I read the article concerning the most recent “developments” in the continuing MN budget shortfall saga. One reader's comments posed the analogy of a group of people going out to dinner and getting a bill that’s larger than they expected. So instead of responding to the article, I thought I’d explore that analogy a little further from an ethics perspective to see how well it fits.
To tighten the analogy let’s say that there are twenty people went out to dinner and Adam had offered to pay. His card is rejected and on calling the bank he finds that his accounts were wiped out by his wife who has since fled the country. He has enough cash for himself and one other person which he pledges towards the bill.
Here are some of the first questions that come to mind: Is Adam telling the truth? How well did he really know his wife? Did he contribute to her actions by mistreating her in some way? If not, could he have prevented it from happening if he had been more diligent as a husband, or just more observant to her behavior? Is there a chance that she may come back? If not, will she ever be found and brought to justice? If she is, will any of the money be returned?
All of these questions have at least one thing in common. They do absolutely nothing to help resolve the issue at hand, which is the bill. Everyone was party to the meal and consumed the meal, so the restaurant is within their right to hold each individual legally responsible for the entire bill.
At this point, all talk of “fair” is out the window. The situation is not fair or just because an injustice (whether through happenstance or by design) has transpired. Any argument that a certain solution should be rejected on the grounds that it is not just is invalid because it uses reasoning that would result in the rejection of all possible solutions.
It is not fair for everyone at the table to immediately look at the wealthiest member of the table, but I guarantee that is the first thing that will happen. It would be very fortunate for everyone involved if one person could immediately solve the problem in one fell swoop by simply agreeing to pay the entire tab and ask for everyone else to simply contribute whatever they can when they can. If one person is well within their means to do this, there will be great resentment in their refusal to help. Whether or not the resentment is merited (the merit will be based on the perception of their worth, not their actual worth) will have little bearing on its existence.
However resentment will also serve no purpose to resolve the issue. The inevitable discussion will focus on the distribution of the tab. It would be simple enough to have everyone pay for what they got. But in this particular instance, the food was brought on platters to be shared by everyone. The discussion then falls to distributing the bill evenly among everyone. This solution will be more of a burden on those who did not take as much food as others, and some may argue that since they took less they should held accountable for a smaller portion of the bill. They have a good case for this, but ultimately this argument does not have any legal bearing, since all are individually liable for the party as a whole. Someone who took nothing will have a good argument for abstaining, but the common perception will be that the table needs to resolve the issue as a community. The perception of those who argue against contributing can reasonably expect a lower opinion from the others regardless of whether or not such opinion is merited.
Even if everyone is to agree on splitting the tab equally, there are two ways to do it. If the total of the bill is equally shared the problem will be solved, but the solution will be a greater burden to those who are less fortunate and a minimal burden to those that are more fortunate. For the burden of the bill to be equally shared, each would need to contribute an equal percentage of their worth. If everyone is open and honest, this is easily resolved. However the probability of 20 random people being completely honest is low enough for each person to reasonably assume dishonesty at the table. This means that even if everyone at the table is dishonest, the perception of dishonest will prevent a flawless process of assigning burden. The burden would then be distributed based on perceived value rather than actual value.
The moral of the allegory appears to be that it is more strategically advantageous for one to understate their worth rather than to overstate their worth. But my point was to demonstrate the risks of the process. Everyone is going to do what they can to mitigate their personal burden of the solution. Those that are well off will run of the risk of alienating themselves from the majority of the community if they over-mitigate themselves. However if those who are less-fortunate are going to distribute the burden to the wealthy they need to consider whether they can expect those parties to return to the table next time the next time they gather.
To tighten the analogy let’s say that there are twenty people went out to dinner and Adam had offered to pay. His card is rejected and on calling the bank he finds that his accounts were wiped out by his wife who has since fled the country. He has enough cash for himself and one other person which he pledges towards the bill.
Here are some of the first questions that come to mind: Is Adam telling the truth? How well did he really know his wife? Did he contribute to her actions by mistreating her in some way? If not, could he have prevented it from happening if he had been more diligent as a husband, or just more observant to her behavior? Is there a chance that she may come back? If not, will she ever be found and brought to justice? If she is, will any of the money be returned?
All of these questions have at least one thing in common. They do absolutely nothing to help resolve the issue at hand, which is the bill. Everyone was party to the meal and consumed the meal, so the restaurant is within their right to hold each individual legally responsible for the entire bill.
At this point, all talk of “fair” is out the window. The situation is not fair or just because an injustice (whether through happenstance or by design) has transpired. Any argument that a certain solution should be rejected on the grounds that it is not just is invalid because it uses reasoning that would result in the rejection of all possible solutions.
It is not fair for everyone at the table to immediately look at the wealthiest member of the table, but I guarantee that is the first thing that will happen. It would be very fortunate for everyone involved if one person could immediately solve the problem in one fell swoop by simply agreeing to pay the entire tab and ask for everyone else to simply contribute whatever they can when they can. If one person is well within their means to do this, there will be great resentment in their refusal to help. Whether or not the resentment is merited (the merit will be based on the perception of their worth, not their actual worth) will have little bearing on its existence.
However resentment will also serve no purpose to resolve the issue. The inevitable discussion will focus on the distribution of the tab. It would be simple enough to have everyone pay for what they got. But in this particular instance, the food was brought on platters to be shared by everyone. The discussion then falls to distributing the bill evenly among everyone. This solution will be more of a burden on those who did not take as much food as others, and some may argue that since they took less they should held accountable for a smaller portion of the bill. They have a good case for this, but ultimately this argument does not have any legal bearing, since all are individually liable for the party as a whole. Someone who took nothing will have a good argument for abstaining, but the common perception will be that the table needs to resolve the issue as a community. The perception of those who argue against contributing can reasonably expect a lower opinion from the others regardless of whether or not such opinion is merited.
Even if everyone is to agree on splitting the tab equally, there are two ways to do it. If the total of the bill is equally shared the problem will be solved, but the solution will be a greater burden to those who are less fortunate and a minimal burden to those that are more fortunate. For the burden of the bill to be equally shared, each would need to contribute an equal percentage of their worth. If everyone is open and honest, this is easily resolved. However the probability of 20 random people being completely honest is low enough for each person to reasonably assume dishonesty at the table. This means that even if everyone at the table is dishonest, the perception of dishonest will prevent a flawless process of assigning burden. The burden would then be distributed based on perceived value rather than actual value.
The moral of the allegory appears to be that it is more strategically advantageous for one to understate their worth rather than to overstate their worth. But my point was to demonstrate the risks of the process. Everyone is going to do what they can to mitigate their personal burden of the solution. Those that are well off will run of the risk of alienating themselves from the majority of the community if they over-mitigate themselves. However if those who are less-fortunate are going to distribute the burden to the wealthy they need to consider whether they can expect those parties to return to the table next time the next time they gather.
What an excellent analogy, AB - well worth waiting for!
ReplyDeleteApathy,
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent post - there is one element of this dinner that I belive you've left off - in short, Adam may be the way the budget WAS constructed, but having Adam pay was, in my way of thinking, something 12 of the 20 people didn't agree with, yet Mr. Bigshot insisted, and Adam agreeed. In fact, 12 of the 20 had fully agreed to distribute the bill evenly, excluding the Smiths, who just had a baby, and the Jones', because Mr. Jones just lost his job. They suggested that the Carpenters instead pay the bill of the Jones and the Smiths, but Mr. Bigshot said, "No, no way, it's not fair to have the Carpenters pay."
Now, Adam can't pay, and all the recriminations come forward again, and again 12 of the 20 suggest that Mr. Carpenter cover the Jones' and Smith's bill. In fact, 12 of the 20 vote and agree. However, again Mr. Bigshot says no.
Tyranny of the majority isn't fair, but neither is tyranny of the minority. A solution must be found, and Mr. Bigshot's solution isn't to PAY the bill, it is to send some of the food back and insist it shouldn't have been served.
Probably Adam is eating dinner with the wrong crowd. If he had been taking his wife out to dinner regularly, he most likely would still have his bank accounts...and his wife.
ReplyDeletePolitical "marriages" work the same way. By learning to compromise and "eat regularly together," real social change is possible. What we have now is a political right and left that have become estranged, not so much from each other as from their relatively moderate centrist "other halves." Until they learn to talk to each other, so that those moderates can reach across the table to each other and "pay the bill," the bills will go unpaid, the food will spoil, and the restaurant will go broke.
I believe that the Republican centrist base is being bullied by the Tea Party crowd. Similarly, I see the Democratic centrist base too as being bullied by an extreme leftist position.
The left and the right are not talking to each other. Instead they talk "past" each other to those on the extreme edges of their own political bases.
Indeed, during these useless political talk-fests (I would not call them discussions or conversations.) the food HAS spoiled.
Leslie, on behalf of women reading this list, may I applaud your romantic way of thinking - as to the politics, I haven't seen any seriously organized activity that is bullying to the same extent as the Tea Party is to the right.
ReplyDeleteI think we have seen for example the right succeed better than the left in creating the illusion that the norm is in their direction.
For example, one of the analyses that I came across this week in the course of the furor over Elena Kagan's nomination looked at the disposition of the Supreme Court, rating all of the justices in history for their conservativism or their liberalism. Four of the five most - MOST!- conservative judges in the entire history of the court are on the bench right now.
And yet I doubt that you will find the right recognizing that extremism,, or that those extreme conservatives have in fact been activist judges.
I think your observation about both sides talking past each other is particularly apt, but I also think we are witnessing the usual pendulum swinging balancing act that characterizes our government, with both extremes contributing towards an eventual balance.
Lets hope that our readers and authors might be inspired to take thier wives out to dinner this very evening, LOL, and enjoy their domestic 'politics'.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI think it is much more difficult to achieve that balance because the left and the right are not even talking to their less-extreme centrist components. After all, that is the relm where compromise becomes possible - not the extreme positions of either.
Governor Pawlenty, for instance, has not moved from his extreme "no more taxes" position, despite what more moderate Republican politicians have advocated. He certainly has not moved "toward" the left.
We have moved into an era of "bully" politics. Even the word "compromise" used recently here in Minnesota is really the result of a bully's actions last year. The legislature had little choice this spring.
Oh, by the way, I DID enjoy a nice dinner with my lovely wife, Jo.
I think Mr. Hittner's observations are relevant and spot on. Both the democratic and republican parties are trending more toward their respective extremes, left and right, although I think the republicans more so than the democrats. In both cases, the center seems to have been forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIts almost impossible to be a "good" republican unless one is: fiscally conservative, homophobic, a creationist, war-mongering, rich, white, anti-abortion (also known as pro-life) and favor the death penalty) (how one can be pro life and support the death penalty is utterly beyond me) Some of the republicans seem to have the attitude of "we will oppose anything that a democratic congress comes up with, even if we agree, because.. we can". This is fundamentally wrong, and it is just as as wrong for democrats to oppose republican ideas simply because they are proposed by republicans.
Unfortunately, the spirit of bi-partisanship as well as the fact of it is dead on arrival in this Congress. Whether enough of the voter's anger over the state of politics in Washington will be enough to remove the obstructions, I don't know, but sadly, I doubt it. Personally, I can't think of any incumbent (republican or democrat) that I would support for reelection at the moment.