With the gladiatorial games, you seem to have focused on what I intended to be a peripheral point (I’ll rephrase it later so this is clearer).
The main point is that forcing people to become gladiators against their will requires a system that would almost certainly lower utility (really you’d have to have an institution of slavery or a caste system; any other way and people would revolt against the policy since they would expect a possibility of being to be gladiators themselves).
Allowing people who want to, to become gladiators risks the same moral hazards brought up during debates on prostitution—ie maybe they’re just doing it because they’re too poor or disturbed to have another alternative, and maybe the existence of this option might prevent people from creating a structure in which they do have another alternative. I’m split on the prostitution debate myself, but in a society where people weren’t outraged by gladiatorial games, I would be willing to bite the bullet of saying the gladiator question should be resolved the same way as the prostitute question.
In a utopian society where no one was poor or disturbed, and where people weren’t outraged by gladiatorial games, I would be willing to allow people to become gladiators.
(in our current society, I’m not even sure whether American football is morally okay)
“The main point is that forcing people to become gladiators against their will requires a system that would almost certainly lower utility (really you’d have to have an institution of slavery or a caste system; any other way and people would revolt against the policy since they would expect a possibility of being to be gladiators themselves).”
It seems to me that, specifically, gladiatorial games that wouldn’t lower utility would require that people not revolt against the system since they accept the risk of being forced into the games as the price they pay to watch the games.
If gladiators are drawn exclusively from the slaves and lower castes, and the people with political power are exempted, then most likely the games are lowering utility.
@ Prostitution: Don’t the same arguments apply to paid labor of any type?
In the case of prostitution, similar arguments apply to some extent to all jobs, but “to some extent” refers to very different degree.
My test would be as follows: ask how much people would have to be paid before they would be willing to take the job (in preference to a job of some arbitrary but fixed level of income and distastefulness) Compare that amount to the price that the job actually gets in a free market. The higher the ratio gets, the worse the moral hazard.
I would expect both prostitution and being a gladiator to score especially low in this regard.
With the gladiatorial games, you seem to have focused on what I intended to be a peripheral point (I’ll rephrase it later so this is clearer).
The main point is that forcing people to become gladiators against their will requires a system that would almost certainly lower utility (really you’d have to have an institution of slavery or a caste system; any other way and people would revolt against the policy since they would expect a possibility of being to be gladiators themselves).
Allowing people who want to, to become gladiators risks the same moral hazards brought up during debates on prostitution—ie maybe they’re just doing it because they’re too poor or disturbed to have another alternative, and maybe the existence of this option might prevent people from creating a structure in which they do have another alternative. I’m split on the prostitution debate myself, but in a society where people weren’t outraged by gladiatorial games, I would be willing to bite the bullet of saying the gladiator question should be resolved the same way as the prostitute question.
In a utopian society where no one was poor or disturbed, and where people weren’t outraged by gladiatorial games, I would be willing to allow people to become gladiators.
(in our current society, I’m not even sure whether American football is morally okay)
“The main point is that forcing people to become gladiators against their will requires a system that would almost certainly lower utility (really you’d have to have an institution of slavery or a caste system; any other way and people would revolt against the policy since they would expect a possibility of being to be gladiators themselves).”
It seems to me that, specifically, gladiatorial games that wouldn’t lower utility would require that people not revolt against the system since they accept the risk of being forced into the games as the price they pay to watch the games. If gladiators are drawn exclusively from the slaves and lower castes, and the people with political power are exempted, then most likely the games are lowering utility.
@ Prostitution: Don’t the same arguments apply to paid labor of any type?
In the case of prostitution, similar arguments apply to some extent to all jobs, but “to some extent” refers to very different degree.
My test would be as follows: ask how much people would have to be paid before they would be willing to take the job (in preference to a job of some arbitrary but fixed level of income and distastefulness) Compare that amount to the price that the job actually gets in a free market. The higher the ratio gets, the worse the moral hazard.
I would expect both prostitution and being a gladiator to score especially low in this regard.