The Economics of Morality

So I'm watching a video about the number of black people killed by police officers in the US. It states the figures from 2012-2019; black people killed by police = 1944, police charged = 59, police convicted = 19. There is a critical set of numbers to provide context. This is a comparative chart of the GDP expenditure on policing and social services in Australia and the US.

US: GDP $20,540,000,000,000
Australia: GDP $1,434,000,000,000

US Policing Budget: $100,000,000,000 = 0.48% GDP
Australian Policing Budget: $2,500,000,000 = 0.17% GDP

US Social Services Budget: $851,100,000,000 = 4.14% GDP
Australian Social Services Budget: $158,600,000,000 = 11.05% GDP

So, Australia spends 2.6 times more on social services than the United States (per capita). Meanwhile, Australia spends 2.8 times less on policing (per capita). I'll let you look into the finer details of the ramifications of how effective the countries criminal justice systems are on your own. Because unfortunately, if moral arguments like the one raised by the disparity of black people killed by police in the US could be solved with statistics and facts; the issue would have been solved long ago.

'The economics of morality' is a lens to understand why the Left and Right in the US ideologically agree on the solution to this problem. Yet they are nonetheless at war at each other despite their seeming agreement. What do I mean? Well, the Left – to use the primitive and woefully blunt left/right terms – wants systematic change to help lower the disparity in black deaths. The Left suggests increases in social services, education, support programs, mental health services, etc. The thinking is this would tackle the underlying factors that create 'criminality' in black communities. And the Right generally speaking, as Conservatives, Libertarians and just good old fashioned tax-haters; they want smaller governments, they want less spending; they want their tax dollars to go to 'things that matter'. Ideologically, the Right is against an oppressive, overreaching government that impinges on their constitutional rights.

So why aren't the Left and Right in complete agreement on the recent political movement to 'Defund the police?' They should be! Such a thing aligns with both their values and desired outcomes! But they don't, stranger still, they seem to be arguing against their core political values. 'Defund the police' the police is a Leftist movement. In practice, it's asking for smaller government, more self-governance. Isn't that what the Right wants? In the face of this suggestion, Right-wing pundits jump to defend the massive police budget, even suggesting that police spending needs to increase. Further, the Right criticises the anti-government protests – despite civil disobedience being a constitutional right – the suggestion is that it's wrong to express your rights if it inconveniences others. Isn't that the exact line of thinking behind the Leftist push for political correctness?

Can't they hear themselves? How can an individual oppose their deeply held ideological values? What's going on here? Many point their fingers at the media; obviously, the Left blames Conservative press, and the Right blames the Liberal media. Of course, the media certainly has a crucial influence in setting us against each other, often inflaming otherwise non-controversial topics. But 'the media', just like the economy, and biology, are reactive phenomena. If there were no market or interest for what the media peddles, it wouldn't exist as it does. So, the consumers of 'the media' are just as complicit in causing today's politically fragmented environment.

To demonstrate how 'the economics of morality' effect this, I'm going to use some examples closer to home. First is the recent referendum for gay marriage in Australia. From 2013-2015, there were multiple polls from a variety of sources, surveying public opinion on gay marriage. During this period, the vast majority of people in Australia thought gay people should be allowed to marry. The percentage of people For gay marriage floated around 68-70%; this includes outlier polls from conservative and liberal survey pools. When the Conservative Government called a referendum in 2017, the only 61% of people voted For gay marriage. Why such a noticeable change in public opinion in only a few years? This is the effect of the economics of mortality. Before 2015, gay marriages wasn't a national talking point in Australia; people had no social pressure about how to think about the issue. When surveyed, people voted with their moral conscience, and clearly many Conservatives had no qualms with gay marriage.

However, leading up to the 2017 referendum, the issue of gay marriage became politicised. The media got hold of it, and there were campaigns For and Against. The moral questions underlying the dilemma changed from a personal choice into a social choice. As the media polarised the issue, the conversation turned from a debate into a political flashpoint. People who previously were quietly For gay marriage suddenly witnessed their peers dejected, criticised or even demonised for openly defending gay marriage. Calculating the percentage difference between people polled with no objections to gay marriage and the number of people voting Against; it seems over a million and a half people changed their minds. Who were the people changing their votes, and why?

It's reasonable to assume it wasn't Leftists changing, but Centralists and voters in Conservative communities. The sudden social pressures placed on the question created a fear of ostracisation; or the very human need to be considered righteous in their social circles, or overtly wanting to be on the winning team. Either subconsciously or consciously, the 'moral-economic value' caused by their new social environment, caused them to either change or be willfully ignorant of their internal moral beliefs.

Another much smaller example, demonstrating another the smaller scale psychological effect of 'the economics of morality' comes from an experience I had at university. My class was called 'Dangerous Ideas', a debate/discussion subject that looked at controversial ideas that effected modern writing. One of them being 'the concept of writing about the other'. For example: Could a white man write from the 'other' perspective of an aboriginal woman? This was the discussion topic during one class; the dissecting how writers could tackle the problem of 'otherness'. During this class, a white-male-classmate of mine put forward his opinion 'There are somethings a white male should not write about.' The example he used was 'A white man simply can't write a piece from the perspective of a black female; it's wrong, and it could never be done in a sensitive or accurate way, such an act is automatic 'appropriation' and would be callous and offensive to Aboriginal Australian people.'

Of my class of twenty people, there was a strong consensus, about fifteen or so, agreed with this statement. Meanwhile, as everyone had their piece, I kept quiet. Silently I contemplated a short story I recently wrote from the perspective of an Aboriginal woman. I remember when I wrote it, I was nervous about the piece's cultural sensitivity. I had done a lot of research on the story. Still, I wanted it to be authentic, so I consulted five of my aboriginal friends, and was lucky enough to get them all in one place to read it to them. I was nervous as hell, but after reading it to them, I asked if they thought it was offensive. Four out of five said it was cool and would be a good idea to publish. One said 'It is wrong to think of the black/Aboriginal/any community as a single entity. Some people will like it; some will get offended.' So, there I was in my all-white classroom, with fifteen white people believing that what I had written would automatically be offensive to Aboriginals. The morality economics in this scenario is thus: all fifteen people, because they were in a liberal university, surrounded by young likely left-leaning people assumed what they thought would be the morally righteous call. Further, they believed what would be the most socially acceptable stance, given the context and went with that. And unfortunately, even among well-to-do university students in Brisbane, there seems to be moral capital to be gained in spouting 'White + man = bad', when tackling racial and patriarchal issues still presents in our society.

When we start putting all these instances together, and we start including the 'economic' effect on the many moral arguments we face these days – we can understand how these issues are 'artificially' polarised to extremities beyond what would be people's moral conscious in a vacuum.