From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 09:05:12 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Walker"
> > 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).
>
I've had a couple of further thoughts on how to engineer the social good.
When we compare modern society to our tribal past it seems clear that we now
have a harder time signaling and tracking how individuals contribute to the
social good. The angelic rating system suggested above for ethical investing
could be expanded to include the number of hours that one volunteers per
week, the amount one gives to charity and the percentage that one invests in
ethical funds compared to investment in nonethical funds. For example if one
gave to charities at the average rate U. S. 3.2 % of income before taxes
(http://www.justgive.org/html/don_info/howmuch.html ), and volunteered 2
hours a week (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764352.html), and invested an
average amount in ethical funds then one would merit the average angelic
designation 'powers'. (The donation rate might be rated on a sliding scale
depending on one's income). Those that donate more than an average amount of
their time and money (over their lifetime) will move up the angelic scale.
The angelic scale, as mentioned above, would be maintained by a volunteer
organization. One would have to submit evidence of their monetary and
volunteering good deeds. So how would the angelic designation be put to use?
For instance, other things being equal one might prefer to hire the
candidate with a higher angelic rating, or deal with a company with a higher
angelic rating (its rating being calculated as the average of its
employees). One might brag that they dump the ex because he or she was a
mere archangel, while their new boyfriend or girlfriend was a Seraphim. In
short, if the system were adopted by enough people it would allow one to
track altruistic (or at least behavior intended to promote the good) and
reward or punish as one sees fit. If the system changed peoples behavior to
increase the average level of altruism in theory the tax rate might go down
as more "good deeds" are taken on by the private charities.
One of the ethical issues that this might raise is whether it would be
permissible to discriminate on the basis of an angelic rating. Would it be
ok to hire on the basis of the candidate's angelic rating? Would it be ok
for universities to set admission criteria in terms of an angelic rating?
I'm inclined to think that this shouldn't be a problem.
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 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 09:13:23 MDT