I remain fully unconvinced by Posner’s theory. I believe my
opposition stems from a Hamptonian belief that humans have intrinsic value, and as such, have rights and liberties regardless
of whether these rights and liberties are wealth maximizing. I stand with Hampton and Kant that human
beings should be treated as ends within themselves, not as means to an end. On
the other hand, Posner sees human beings as means to an end, and this end is
wealth maximization. According to his theory, humans only have instrumental
value. An individual can sell his body or his labor to another person if it is
ultimately deemed wealth maximizing. You can discriminate against a group of
people living or working in a certain area if it is wealth maximizing. You can
basically do anything as long as it is wealth maximizing. I do not believe a
system that has such fluid concepts of rights and liberties can ultimately be
deemed a just or equal society.
However, I believe Posner would remain unconvinced by my
appeal to human beings as having intrinsic value just as I remain unconvinced
of his appeal to human beings only having instrumental value. I would ask, “Why does
the goal of wealth maximization supersede the idea of having certain
inalienable rights and liberties?” and he would ask me the same question
rephrased, “Why do individual rights and liberties trump the goal of wealth
maximization?” I see the argument becoming very circular, each one resting the
burden of proof on the other. The fact that neither he nor I can irrevocably
justify the “value” of humanity is even more troubling to me. I’d be curious to
see if anyone else feels the way I do regarding this dilemma—or if anyone has
an idea of how to convince Posner of humans having intrinsic value.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about Posner's idea is that he believes that humans will do almost anything for the sake of wealth maximization. He essentially says that you can put a price on just about anything. When you really think about it, isn't this a bit true?
ReplyDeleteI would definitely cut off my own ring finger for $100M dollars. My index finger costs $200M and my thumb is going to cost you $300M. I'll save you $100M and settle at $500M if you purchase a package and bundle all three.
Why would I agree to this and why would I propose such specific values? Because it would be rational for me to trade subjecting myself to 40+ years of 50-70 hours/week of labor for any of the above figures, even if it meant cutting off my own fingers. We subject ourselves to lives of labor because we want to either maintain a current standard of living or chase an ideal standard of living. Maximizing wealth through a set of given factors (gender, race, intelligence, etc.) means being able to afford the highest possible standard that you can pursue.
I would really love to believe that humans have intrinsic value, but I think that Posner makes a really convincing argument. Sure, the people you love have intrinsic value (i.e. your family members) in that you probably won't agree to have your mother evaporate out of thin air for any sum of money. But, if you were to ask any other random individual for a monetary value to have the same thing done, I would guess that they would agree to a pretty low figure if they've never met you or your mother.
Side note: have you ever heard of the assassination market? It's a market on the dark web where you can put up a bounty and if a hitman actually assassinates the person, the hitman can provide proof to a middleman that shows that they were actually the person to carry out the assassination to claim their bounty. It's actually pretty interesting to see the amounts that people have put up for certain high profile individuals. This might be taking what I'm saying about instrumental value too far, but you get my point.
Isabella,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that there is intrinsic value in humans, which is an idea that is unaccounted for in Posner's analysis. I was also unconvinced by the account of wealth-maximization because it seemed like the only goal of humans is to accumulate wealth and that is the only source through which we are able to derive utility from.
To answer your question: “Why does the goal of wealth maximization supersede the idea of having certain inalienable rights and liberties?”. I think that wealth maximization does not supersede rights because the individuals that are part of the society would not consent to be part of a society in which their inalienable rights are not protected. In a complete free market where anything and everything is okay as long as wealth increases, it would probably create a more elite rich class (even more so than in our society) and there would be no distributive justice whatsoever. Since the majority of the population would be in the lower class, a society will not consent to a situation in which overall wealth is prioritized.