What is the Association of Efficiency with Morality?

What is the Association of Efficiency with Morality?

The principle of efficiency is an important concept that we hear about primarily when we hear that 'the market is efficient'. I think that in terms of the stock market this implies that there exists transparency and everyone has the same information. In the matter of morality it is often used to illuminate the concept of distribution as it relates to matters of justice.

The web site http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html provides an outline of John Rawls book 'A Theory of Justice'. In this outline the author provides this account of the meaning of 'The Principle of Efficiency':

'Rawls adopts the concept of efficiency that is associated with the name Pareto in the field of economics. It is perhaps most easily described in the negative:
No system can be called efficient if there is an alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people with no worsening of the situation of any of the other people.
In general, there are many arrangements that are efficient in this sense. Not all of them are equally just; other principles of justice must be invoked to select the most just arrangement.'

A graph is the best way to visualize the meaning of this concept. Imagine a standard two dimensional X-Y graph with X being left to right and Y being the vertical axis. Draw a convex line connecting equal length on both axis. The line represents the distribution of commodities in an efficient market. X and Y share in the commodities as shown by this line. If X gains Y loses and vise versa.

Efficiency is considered to be an instrumental matter and is an objective determination based on reasoned consideration without subjective bias. Any point on this line is a point of maximum efficiency; it is the best that is possible based on objective parameters alone.

Human rationality is very good at developing the most efficient way to accomplish a given task. Our technology is one example of our capacity to accomplish instrumental matters, i.e. matters concerning the most efficient means for reaching a proscribed end.

On the other hand we are very weak at determining matters requiring communicative rationality. Communicative rationality is that rationality focused on subjective considerations when human values are involved rather than concrete objects. We are good at developing the best means for an end but we are not so good for determining the end to be sought. The determining of ends, i.e. values is where morality enters into the equation.

On our imagined graph anything on the efficient line is best if efficiency is the only parameter of consideration. If other parameters are important then the area onto which the point of distribution occurs is southwest of the maximum efficiency line.

A theory of justice is required for us to understand how to pick that point SW of efficiency. The SW point is dependent upon our set of values and how well we understand such matters and how much we care about such matters.

i love this thread it is an excellent mental excersise almost like a riddle. No imoral acttion can truly be considered efficient even if at the surface the act it self seems efficient. like efficiency morality is not true morality as long as it can be improved on. in a universal sense true efficiency would be benificial to every thing in existance and true morality in its perfect form would be truly efficient.
Alot of institutions (banks, govt, multi nationals ect ect do not seem to realise that their unique sense of efficiency is realy horribly inneficient in the universal sense. this is a terrible thing. negligence, laziness and selfishness are considered imoral by most religious and ideological view points. so why are these world leaders alowed to behave so immoraly?
(sorry i rant)

i hope you guys can make some sense of this jargon but my own conclusion is that morality and efficiency are one and the same.

nyrlathotep

I think that much of your response shows great insight but I tend to disagree with the last statement that morality and efficience are the same.

thankyou for your compliment, but could you expand on your rebuttle please? i am not sure how to reply.

My post is focused upon the use of the graph as a means to visualize the effect of various techniques of distribution of advantages in a society.

Put Harry on the X coordinates and Tom on the Y coordinates. The 45 degree line represents maximum efficiency and maximum morality, i.e. when Harry gets better Tom also gets better by the same amount. When the distribution is not fairly distributed the line is adjusted to a different angle. This gives us a visual display of distribution that is not fair, i.e. immoral.

so how is that a effective means of countering my point.
with in any any given system all parts must be taken care of if my brain is getting enough oxygen but my kidneys arent i will probably die unless the situation is treated now lets take a village. can a village be called an efficient village if even one person goes hungry? or a persons needs and obligations are not fulfilled?
in this way as long as we are all connected in some way through infinite time then morality and efficiency are one.
Efficiency with out morality shown in a isolated scenario seems to be efficient but when held up to the larger (village) that just isnt the case

i hope i have made my original point a little understandible if not try to answer this question

how are morality and efficiency not the same thing?
I have answered your post by associating the two to the point that they are one.

I cannot see how they are the same.

but you have not offered any reasoning on how they are different you have not answered my question so your dissagreal is empty with out showing any reasoning to back it up.
I have shown you in point form how they are the same show me how they are not youll find i am fairly open minded when presented with logic.

Morality is generally a consideration about goals or ends while efficiency is about the means to achieve those goals or ends.

one must consider ones goals goals or ends before even moving towards the means. to achieve efficient achievment of goals one must first consider all things attached.
However this is assuming isolation. no system is isolated from other systems thus all systems are part of a whole.

an imoral system is an
inificient system

the association can't be found in no human organization whatsoever . It could though lead to a no currency society . Associations though do not produce a sole, a core but just another step in the human pursuit of happiness (perfection). One more thing , because a lot of you guys are debating on the possible similitude between these two forms of human perfectionism , well efficiency is driven by need of max whit min , while morality min whit max