/the_nature_of_r.html/comment-page-1#comment-52233 anon Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:44:27 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/09/gaining-the-whole-world.html#comment-52233 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. 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.

]]>