It is no doubt that with the ever-expanding nature of human production, and thus demand for capital, that we – as a society – are ascending toward a more economical attitude. However, while the stress of keeping an able economy is mounting, the idea of using resources economically has been around since deep into antiquity. If one were to take a brief look into history one would observe different, independent, unique forms of government that all aim at one common deed: to provide supply for the demand of a union by making the best use of the union’s commodities. Let the term union be defined as the persons living within the affected body of the provided government(s). And Let the term commodities be defined as it would in Marxism (Marx). I believe that the crux of government is the ability to use debate and reasoning to maximize utility. Out of interest, I shall provide an abridged system of debate which aims to provide the best argumentative medium for maximizing utility .
First, it is rudimentary to explain two things: 1) what is meant by debate, and 2) the purpose of debate. Let debate be all argumentative discourse (Lyon, L.I) between two parties that proposes change. Ideally, the two parties of the debate would be working together to find the best adaptation of the proposed change. Let it be decided that a proposition shall be formatted in a manner that states a single subject should undergo some definite change. Let it also be decided that in order to affirm a change should take place we must first find - through debate - if the net acceptance of the affected body is positive or negative. Therefore, we can currently consider that the goal of a debate is to find the most economical model of ethics for the given proposition based on the affected body. Now, let it be decided that the purpose of debate is to establish changes which would create a net improvement amongst all domains of economy. Later on, I shall provide that all of the most pragmatic, and formal models of ethics can be represented economically.
Next, I shall explain what I mean by the domains of economy. I would first like to provide that an economy is by no means bounded by a monetary connotation, id est, the economy of one’s emotions should be personally relevant in issues which one has invested sentiment. I will adopt the system of academia that segregates Economics and Ethics. In order to keep terminology clear throughout my explaination I will temporarily refer to the academic disciplines of Economics and Ethics as, respectively, the financial domain and the moral domains of economics. Let it be asserted that the purpose of financial domain is to provide the most money. Let it be asserted that money is to provide a type capital that can be easily traded for other commodities. Let it be asserted that the purpose of commodities is to bring their bearers pleasure. Therefore, the purpose of the financial domain is to bring its bearers the most pleasure. Therefore, the financial domain is a device in pleasure, and thus also a device in pain. Let it be asserted that the system of pleasure and pain is a device in utilitarianism (Amicus). Let it be asserted that utilitarianism is a device in the moral domains (J.S. Mill). Therefore, the financial domain is a device for the moral domains, id est, ethics.
Now that the two domains of economics have been consolidated into a single entity, I will no longer refer to the Economics and Ethics as previously provided. Instead, I shall observe that Economics is a tool for actualizing the goals of Ethics. Therefore, I can now clearly state that the goals of debate are to: 1) Determine if a proposition is ethical, and 2) Improve and manipulate the proposition to its most ethical form. I shall now go on to describe the processes inherent to achieving these goals.
Let the process of determining if a proposition is ethical be described. A natural method is to observe the amount of demand for commodities. Let it be asserted that as the demand of a commodity increase so does the perceived positive impact by society. A notion against this method one must take heed of is the notion that a commodity can be unproductive. Furthermore, a commodity may be partially unproductive and partially productive. Exempli gratia, a steak may overall be productive due to the rich protein and efficiency of distribution, but the unwanted fats and the sufficiently less diligent workers are still unproductive commodities. One can draw the line between productive and unproductive in the same spot one would for desired and undesired.
The process of determining the demand of a commodity shall now be addressed. To do this it is important to analyze statistics in both the marketplace as well as in any relevant polls within the affected community. Exempli gratia, if there existed a family where five people wanted corn and three people wanted peas, and the cost of obtaining both were equal, then the corn is clearly the more popular choice. However, if the price of peas were double the price of corn, then determining which one is truly more desired becomes more complicated. If the family were to observe that while a majority of them enjoy peas more than corn, it could still turn out that most of them would still rather choose corn in the marketplace due to the cheaper price. However, if, perhaps, the town they lived in realized that their residents wanted peas more than corn, then, perhaps, they could shift their agricultural focus in order to improve utility and happiness for the residents. The key concept is that while the marketplace may suggest that the affected body enjoys one substance more than another - due to the elasticity of the market - that may only be due to a lack of other resources that would have been purchased instead. To be able to identify situations like these and investigate accordingly is a talent of a good debater.
Let the process of manipulating a proposition to its most ethical form be described. The debater’s duty of maximizing utility is fulfilled by: 1) maximizing prospect of all the productive commodities a proposition presents, 2) minimizing the possibility of all unproductive commodities a proposition presents, and 3) identifying how desirable productive commodities are. In achieving this, the two teams shall work together. Let the teams be bisected into the affirmative team and the negative team. The affirmative team shall: 1) exhibit the productive commodities a change would produce, 2) manipulate the proposition to avoid unproductive commodities the change would produce, and 3) identify how desirable the productive commodities are in relation to each other. The negative team shall: 1) argue the positive effects of the presented productive commodities are minimal, 2) exhibit the unproductive commodities the change would produce, and 3) identify how undesirable the unproductive qualities are in relation to each other.
With this system of debate defined, I am now to compare it to other popular systems of debate to ensure that it prevails above them in its goal of the acquisition of utility. First, one may disqualify all forms of debate that preclude written argumentation, for written argumentation has: 1) a higher capacity for logical analysis inherent to its immortalized state, 2) an easier method of distribution, which allows for more opinions and thus more refinement, and 3) the ability to be continued over an indefinite amount of time by an indefinite amount of persons. Secondly, one may disqualify all forms of debate that rely on an appeal to an audience, for these are intrinsically manipulative as the teams have an incentive to win (Lyon, L.V). With these two disqualifications of debate devices one would find that there are no contemporary systems of debate left to consider. Therefore, this is the best current system of debate for maximizing utility.
While I would argue this system is not the best possible system, I would argue that it is better than all other current systems. I believe that improvements could be made upon this system, such as the addition of a faction of each debate team that participates in a judged, oral debate. With this faction running concurrently and under the right conditions, perhaps it would promote better research and intuitive understanding of the debated issues. The infinite series of improvements like this is only limited by the resources of human imagination.
-Amicus, Cassius. The Doctrines of Epicurus. Ebook. Smash-words, 2011.
-Lyon, Leverett S. Elements of Debating. 1919. Ebook. Project Gutenberg, 2004.
-Marx, Karl. Volume 1. Part 1, Chapter 1. Das Kapital [Capital: The Critique of Political Economy]. Germany: Verlag von Otto Meisner, 1867. 4.
-Mill, John S. Utilitarianism. 1879. Ebook. Project Gutenberg, 2004. Seventh Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment