Bryan Caplan asks why economists are agnostic about whether receiving “the gift of life”, meaning being born, makes someone better off, when they are so certain that receiving a gift of $100 dollars clearly does. I think the reason we can be confident about one and agnostic about the other is that we have a good conceptions of the two separate states being compared in the $100 scenario, and don’t in the other. In the gift of money scenario one state is with $100 extra dollars, the other is a state without. It is easy both conceptually and, if we wanted, empirically, to consider well-being in these two states and determine in which the individual is better off. We have good information about what it means to be in both states.
In the other scenario, one state is controversial and we don’t have good information about what it means to be in it. What is the expected level of utility of being in the state of never being born? Immeasurable or inconceivable might be just as good of an answer. It strikes me as a philosophical question that, at the very least, economists aren’t trained to think about.
Perhaps Bryan understands that the philosophical answer here is actually clear-cut, and the problem is a lack of sophistication among economists (and myself). I’m not convinced this is the case, but I am willing to consider it. My main objection is that it holds radical moral implications that seem to violate common sense morality. For instance, if you take seriously the notion that the utility of not being born is less than the utility of being born, it seems to me that the moral imperative is for everyone who is capable to be reproducing at the maximum rate possible, because the marginal utility is likely massive. Surely the positive marginal utility of a life of poverty with 20 siblings relative to the utility of not being born is greater than the negative marginal utility of the 20 siblings and parents being burdened with one more family member. So when do you stop? Are Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar the most moral people on the planet?
If you argue that individuals should act selfishly, which somehow I think Bryan would, then there is a huge market failure whereby the unborn are unable to contract with their potential parents to pay for life. This argues for taxation of everyone (the set of people who are born) in order to subsidize reproduction. Yes, we indirectly do some of this already, but this should trump all other charitable and redistributive concerns.
So maybe Bryan is right and the utility of not being born is lower than the utility of being born, but if he is I think we are living in an incredibly immoral world with the largest market failure that has ever existed.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
jsalvatier
“the value of not being born is zero”, in utility, zero is not a special number. Utility calculations are identical under affine transformations (linear transformation followed by translation). You can say maybe no being born is – Inf, but infinities tend to introduce lots of paradoxes into utility theory.
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Adam Ozimek
Right, I was loosely using a particular normalization of utility where zero was “bad”, but you’re right that it’s unclear. I’ve gone through and changed it a bit to make it clearer and only use nominal values for marginal utility.
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
jazzbumpa
What this illustrates is the fallacy of freakonomics – the idea that thinking like an economist has – oh, let’s call it utility – outside of the field of economics. (IMHO, thinking like an economist has close to 0 utility INSIDE the field of economics, but that’s a different issue.)
Clearly, the utility of not being born is 0. This is a null state, where there is no opportunity for either utility or dis-utility. In fact, if utility = 0 {for the non-born} is not an identity function, then somebody is seriously missing the point.
For instance, if you take seriously the notion that the utility of not being born is zero, it seems to me that the moral imperative is for everyone who is capable to be reproducing at the maximum rate possible.
No. And further, no.
You assume -
1) That the utility of being born is >0, always and everywhere. This assumption is highly speculative for much of the worlds population, and very likely to almost certainly false for those who experience infant mortality, an initial and permanent vegetative state, a combination of severe and debilitating handicaps, or otherwise endure lives that are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
This is, in fact – if you believe in god or some other independent utility arbiter – why the miscarriages of defective fetuses occur.
2) That the externalities are positive. Aint necessarily so. Unless you also believe that assets and potentialities are infinite, and the birth of that 20th child cannot in any way decrease the collective utility of the other 19, mom, dad, and the community at large.
Further, since no one ever has a moral imperative to increase the utility of another human being, your premise is invalid. (I do believe the imperative is to not decrease another’s utility, in case you’re curious.)
Cheers! (i.e maximize your utility without negative externalities)
JzB
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Life Cannot Be Freely Disposed Of « Modeled Behavior
[...] ~ August 29th, 2010 in Bias and Rationality | by Karl Smith Adam, alerts me to Bryan Caplan full-throated embrace of the suicide fallacy. That is the notion that life must [...]
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Hyena
I worked through these sorts of problems when I was in undergrad and I came to the conclusion that we can’t really rely on these sorts of all-encompassing and simplifying moral theories.
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Overcoming Bias : When To Expand Yourself
[...] Caplan says gaining existence is as clearly good for someone as is getting $100. Adam Ozimek disagrees because this would [...]
Sunday ~ August 29th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Rebecca Burlingame
This is a tricky area for people to even think about too much, because money is not tied directly to human capital…why the $100 has more value than the life in so many words. Therefore, one reasons that they are a burden to the world if in fact one does not have a way to be financially responsible to it. All part of why I advocate wealth creation and access through human capital that is not connected to money.
Tuesday ~ August 31st, 2010 at 11:01 pm
The utility of existence, and the limitations of economics « Modeled Behavior
[...] why economists question whether bringing someone into existence makes them better off, and I had some objections. Bryan has offered up a useful response, in which I think he has inadvertently answered his own [...]
Tuesday ~ May 7th, 2013 at 1:10 am
connought-learning
I’ll almost certainly be once again to read much more, thanks for that info.