> We can start by cleaning up the language of economics that declares
widgets
> progressive and symphony orchestras stagnant. Then we can deal with
such
> things as productivity and values i.e. only that which is useful has
utility
> and utility equals human pleasure, (one of the dumber statements of the
last
> three hundred years, don't you think?). Then we can declare a serious
> study of work and why it is important to both individuals and society
beyond
> simple cash payment. Got to go to rehearsal.
>
> REH
Ray, I don't think it's quite right to say that economists saw utility as
being equal to pleasure. It would be more correct to say that they saw it as
the source of human satisfaction. The more utility, or "utils", accruing to
someone, the more satisfied he would be, though each util would give him a
decreasing amount of satisfaction. Utilitarian economists pretended not to
make moral judgments, but most would probably have restricted what they
meant by "satisfaction" as relating to the fulfillment of basic needs.
"Pleasure" would not likely be viewed as a basic need, at least not for the
poor, but of course once basic needs were satisfied, the individual was free
to pursue pleasure in any way he saw fit.
In 18th,19th and even early 20th Century Europe, most people were so busy
simply satisfying their basic needs that they had no time for pleasure. Many
could not fulfill even the most elementary of needs, so they starved. Thank
God you had the rich! Without them, it is very unlikely that the arts would
have survived.
Ed Weick
