Someone was talking the other day about the economic situation of stupid people and how it might affect their politics, and I thought it an interesting issue in the ethics of the distribution of economic power. This week: a defense of stupid people.
Do you detect a certain churlishness in my choice of words? Yes, I’m afraid I’m trying to be a bit confrontational or blunt right now to encourage people to think about what may be an awkward issue in the generally awkward area of the ethics of the distribution of economic power. Before anyone gets too worked up, let me say I don’t mean “stupid” as a random schoolyard epithet. I mean relatively unintelligent. I suppose real people will fall in a range or distribution of intelligence, unlike the artificial ciphers of the world of economic theory. Nor am I talking this week about ignorance, a function of education, which is a different issue. Perhaps I’m behind the times, but I suppose some people may have a rather easier time with education than others for a variety of reasons including, I propose, innate intelligence. As always, I’m rather more interested in normative than positive issues, so if one finds the idea of a distribution of intelligence bunk, perhaps one can think in hypotheticals yet derive something of value from the discussion. Even if one doesn’t believe in the existence of stupidity, as opposed to ignorance, the general issue may be of interest as long as one accepts some factor affecting the distribution of economic power in markets may not be under the individual's control.
Aside from common results-oriented ethics related to real utilitarianism, distinct from the misleading faux “utilitarianism” of the ethical half-theory of neoclassical welfare economics, which doesn’t take up distributional ethics, one very common ethical view involves “merit.” According to that view, equity, fairness, justice in the realm of distributional ethics should take precedence over considerations of welfare or real utility, so an ethical system for distributing economic power will distribute it by individual “merit," not evaluating welfare. (I’m setting aside the apparent complication introduced by common yet seemingly contradictory support for inheritance, which doesn’t involve individual merit, albeit perhaps some sort of familial or ancestral merit. Yes, popular ethics is a rich tapestry.) Of course, talking about “merit” doesn’t get one very far unless one specifies what one has in mind, and one significant issue in that context is whether it can be something one is simply born with or must be derived from personal effort or volition of some sort. This vital issue is typically submerged or glossed over in the context of ethical or normative discussions centering on wages and labor markets using vague references to work, effort, “productivity,” and so on.
Let’s take the bull by the horns and imagine a stupid person who works very hard, makes great effort, puts in long hours, does everything he or she can possibly do in a real labor market, yet for the most part tanks, ends up with minimum wage, no benefits, part time, etc. Won’t necessarily happen, of course. Plenty involved in real labor market results beyond intelligence, but holding everything else equal, and assuming it exists, I suppose one may accept stupidity less advantageous than cleverness in a competitive labor market. Does this represent an ethical issue we should address or not? Does the proposed innate characteristic of stupidity cancel out everything else potentially related to “merit" under this person's individual control? Is it ethical he or she has little, if any, economic power? Why am I asking such awkward questions? Because I perceive under the influence of bad economics in the conservative style, many appear to view competitive labor markets as a utopian machine or black box providing all with what they should rightly have. But is it what people honestly suppose? Is the labor market doing what they find ethically correct, or are they concluding ethically correct whatever it happens to do? I’d just like confidence people are thinking about the real issues involved, making conscious choices, voting.
Oh, you wanted my personal views? Well, I suppose society should subsidize stupid people. I don’t much care for a world of clever people, often sorely lacking in every other form of merit or laudable characteristic, forever trying to take advantage of stupid people. Sure, smart people are important and should have their due, but ethically their due may not be whatever they can squeeze out of stupid people. Indeed, if I were choosing between stupid with a good heart, and clever with a bad, I’d take stupid every time. And when one considers the relationship of stupid people to crime and all manner of anti-democracy claptrap including fascism and anarchism, due to their inability to think systemically, anticipate consequences, their gullibility, one may see practical reasons to support them.
The stupid, the relatively unintelligent, the slow on the uptake, will always be with us, but we don’t have to let clever people take advantage of them, screw them over at every opportunity, in both word and deed. That’s a social choice we can make or not. Case in point: purposefully opaque neoclassical welfare economics and anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style built upon it. Again, the clever trying to con the stupid, laughing all the way to the bank. Let’s stop. Speak carefully, honestly about economics too. The stupid can be and often are good people, with plenty to offer, and can show it given the right context to thrive. So why not create conditions to make it happen? Maybe think of society more as a diverse family cooperating and thriving together than a nest of egoistic vipers?
