pull down to refresh
Repugnance defies logic, which is why economists usually think it’s dumb.
To me, it seems like the moral concerns come from the production process, rather than consumption.
I don't necessarily think it's "dumb", only "illogical". I wish more people are willing to face up to that and say, "Yeah, it's not logical, and I'm okay with that."
I think sometimes when economists approach these subjects from a logical/rational lens, people who feel strongly morally about it get upset at us, because they think we imply that their moral concerns are dumb or not legitimate. But that's not the case: If you think it's wrong to eat dogs, I totally respect that. I am just trying to look at it from another lens.
I should have said “policy based on it is dumb”, to better capture our prevailing sentiment.
I mean, I wouldn't even object to policy based on it. If people want to ban the sale or consumption of dog meat I have no problem with it.
Just don't get mad at me when I say, "Well, that's illogical but ok"
I feel like that’s when one of us writes “How legalizing dog meat would reduce dog deaths”.
To be fair, economists have a long history of deliberately antagonizing those with bleeding hearts
I also find dog meat to be the strangest one. It seems the least logically grounded, unless you also object to eating the meat of other animals like cows, chickens, and pigs.