Freedom isn't an intangible, it's the core reason for the argument. Besides, a cost/benefit analysis, done properly, is not limited to monetary concerns alone. In trying to refute the original post, the argument proves it: There is a significant lack of understanding in presenting a proper cost/benefit analysis.
In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast.
Then it's the job of those who suggest we worry about it to properly portray effects that are worth worrying about. (BTW, I'm not a climate-change denier, just looking for concrete solutions.)
I called this argument as being "retarded" because it equates those in opposition to carbon credits as morally repugnant, on the same level as slave-traders. That's so extreme it doesn't even make sense.
I think his point was that cost-benefit analysis is subjective. Your supposition that it's not limited to monetary concerns alone is valid, but perhaps naive. The fact that most people don't do a "proper" analysis is the very nature of bias.
If you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument. Perhaps it's a different moral level for many of us, but not to everyone.
As such while his argument used an extreme example, I would not consider it as nonsensical.
If you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument.
And that's the problem. They may as well have a Bible in their hands and go knocking on doors.
More people can be swayed by explaining that a particular action has a direct benefit and is therefore more effective than the current one than by saying "repent for the end is near" and "you're a backwards hillbilly who is evil for not seeing this my way".
If only that were the case. If there is anything that the modern environmental movement has taught us, it is that religeon is a powerful force regerdless of whether it includes gods or targets academics. For a more nuanced (and defensible) discussion of the topic, refer to "Environtemanetalism as Religeon" by Michael Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismasel...
i don't believe carbon credits were mentioned in this thread of discussion.
the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. how much, in dollars and cents, is freedom from slavery worth?
the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept.
And my point is that you can, and should if the actions to be taken are worthwhile.
For instance, a cost/benefit analysis for not having slavery is rather straight forward from the nation's point of view. There are several points in favour of abolition, ( national economic benefit from taxes/increased workers, improved relations and trade with other countries) and few against beyond the direct comfort of the slave owner.
C/B has little to do with dollars and cents and everything thing to do with gaining the best possible outcome from a particular action. This is the entire point that newt0311 was making: The green lobby needs to present a case that shows there are significant benefits (overall) to the costs associated with each of these changes. It's not a hard argument to make, and shouldn't equate being compared to slave-traders.
I'm not saying this type of thinking is the be all and end all. We're emotional people after all.
What I am saying is that if you intend to take a course of action, and more importantly attempt to convince others that your course is correct, you need to present a proper analysis of the benefits and costs of your option so that they can be compared with the benefits and costs of other actions.
The nobility of abolitionists isn't why 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Nobody gave a damn about slaves. The end of slavery is just a fortunate outcome.
"The nobility of abolitionists isn't why 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Nobody gave a damn about slaves. The end of slavery is just a fortunate outcome."
So what exactly was the cost/benefit to the conductors of the underground railroad? Sounds like a lot of cost for no personal benefit.
My original point was that cost/benefit analysis can and SHOULD be involved in decision-making processes, but simply looking at emancipation as a 'fortunate outcome' is more than oversimplification.
----
In the future, it might be helpful for you to note that making sweeping generalizations usually doesn't help your argument: i.e. "Nobody gave a damn about slaves" really doesn't make me think you're taking a scholarly viewpoint on this debate.
My original point was that cost/benefit analysis can and SHOULD be involved in decision-making processes, but simply looking at emancipation as a 'fortunate outcome' is more than oversimplification.
In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast.
Also it might be nice if you didn't feel the need to call things "retarded". It seems pretty unnecessary.