unintended consequences

[magus341]

Intentions do not equal results. People have goals and act to fulfill those goals, but that does not mean they are successful. The world is a complex place and even simple actions can affect many people. According to Wikipedia (which is rather good on this issue), "Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but

Comments

[psyllogism]

How do you define what is good? Should we maximize "good things" (utility, or whatever you want to call it) in society as a whole? Over the sum of the people in the society? The "average good" in society? Or should we maximize the minimum value of individual good?

Also, since when is Ron Paul a saint? ;-)

[magus341]

The study of what is right and wrong is up to moral philosophers. Economics is broadly utilitarian, with libertarians tending toward rule utilitarianism and occasionally natural rights. Progressive liberals tend to place more value on egalitarianism, with Rawlseian influence. Unintended consequences is just as much political science as it is economics. The discussion of what society should value as a whole is really a political question. Markets generally allow people to do what they want, so an ethic of "harm none, do what you will" persists among economists. When we hear that something is morally wrong, we look for an externality. Tolerance is very important for markets to work properly.

[magus341]

Oh, and the Ron Paul thing was a joke, but he's more saintly than any other congressperson out there, I think. The middle hyperlinks are often just to see if you're paying attention.

[psyllogism]

I figured :-)

Thanks for the reply, and the Wikipedia link. I will have to read about that more closely!