Hi all, So, I was trying to formulate a moral code based purely on logic, and the example I had presented for the idea that the self-sacrificial actions that love creates have different cost-benefit ratios was that a rich man giving $1000 to a poor man creates a much greater benefit to the poor person than the cost to the rich man, while a poor man giving the same could potentially have higher cost than benefit (if he was worse off than the man he gave it to), and it made me realize that I was essentially saying that the utility of money itself is not constant. To support this, I thought about the law of diminishing marginal utility. Assuming perfectly rational choice, the first purchases of an individual will always be those with the greatest utility--food, shelter, utilities, etc. Yet, as one acquires more wealth, as not everything can possibly be as useful as basic needs, the marginal utility per dollar of choices with later dollars decreases. There are exceptions, of course--someone who dreams of going to space will get a lot out of a space flight, and while the MU/$ won't be the same as that of the basic needs, it can still be higher than things of a lower price--but it seems to generally hold true. In retrospect, it seems like an obvious thing, but also still strange. Am I just talking out of my butt, or...? Thanks I did not find the right solution from the internet References : http://www.debate.org/forums/economics/topic/82356/ Corporate Promo Video
Multi Quote Quote