Difference between revisions of "Moral aspects of socio economic methods"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Category:Ethical]] |
+ | [[Category:Ethical]][[Category:Economic]] |
={{PAGENAME}}= |
={{PAGENAME}}= |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== 1. The individual versus the well being of the majority == |
== 1. The individual versus the well being of the majority == |
||
| − | The aim of a social cost-benefit analysis is to select the project with the highest social cost-benefit ratio that will lead to a |
+ | The aim of a social cost-benefit analysis is to select the project with the highest social cost-benefit ratio that will lead to a maximisation of wealth for society. But what if the planned expansion of a new airport will indeed increase the (economic) well being of a region, but at the same time will reduce the quality of life for people living close to the airport significantly? Put differently, is the well-being of the mass always more valuable than that of the individual elements it exists of? |
== 2. The economic value of a human life and the environment == |
== 2. The economic value of a human life and the environment == |
||
| − | Another source of controversy is placing a monetary value of human life, for example, when assessing safety measures against terrorism. It is kind of cold-blooded to make a cost-benefit analysis of the economic side of human loss. But, without placing a financial value on life itself, a social cost-benefit analysis would lose its value, especially when the purpose of a project is to improve the safety of local residents. The same kind of moral issues can be raised when the environment is valued as a provider of services to humans, |
+ | Another source of controversy is placing a monetary value of human life, for example, when assessing safety measures against terrorism. It is kind of cold-blooded to make a cost-benefit analysis of the economic side of human loss. But, without placing a financial value on life itself, a social cost-benefit analysis would lose its value, especially when the purpose of a project is to improve the safety of local residents. The same kind of moral issues can be raised when the environment is valued as a provider of services to humans, such as safe water supply and pollination. Also here, one can wonder if it is always possible to value the environment, especially because one cannot afford to make mistakes. |
== 3. Who deserves safety? == |
== 3. Who deserves safety? == |
||
Revision as of 09:55, 4 January 2013
Contents
Moral aspects of socio economic methods
Moral (or ethical) issues are the foundation of any social-economic decision. It is, for example, the primary duty of urban planners to serve the public interests and recognise the comprehensive and long-range nature of planning decisions. Below, three ethical considerations will illustrate this foundation:
1. The individual versus the well being of the majority
The aim of a social cost-benefit analysis is to select the project with the highest social cost-benefit ratio that will lead to a maximisation of wealth for society. But what if the planned expansion of a new airport will indeed increase the (economic) well being of a region, but at the same time will reduce the quality of life for people living close to the airport significantly? Put differently, is the well-being of the mass always more valuable than that of the individual elements it exists of?
2. The economic value of a human life and the environment
Another source of controversy is placing a monetary value of human life, for example, when assessing safety measures against terrorism. It is kind of cold-blooded to make a cost-benefit analysis of the economic side of human loss. But, without placing a financial value on life itself, a social cost-benefit analysis would lose its value, especially when the purpose of a project is to improve the safety of local residents. The same kind of moral issues can be raised when the environment is valued as a provider of services to humans, such as safe water supply and pollination. Also here, one can wonder if it is always possible to value the environment, especially because one cannot afford to make mistakes.
3. Who deserves safety?
A third source of moral controversy comes from the question if everyone deserves protection from (terrorist) threats or only the wealthy. This is a question policy makers and urban planners have to deal with every day.
Related subjects
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Moral_aspects_of_socio-economic_methods height=1023 width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame> <headertabs/>
