fast
Contributor
(c) Fast was made to pay $75 so that other people could be connected to city water; the city water was not connected to his house. What was swapped to him for that $75?
Advantage: I and my fellow community members get better quality water when we eat at same county restaurants.
Disadvantage: I have to pay $75 for that advantage.
A benefit or harm?: the increase in standard of living in the community outweighs the collective cost; in other words, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; therefore, despite the disadvantages, I am benefitting, not being harmed.
Now, does the mere fact that I am benefitting therefore justify being subjected to the disadvantages? See, I don't quite get how a cost benefit analysis that reflects positively on my and my community members standard of living necessarily justifies the infliction of benefit on others.
Fictional:
I had $2 in my pocket for a pound bag of $2 sugar. The clerk said, you can save money by getting a second pound bag for $1 more. I said I'll stick with one bag. She said that's more expensive. I said let me go with the more expensive option because I can't afford to save money right now. <should of seen her look>
I'm sure somehow, someway, someone will find a rationale to show how the advantages outweigh the disadvantages leading to a conclusion that I'm benefitting and thus not being harmed, but the analysis alone seems deficient in it's purpose if it's somehow suppose to imply justification. It kind of reminds me of a discussion long ago (with a member that has since passed) about how we shouldn't fault an inductive argument when it's purpose isn't to do what a deductive argument does. If the assumptions are correct such that a) the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and b) that being so implies benefit exceeds cost, I'm afraid the tool at my disposal (cost/benefit analysis) doesn't imply a failure to show justification, with the key word being, "failure". That it doesn't do something isn't to say it's failing in some way. It can't be a failure when it's purpose is disassociated. It's not a failure of a calculator that I can't successfully use it to till a garden.
I think there's something in the air that others might be inclined to suggest that I don't agree with. Yes, I am (at least in some stretch of the imagination) benefitting from my $75 contribution, and yes, quality of life and standard of living has in some way increased for me and those in my community (an assumption I'm willing to concede for sake of argument), and I'm even willing to accept that perhaps the cost benefit analysis does reflect the costs as being low for the benefits received, and I'll step even further out on the ledge and say diminishing returns are factored in. Assuming that there is a disconnect between the analysis and an implication for justification, how in the world do we justify subjecting people to these fees? Should I make that assumption?
Advantage: I and my fellow community members get better quality water when we eat at same county restaurants.
Disadvantage: I have to pay $75 for that advantage.
A benefit or harm?: the increase in standard of living in the community outweighs the collective cost; in other words, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; therefore, despite the disadvantages, I am benefitting, not being harmed.
Now, does the mere fact that I am benefitting therefore justify being subjected to the disadvantages? See, I don't quite get how a cost benefit analysis that reflects positively on my and my community members standard of living necessarily justifies the infliction of benefit on others.
Fictional:
I had $2 in my pocket for a pound bag of $2 sugar. The clerk said, you can save money by getting a second pound bag for $1 more. I said I'll stick with one bag. She said that's more expensive. I said let me go with the more expensive option because I can't afford to save money right now. <should of seen her look>
I'm sure somehow, someway, someone will find a rationale to show how the advantages outweigh the disadvantages leading to a conclusion that I'm benefitting and thus not being harmed, but the analysis alone seems deficient in it's purpose if it's somehow suppose to imply justification. It kind of reminds me of a discussion long ago (with a member that has since passed) about how we shouldn't fault an inductive argument when it's purpose isn't to do what a deductive argument does. If the assumptions are correct such that a) the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and b) that being so implies benefit exceeds cost, I'm afraid the tool at my disposal (cost/benefit analysis) doesn't imply a failure to show justification, with the key word being, "failure". That it doesn't do something isn't to say it's failing in some way. It can't be a failure when it's purpose is disassociated. It's not a failure of a calculator that I can't successfully use it to till a garden.
I think there's something in the air that others might be inclined to suggest that I don't agree with. Yes, I am (at least in some stretch of the imagination) benefitting from my $75 contribution, and yes, quality of life and standard of living has in some way increased for me and those in my community (an assumption I'm willing to concede for sake of argument), and I'm even willing to accept that perhaps the cost benefit analysis does reflect the costs as being low for the benefits received, and I'll step even further out on the ledge and say diminishing returns are factored in. Assuming that there is a disconnect between the analysis and an implication for justification, how in the world do we justify subjecting people to these fees? Should I make that assumption?
