Re: Ethical Investment Gone Wild

From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 18:27:13 MDT

  • Next message: Robin Hanson: "Re: Ethical Investment Gone Wild"

    Robin Hanson wrote:

    > I just came across this thought-provoking future speculation by
    > Geoffrey Miller, author of "The Mating Mind":
    > http://psych.unm.edu/faculty/moral_vision.htm
    > There's something broken about this idea, but its hard to say
    > exactly what it is.
    >
    1. I find implausible how the system is supposed to get rolling in the first
    place--the signaling system seems too weak. Of course, a strong signal
    system is introduced later on with the "moral vision system", however, it is
    difficult to see how this system could realistically get going without such
    a strong system earlier on. The trouble of course is how to signal that one
    has made an ethical investment. It is true that sometimes some entities get
    called on the carpet, e.g., a teachers' pension fund might get criticized
    for investing in something less than ethical, the trouble is how to assess
    see the signals of those whose financial dealings are not open to public
    scrutiny. It is the usual problem with defectors: one can wear a pin and
    look like one is investing with the ethical while in fact actually investing
    with the merely "prudent" (Of course the prudent may invest the way that the
    ethical do on occasion, the prudent have the "advantage" that they need
    not). For example, notice how the story talks says that "the major
    Protestant churches in the U.S. instructed their congregations to bring
    their investments into line with their consciences." Well, if it were that
    easy you would think they could stop any number of sins, e.g., it would seem
    a simple matter to stop adultery by simply exhorting everyone not to covet
    thy neighbor's wife, etc. The story of course could be altered to
    accommodate this point. Perhaps the ethical wave doesn't get rolling until
    the advent of "moral vision system". Another less hi-tech possibility is
    that the amount one invests in ethical funds allows one to earn one of the
    angelic titles in the traditional hierarchy:

      a.. Seraphim
      b.. Cherubim
      c.. Thrones
      d.. Dominions
      e.. Powers
      f.. Authorities
      g.. Principalities
      h.. Archangels
      i.. Angels
    So the greater your investment (as a proportion of your disposable income)
    into ethical funds the higher your angelic title. If I'm as invested as I
    can be in ethical funds then I might earn the title "Seraphim Mark Walker".
    What's to stop everyone calling themselves a 'Seraphim', well, my income and
    investments could be monitored by an independent agency and the results
    published on the web. There would be no need to publish my earnings or
    holdings, only the percentage of my disposable income invested in ethical
    funds, (which would be expressed by my angelic designation).

    2. Of course one can't help but worry that this sort of "fad" really has to
    fight an uphill battle against human (biological) nature in a way that the
    consumerism of the bourgeoisie never had to. I'm reminded of the way that
    the "straight edge" movement in punk has seemed to have pit itself against
    human nature in a way that "true" punks never have. So, as optimistic as
    this story is, I guess I'm still inclined to think that the ends of ethics
    will not be realized until we remake our biological selves into more ethical
    beings.

    Cheers,

    Mark

    Mark Walker, PhD
    Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
    University of Toronto
    Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
    15 Devonshire Place
    Toronto
    M5S 1H8
    www.permanentend.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 17 2003 - 18:37:35 MDT