Why do you think that something like the theory of supply and demand would not lead to a greater understanding of the science of economics, sufficient to establish the laws of supply and demand?

Um... Ok... but what does it have to do with shifting societal mores? We weren't discussing the science of economics (is it a science?), unless it can be used to shed light on mechanisms of change in society.

__________________
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkGreen]"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin [/COLOR][/FONT]

Well, maybe it CAN. Lets see. Why are so many of us addicted to debt and being IN debt ? Why do we not feel the need to pay off debts ASAP rather than making minimum payments for years and ...

.... what ? Do we LIKE paying all the extra that accrues with interest or something ?

Don't know. This may be tied to changing ethics or an EXAMPLE of changing ethics as related to debt and the concept of debt and owing. Our GOVT. certainly grows and owes lots of debt, why are we FOLLOWING that example so willingly ?

Could get interesting maybe ?

__________________
[I]They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator. . . . Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.[/I] - Romans 1:25-26

Use liberals artistic manipulation of logic and language against them.

My hypothesis is that changes in societal ethics is accomplished through equilibrium seeking tendencies (private profit motives). As new products are developed in a market economy, individuals evolve and adapt to newer technology (changes in the environment). When that is extended to a societal level, societal ethics tend to change along with the individuals that make up society when they respond to any changes of environment in Nature.

I thought that's what you were saying.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say OK - I'll buy that.

lol ...we worry that it would be dangerous to borrow the "science" of economics for an anthropolical discussion but it really is appropriate since economics is an anthropological study isn't it?

When we read danielpalos posts we have to go back to his first post (sorry for talking as if you weren't here, danielpalos), and follow the train of thought which I believe took a much broader but not less relevant tangeant.

I'm tempted to follow that rabbit down the hole by asking the good Dr. to help me out in science. Is it possible that if we take a very, very, very broad view of the cycle of societal ethics, (as both danielpalos and I automatically did), does it not resemble other, less anthropological laws of nature? Kinetic, aerodynamic, chemical stability, meteorological patterns...??? Inquiring minds want to know.

It may seem far afield but let me propose that this is precisely the problem when society struggles with change. The view is too narrowly focused and causes undue strife. It is quite natural to change and also quite natural to return to an acceptable and comfortable equilibrium. Resistance is futile.

__________________
"Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.” Jack Handy

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. - George Washington, 1st US President

Perhaps, you are correct when you say that resistance is futile, in Nature.

The environment that enabled the societal ethics of the 1700 no longer exists. It would be improbable that the the ethics made possible by a pre-technological environment (age) would still exist afterward.

Another way to say that is that progress always will (in Nature) have an impact on societal ethics by changing the environment upon which the subjective values of Nurture will be made.

I'm glad I stuck around for that but I almost wish we disagreed. We'll have to wait for someone clever enough to bring up a differing opinion to mull over.

__________________
"Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.” Jack Handy

As Cygnus has acknowledged on several occasions, economics is "wonderfully amoral"; how, then, can a society that is organized on the basis of such a template not become corrupted and ultimately chaotic? "Ethics" become a moveable feast that is dictated by the dominant players, whose "leadership" tends to be characterized by telling the smaller players to do as I say, rather than do as I do.

Doesn't amoral ethics strike you as being oxymoronic?

__________________
[B]Who [I]does[/I] vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson[/B]

We have a bill of rights in the US. It is up to the individual to pursue happiness in a manner consistent with their own subjective equilibrium seeking tendencies.

I am not sure your logic would hold true if we had more perfectly competitive markets. It only holds true now because of all the politically induced economic inefficiencies.

Amoral ethics would be oxymoronic if it wasn't also a form true ethics, without morals.

Would you agree that code based morals and ethics attempt to use different methods to accomplish the same thing?

Assuming ethics to be synonymous with morality, how can amoral morality be anything other than oxymoronic?

With respect to form and code, wouldn't incongruity with reality in both instances result in outcomes inconsistent with the professed intention and if not, why?

For example, why would it be false to say that economic theory is incongruous with human nature in that it assumes that they behave rationally? Are those doing the inducing that results in inefficiencies behaving rationally?

__________________
[B]Who [I]does[/I] vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson[/B]