by Joetta Forsyth, Ph.D.
American Thinker
Scientists are increasingly taking on the role of dictating morality. Academic papers are full of pronouncements about how their touted research improves society. The field of economics is an excellent example. Economists create “utility functions” to study human behavior. A “good” is simply something that makes a person happier, as expressed by a higher utility. However, the devil is in the details.
In economics, a pedophile and a child both have utility functions. Suppose that the pedophile really enjoys abusing a child, while the child is so abused that he hardly notices the abuse anymore. Are we to add their utility together and decide that the overall effect is positive? If not, should we weight their happiness? Perhaps the pedophile should only be given a 30% weight to his feelings while the child gets a 70% weight.