[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points

[Melynda Huskey]

Jeff Harkins wrote:
> What I find so disappointing in discussing such topics with you and 
> others is the shift from a quantitative dialogue (intended to clear 
> some of the fog from the scene) to having to retort to a statement 
> such as " ...*/but obviously Moscow's quality of life beats Rhode
> Island's hands down./*"
>
> Quality of life is a qualitative assessment - and only measurable at 
> the individual personal utility level. It is virtually impossible to 
> compare the utility of one person's "quality of life" with that of 
> another person.  You just don't seem to understand that - but that 
> does explain why you and others are so quick to impose your "quality 
> of life" standards on others.  It does help to explain it - but it 
> does not excuse it.
Perhaps one reason your interlocutors keep shifting from a 
"quantitative" or at least economic discussion to a qualitative one is 
that the quantitative argument is poorly suited to expressing what's 
most important to them?  You seem to privilege the quantitative, which 
is not surprising in an accounting professor.  But you also seem to 
attribute ill motives to those who don't--as evidenced by the accusatory 
statement "You just don't seem to understand that--but that does explain 
why you and others are so quick to impose your 'quality of life' 
standards on others.  It does help to explain it - but it does not 
excuse it."

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to accuse you of the same thing?  You are 
very quick to impose your limitations on acceptable forms of argument on 
others, but your arguments miss points that seem to me absolutely vital, 
precisely because they are qualitative.  Couldn't I write, with as much 
justification as you, "Jeff, you just don't seem to understand that 
ethical issues are important, which explains why you and others are so 
quick to impose your 'free to starve' standards on others.  It does help 
to explain it--but it does not excuse it."

I think you're talking at cross-purposes with some folks because the 
economic model you offer simply doesn't acknowledge some of the things 
that matter most to them.  You may feel that this is proof of our 
childishness or ignorance--that's certainly the impression you convey.  
Similarly, I find some of your statements about Walmart's "naughty" 
business practices or the benefits of unfettered economic growth 
profoundly disconnected from human concerns and needs.  But 
fundamentally, I think it's a battle of methodologies--which is 
challenging to overcome.  I think we're likely to go on talking past one 
another unless we can find ways to bridge that gap.

Melynda Huskey