Thursday, August 5, 2010

MARGINAL UTILITY OF MORAL CHOICES

EVOLUTION OF MARGINAL UTILITY OF MORAL CHOICES:

Physics, natural science, and natural selection have not shed much useful light on the study of economic relations. Instead, we study economics based on concepts such as: the hypothetically reasonable consumer, the arms length competitor, maximization of marginal utility, price effects and diminishing returns on supply and demand, etc. But what about the study of moral or legal relations: Should exchange of mores and laws better be evaluated as a kind of exchange of “merchandise” than as the random or evolving collision of quarks? How may prescriptions and exchanges of mores and laws fulfill maximal desired effect versus diminishing returns? Insofar as the economic model is based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the reasonable consumer), should evolution of a mores model also be based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the good citizen of a sustainable civilization), as opposed to collisions among inanimate quarks composing genes)? IOW, how is the model of natural selection in any way useful for reasoning about moral choices?

Evolution of Marginal Utility of Moral Choices:

Does either beingness or nature restrict parameters for resources and opportunities, so that even moral choices must somehow respect a limiting law of supply and demand?

How does God or Natural Selection make choices within allowed parameters?

Are choices real, or merely random or predetermined?

Can any logic or empirical test provide a reliable answer?

Is reality shaped by layers and levels of conscious evaluations of marginal utility and diminishing returns? Does God weigh marginal utility and diminishing returns? If so, in what way?

Are utilities and returns weighed for each point in space-time, for spans in space-time, or for all of space-time?

For what mix and range of potentials for possibilities does meta consciousness (God?) just happen to assess diminishing returns of fulfillment?

Is there something like a “meta-second,” where time stands still between each sequenced synchronization of the Whole and each feedback from each perspective that exists among the sum of its parts?

In meta intervals between each holistic synchronization and each perspective’s feedback, are choices made based on intuitive estimates or apprehensions of marginal utility?

Can a mere mortal in any reasoned or measurable way relate to how God may weigh marginal utilities? Must not each range of choices for a mortal be circumscribed by the point of view and frame of reference that he then and there happens to be experiencing?

Must not God’s synchronization be affected by our feedback?

Does God seek to reconcile and maximize marginal utilities for fulfillment of various levels and perspectives of consciousness?

If so, how does God choose which perspectives, characters, forms, and patterns most merit perpetuation for being then and there “fittest” for maximizing marginal utility?

Does prayer factor, in ways beyond measure? How?

Well, go ask Rodin’s thinker.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: “…diminishing returns as federal government reaches beyond the peak of regulation that is profitable to its crony investors”

When an analysis is in terms of power, as in horse power, brute power, or Big Brother power, a standard model for the physical sciences may make more sense. But the model for physics, natural science, and natural selection has not shed much useful light on the study of economic relations. Instead, we study economics based on concepts such as: the hypothetically reasonable consumer, the arms length competitor, maximization of marginal utility, price effects and diminishing returns on supply and demand, etc.

So, what about the discussion or study of moral or legal relations: Should exchange of mores and laws better be evaluated as a kind of exchange of “merchandise” than as the random or evolving collision of quarks? How may prescriptions and exchanges of mores and laws fulfill maximal desired effect versus diminishing returns?

Insofar as the economic model is based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the reasonable consumer), should evolution of a mores or citizenship model also be based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the good citizen of a sustainable civilization), as opposed to collisions among inanimate quarks composing genes)? IOW, how is any pretended-to-be objective model of natural selection in any way useful for reasoning about moral choices? Or for surrendering great gobs of governmental authority to a presumptuous elite that thinks itself to be “most objectively” equipped to look out for our best interests?

My point is this: Progressives feign, with no objective warrant, that they are objectively best suited to look out for our interests (so that we inferiors should just get out of the way). Problem is, their model simply “does not compute.” For that reason, the States most surely should resist. IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Re: “…diminishing returns as federal government reaches beyond the peak of regulation that is profitable to its crony investors”

When an analysis is in terms of power, as in horse power, brute power, or Big Brother power, a standard model for the physical sciences may make more sense. But the model for physics, natural science, and natural selection has not shed much useful light on the study of economic relations. Instead, we study economics based on concepts such as: the hypothetically reasonable consumer, the arms length competitor, maximization of marginal utility, price effects and diminishing returns on supply and demand, etc.

So, what about the discussion or study of moral or legal relations: Should exchange of mores and laws better be evaluated as a kind of exchange of “merchandise” than as the random or evolving collision of quarks? How may prescriptions and exchanges of mores and laws fulfill maximal desired effect versus diminishing returns?

Insofar as the economic model is based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the reasonable consumer), should evolution of a mores or citizenship model also be based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the good citizen of a sustainable civilization), as opposed to collisions among inanimate quarks composing genes)? IOW, how is any pretended-to-be objective model of natural selection in any way useful for reasoning about moral choices? Or for surrendering great gobs of governmental authority to a presumptuous elite that thinks itself to be “most objectively” equipped to look out for our best interests?

My point is this: Progressives feign, with no objective warrant, that they are objectively best suited to look out for our interests (so that we inferiors should just get out of the way). Problem is, their model simply “does not compute.” For that reason, the States most surely should resist. IMHO.

Anonymous said...

I agree that it is vital to observe a distinction between sympathy and empathy! That one can be sympathetic with "the devil" ought not entice one to advocate that the devil "should" be given his due (as well as whatever rights and entitlements he may desire). As to that which is possible: Well, much probably is possible. And comprehending the difference may entail less in mathematics than in intuition. But, that which is possible generally requires much more than imagination. It also requires will, i.e., dedication and, often, hard work. But work tends to be in short supply once one begins to imagine one has rightful entitlements, sans work.
It's not just Libs who are often "stuck on stupid" (even when they need not be), imagining that every diverse group and class should be entitled to whatever entitlements and wants it may desire. It is often also Lobot-atarians, as if a just society (with government, no less!) "should" guarantee that every odd group shall be at license to require that society must accept, celebrate, and even help finance it. For them, sacraments heretofore supported as being foundational to decent civilization --such as marriage -- tend to be dissipated into meaninglessness.
What non-conservators of liberty so often fail to consider is this: What have history and experience shown to be necessary in order to sustain viable, humane civilization?