Moral standard as tool for judging the value of decision
How can we value decision making? In my guess, this may be philosophic question since Aristotle or Plato was discussed with his students. Alas, until nowadays have no exactly answer for this question. Someone guess, we have to use cost-benefit analysis to judge value of decision making, on the other hand, some school of thought use legality as tool for judging the value of decision. However, this paper would like to introduce new perspective for judging the value of decision.
In my opinion, legality concept is too narrow to use as a universal coverage tool for judging the value of decision and cost-benefit analysis is not suitable for public policy decision making so we have to find new instrument for valuing policy-maker’s decision. I pleasure to introduce legitimacy concept, Moral standard should be used as tool for judging the value of decision making.
Gains from moral standard
This innovational instrument has 2 pros. firstly, moral standard is interpreted as “direct externality internalization concept”. Without morality or legitimacy, sometimes firm can emit negative externality through social and public environment freely because legal process have internal lag (high cost in legislative procedure such as time wasting and high economic cost of voice). So some action like this should be judged as an evil!
In practice, Thailand case study, Ex-Prime-Minister Taksin Shinawatra was sued from authorities of semi-government organization and a lot of people in term of PAD (People Alliance for Democracy). Mr.Taksin always said, “I did everything base on legality so it’s not fair that I was judged and sanctioned”. In reality, Mr.Taksin did (almost) everything base on law, but, Mr. Taksin fail to clearly communicate to public in term of moral standard.
Secondly, for all decision case, moral standard including is better off (Pareto-improvement) between actor and passive taker. Especially for bargaining power imbalance case, moral standard is final frontier-barrier of lower power agent to against the higher power’s pressure.
In conclusion of this section, Moral standard setting is useful invisible social securities or abstract-safety net instrument that increase s equality and equity, at least, in long term trend.
How can we promote this concept and its theoretical applying
If you agree with my description of moral standard concept, then you may doubt about its practical potential. In fact, this concept can’t construct itself. Moreover, has low chance that politicians will injected this concept in to public contract such as law and act because, unequivocally, it’s conflict of interest between public voice and his/her self interest.
From above hypothesis, moral standard must be promoted by one significant group only, say, active citizen given (white-side) technocrat supporting.
Moral standard is not only suit for public or social topic but also micro phenomenon and individual decision in daily life. For example, if you have to trade-off between date with your boyfriend(s) or do something for your community such as clean the road, take care lonely senior members (of your community) etc. What’s the right choice that you have to choose?
On mainstream decision value basis, you have to choose your boyfriend such that he is perfect match with your preference but if you decide base on moral standard you may choose choice 2 (take care your community) that optimizes social welfare.
In summary, Moral standard is the focal point of social development path, then if you can permanently generate this concept within to next generation of your community. The community will transformed from legalism state to moralism state, say, that’s mean all we stand on optimal path of social development already.
triamboy
bankngam
cheffykung
yrneh
Vice Versa
ekaridhi
recommendare
amaguest
MSi
smileykid
Wow! Prof. Bank, this idea surprise me a lot. I love the ways u point out to support for the proposal.
Could u explain(or illustrate) more about ” Secondly, for all decision case, moral standard including is better off (Pareto-improvement) between actor and passive taker. Especially for bargaining power imbalance case, moral standard is final frontier-barrier of lower power agent to against the higher power’s pressure. ” krub, Prof. BANK? I have not any clear ideas on this statement.
Because I know (,may be,) that the objective of this article is selling us an idea not its detail info., so i’m will not jump into the details as well. (In fact, i hope that i would see some from u in near futures, it’s interesting, isn’t it.)
However, there’s one topic that i wanna say some. that’s “what’s good/bad?” We all know that good/bad is the relative meaning and ,often, it depend on judgment by any particular one. In Budism, it is said that the good/bad is judged from his/her/its intent or , n more emotionally, “heart”. (with my respect, i don know how they capture the meaning of good/bad in any other religions or creeds or beliefs) What i’m saying is, your proposal can do it best by merely enforcement the conducting on the pseudo-moral standard that seems acceptable from the point of the authority’s view or may be majority of the public. At this point, I think standard acts is the same as the law, even a bit more tighten. Isn’t it? How does it help?
ps. actually i feel i’m quite confused with my own words and thoughts ,may be, I losing in what’s your saying and the main idea u present. if that occurs, apologize for my stupidity that waste yr time.
OH! apologize for my poor english as well.
ขอบคุณครับ
อ่า อืมม, ก่อนอื่นต้องขอเล่าสู่กันฟันตรงนี้เสียหน่อยว่า บังเอิญ paper นี้เป็นงานที่ได้รับมอบหมายให้ทำขึ้นในรูปภาษาปะกิดดังนั้นจึงออกมาดังที่เห็น (อันที่จริงออกจะเขิลเสียห่อยที่นำบทความซึ่งผิดแกรมม่าอยู่เต็มไปหมดเช่นนี้มาขึ้นออนไลน์ ทว่าก็สดดีนะ เหอะๆๆ คือ แบบว่าไม่ต้องเลิศเลอ ขอแค่สื่อความได้ก็พอแล้วจริงมะ)
อืมม ส่วนในประเด็นที่อ.เป้ง สนใจว่าผมต้องการจะสื่อสารอะไรนั้น ก็มิได้มีประเด็นอะไรซับซ้อน ความหมายของมันก็คือ ผมคิดว่า การที่เรามี มาตรฐานทางจริยธรรมเป็นเครื่องนำในการดำเนินกิจกรรมทางเศรษฐกิจ (หรือ พฤติกรรมทั่วๆไปในชีวิตประจำวันก็ตามที) จะช่วยให้แม้อำนาจต่อรองทางสังคมในความเป็นจริง จะไม่เท่าเทียมกันอยู่มาก แต่คนเราก็สามารถอยู่กันอย่างผาสุขและเบียดเบียนกันน้อยลงได้ ซึ่งถือได้ว่า เป้นสังคมที่ เอื้อให้เกิดการประณีประนอมต่อผู้มีอำนาจต่อรองมาก และ ผู้มีอำนาจต่อรองน้อยนั้นเอง
ในประเด้นเรื่องของ moral standard กับ กฎหมายนั้น ผมนำเสนอในประเด้นที่ว่า อยากให้กระบวนการในการก่อกำเนิดกฎหมาย “วางอยู่บนมาตรฐานทางจริยธรรม” มิได้หมายว่าจะให้เกิด “กฎหมายมากำกับมาตรฐานทางจริยธรรม” ดังที่ อ.อาจจะเข้าใจไปเช่นนั้น
(และถึงแม้จะมีกฎหมายเช่นว่า หากกฎหมายดังกล่าวมิได้เป็นการรอนสิทธิ์ ทว่าเป็นการวางมาตรฐานทางจริยธรรมขั้นต่ำสำหรับบุคคลหรือนิติบุคคล ในการดำเนินธุรกรรม นั่นย่อมทำได้และควรกระทำอยู่ดี ตามหลักกฎหมายทั่วไป ที่อิงอยู่กับกฎหมายจารีต ซึ่งถือเป้นหลักปฎิบัติอันเป้นที่เข้าใจโดยทั่วไปอยู่แล้วว่าดีหรือเลวโดยไม่ต้องการตีความหรือวิจารณญาณในการตัดสินอรรถคดีดังกล่าว)
ท้ายสุดนี้, อ.เป้ง, คำถามจานไม่ได้ stupid และ การตอบคำถามของ จานก็เป็นความหรรษาของเราอย่างถึงที่สุด ดังนั้นอย่าเกรงกังวลไปว่าจะสร้างความรำคาญใจแก่ข้าพเจ้าเลย
ยินดีที่จะได้ตอบคำถามจานเสมอ โอเค้
Long time not to interact in Eng. Both of our writer, Bank and Peng, have gone for it awhile. Well done.
Moral standard as tool for judging the value of decision…
From my point of view, Moral standard is one of the tools which help make better decision. On another word, ones’ decision rely on many factors, including morality as well.
Providing bargaining power determines all activities of us, in general, people would clearly behave through the context of social. Assuming the context combine with 3 familiar important pillars, society, economy, and politics, all activities would be put into one of these and may be more than one.
In details, from 3 pivotal cores above, we, all, could possibly derive bargaining power from these three on the basis of CAPITAL.
On balance, from standard view, the best outcome would result from 3 standard set which could be display as moral, economic and politic standard. Due to many common right, many problems, externalities, still exist. The way to fix these is to internalize as BANK said before.
For a big decision unit as society, standard set would be necessary to meet this concept. Generally, Standard set make everything clearer but not make everyone better, on another words, ones standing far above and below from standard will be drawn to it and one standing around standard do NOT have to adjust much more.
Unfortunately, some time society fails to value things on balance due to a limitation of reason, short-sight people. Thus this may lead to only one-interest which bring the mainstream in the final and leave the rest behind. Apparently, Capitalism is the best example of today mainstream.
This balance momentum loss could be found from two basises, supply and demand side. Following to above example, today capitalism is largely found from demand side, less monitor and control.
In sum, to draw the appropriated solution for society, the balance (not the equilibrium) of standard set is necessary from the tangent of both supply-side and demand-side decision units. Apparently, this balance of standard set would possibly bring the balance in bargaining power which lead to equal and equitable society as Bank mentioned before.
555 go for Eng interaction.
p.s.
equilibrium could be found without distribution concern
balance could be found without competing to others (relative competitiveness) but to our own (self competitiveness).
after read these two comment from Triamboy and Bank, I realize that it is too sophisticated article positioned on economics not the general science. HAHA i cannot understand this for sure!!! HAHAHA
anyway, i think i a bit understand some ideas about the externalities, common resource, or public product.(do i?)
Tae, this your comment serves some value to readers,( or me), hence it would be great if you follow it by giving more explanations na!
ps. from my opinion, I also think that the moral standard is necessary for this blog as well. illustration; the moral standard which states that writers of the blog should strive to answer every any comments that other people made on your articles or directly to your comments. Are u agree, TAE? (Law will never states that)
55555