Originally Posted by brokencycle
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01
How about option 3: Creating a better system? Your analogy is pretty lacklustre. To say families can afford to not have their children working, and then say that they can't afford food without said child labour, is blatantly contradictory.
As family income rises, they stop sending their children to work and rather send them to school. It really isn't a difficult concept to comprehend. I'm sure a resourceful lad, such as yourself, can find all kinds of economic papers showing this effect around the world.
Ah-doi. My point was: You contradicted yourself. If that was just an error of type, then fair enough. People don't chose to send their children to do hard labour, if they can afford not to. And, I'm glad you at least agree in the humane and objective fact, that, as wages go up, child labour goes down.
You're telling me it isn't possible to do an economic analysis of a problem and a moral problem of the analysis? People don't choose the economic-based conclusion all the time. As an example, from a purely economic analysis, you shouldn't give money to panhandlers because it encourages more panhandling (if no one gave them money, there would be no reason to panhandle). However, people still give money to panhandlers presumably out of some moral decision (e.g. they can afford to give said individual a few dollars, and it will greatly help that person).
Another example would be how we will spend millions of dollars to rescue a trapped miner because it is the moral thing to do, even if economically it would be cheaper to let the miner die.
Your first sentence makes no sense. Do you mean it's possible to do an analysis of an issue coming from either economics or morality independently? Of course, that's possible. Sometimes, you can do both. For example: It is over 70% cheaper to put homeless people in free housing (yes, you read that right), than it is to leave them out on the street. That is an example of an issue which can be solved morally and economically, but isn't enacted merely because of politics.
Actually, if no one gave money to panhandlers, panhandling would still continue (but, perhaps to a smaller extent), as that is just the fucking nature of being homeless. (Seriously hoping that you don't think giving money or food to homeless people is an unwise thing.)
Your last example is a much better example of economics in relation to humanism. I wouldn't be able to sleep, if I'd known I had put any amount of money before human life, but that's just me.