Raghu writes: >> David, >> So you agree that it is ethically abhorrent to do cost-benefit >> analysis based on narrow profit/loss considerations alone? >> >> If so, I think that'll help narrow down the points of contention here a lot.
I think doing cost-benefit analysis is entirely moral neutral. Cost-benefit analysis is a tool that provides information for decision-making -- it is not decision-making. That being said, if you are a utilitarian, I have difficulty in understanding how a decision based upon the results of a cost-benefit analysis would be ethicallty abhorrent. Again, this assumes that the cost/benefit calculation is noncontroversial, which I readily admit is difficult to accomplish. The revulsion toward cost/benefit analysis necessarily assumes that our intuitive ethics are correct, and that a cost/benefit analysis should be judged against whether it agrees with our intuitive ethics (e.g. note Michael Perelman's implict argument that if the cell phone cost/benefit analysis disagrees with his intuitive ethical position, the problem is the cost/benefit analysis and not his intuitive ethical position). I think the revulsion misses the point that (1) we have competing goods that are often hard to reconcile, (2) our intuitive ethics are often based upon incomplete and/or incorrect information, and (3) our intuitive ethics necessarily has to come from somewhere outside of ourselves, at least in part. Cost/benefit analysis plays a necessary party in addressing each of these three issues and I find it almost impossible to comprehend how one can determine what is ethical in any situation without incorporating cost/benefit analysis. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
