what if morality were... economical?

No, I'm serious. Think about it. Economists, what if morality were subject to the dictates of cost-benefit analysis?

-----

Now, a post by Sam Tho (Nov 30) regarding gratuitous swearing got me thinking. Yes I'm certainly one of those who inspired the post, for I cuss without too much thought in the company of friends. (Of course, this depends on who I'm with - that night was him, Remus, Justin and me.) So Sam doesn't use the word fuck, and has never done so and doesn't plan to start. Commendable. Certainly, there are people who live by thou shalt not swear, but I see the benefits, and the costs aren't particularly compelling, so heck.

In my analysis, he greatly overestimates the negative externalities (costs) generated by swearing (the disapproval of peers and family, the breakdown of the fabric of society, the affront to morality and God, etc.) and underestimates the benefits (harmless stress-relief/catharsis, endearment to friends, better conversation, etc.). My own estimation is probably skewed towards the other extreme, simply because I perceive the benefits to be greater - because they accrue to myself and those around me - and the costs to be lesser. 

Generally, I've found that if I swear

1. I'm comfortable with the company I'm with
2. The conversation is going well, and pretty interesting
3. It gets even better after that

This is of course an example of the familiarity heuristic. Occasionally it doesn't work, and it sucks. But usually it's fine, because I'm not usually the one to initiate the swearing.

You might say I was being economical with morality there. I think that's true; some people place a high premium on strong ideals of morality - they associate it with strong positive externalities - and it's simply easier to abide by monolithic rules than to weigh the costs and benefits each time (because the costs are so high and the benefits - of breaking the rules - are so low). 

But to take this one step further, we could examine the development of morality itself. Besides divine endowment (stone tablets, burning bushes, Brian Blessed voices etc.), I think morality may be thought of as a result of people living in societies. Values and ethics develop so that people may live with each other and not hate each other as a result. And societies with developed notions of morality probably tend to fare better than those without (because they hate each other less, they're probably more inclined to cooperate). 

Morality also springs from conceptions of fairness, which are to some extent shared by animals: [1] [2] To some extent there may be an evolutionary basis for morality.

But economics? Might people live moral lives simply because the benefits were greater than the costs? The effect of a change in cigarette prices on smokers' behaviour is pretty well-documented; Tim Harford gives a convincing economic explanation for the increase in oral sex among American teenagers. But to extend economic analysis to morality as a whole... probably needs a bit more thought on my part. I'll get back to you on this.