Posted by
Andrews on Monday, April 13, 2009 1:34:43 PM
Some of our most damaging mistakes originate from a simple belief, the idea that something is an absolute good. For example, all the harm of the environmental movement, or at least the harm done by the most extremist groups, is due to the belief that "nature" is an absolute good. Likewise, much of the nanny state meddling originates in the related mistake, the belief that "health" is an absolute good. Nor are those the only errors. Time and again, people have been led into the most bizarre theories whenever they postulate that something, be it "justice" or "peace" or "security", anything at all, is an absolute good.
The truth is quite simple, all values are relative, and all are subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Though many arguments exist against this, and some may even sound plausible, a little bit of thought will show that, despite the seemingly plausible arguments, there really is no such thing as an absolute value.
Let us start with the most obvious one. Many people will argue "life" is an absolute value, that without life you cannot enjoy any other benefits, and so it is impossible to put a price on your life.
That simply is not true.
Let us look at the most obvious counter argument, the fact that people risk their lives. if life were an absolute good, then no price could be high enough to cause anyone to risk their lives. However, every day, people take jobs such as police officer, fireman, or soldier, either form need for money or from conviction, judging the benefit to be worth the risk of their life. That is, implicitly placing a value upon their lives. Likewise, many others will skydive, race cars, and otherwise risk their lives for enjoyment. Again, this is an implicit admission that the benefit they derive, the joy they experience, is worth the risk. Thus, by doing so, they show that their life has a fixed value, and thus is not absolute and infinite.
However, some may object to this formulation, arguing that they accept the risk as they expect that it won't come to pass. However, there are other instance where people will actually accept certain death, showing that life is worth less than other values. We have the example of those who die to save their loved ones, accepting that their life is worth less than the life of another. Or we have the example of martyrs for various causes. Assuming we agree that at least some of these people are rational, then we must admit that life itself is not an absolute value.
And from life, we can move to "health".
As I mentioned before, the many nanny state interventions are predicated on the idea that health is itself an absolute value, that we can ban those things deemed "unhealthy" as they simply could never have enough benefit to outweigh the health risks. On this basis we have campaigns against drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, transfats, soda, salt, sugar, and so on. However, that ignores the simple truth that health is not an absolute value. there may be many who are willing to accept diminished health, or the risk of diminished health, for the benefits they feel they receive. However, by prohibiting this, the health nazis make these individuals less satisfied, all int he name of the "absolute value" of health.
And that is, in a nutshell, the problem with seeing an absolute value, the fact that it frees one from all thought of costs, of trade offs, of losses. If something is an absolute value then cost is no object, no benefit is great enough to outweigh it, no harm great enough to argue against it. And so we end up with horribly misguided laws thanks to our belief in absolute values.