Perspectives of Right and Wrong: A Tale of Kidnapping and Mayoral Election
After a meticulous plan, a daring kidnapper kidnapped the son of the wealthiest man. Eventually, the tycoon paid a ransom of approximately 200 million US dollars, the equivalent of 1.3 billion Hong Kong dollars, to free his son. The whole process was thrilling and full of suspense, not less exciting than a police film. However, a conversation between the tycoon and the kidnapper provoked profound thoughts.
The kidnapper asked the tycoon, "Why are you so calm about giving me so much money?"
The tycoon answered, "Because this time it's my fault. We are so well-known locally, but we didn't take any precautions. For example, when I go to play golf, I drive out by myself at 5 o'clock in the morning. On the road, I could be surrounded by several cars, but I didn't take any precautions. That's my mistake, and I must bear the cost."
What? The tycoon said it was his fault! Why? It's the kidnapper who violated the law by kidnapping his son.
Legally speaking, the kidnapper is definitely in the wrong, so he has to go to prison and face the punishment of the law. But if we look at it from the tycoon's perspective, perhaps such an incident could have been prevented by strengthening security measures, which he didn't do, leading to his son being kidnapped and ultimately paying billions to ransom his son. So, when the tycoon said he was wrong, he really felt he was wrong, not being polite. It is lucky that he was finally able to defuse the situation by losing his wealth. But if the ransom failed, the loss would be even greater. By then, what's the use of punishing the kidnapper by legal means? The loss has occurred and cannot be recovered. This is a true story that happened in Hong Kong.
I'm not trying to tell you a kidnapping story, but to introduce to you the concept of three 'views of right and wrong' that everyone should know. These three 'views of right and wrong' are the perspectives of lawyers, economists, and businessmen.
I'd like to illustrate this concept with a simple story of 29 words.
Story: "The bad guy A lures the good guy B into C's construction site that doesn't have a locked door, and B accidentally falls and dies. Who is at fault here?"
Let's see different views of right and wrong.
Lawyer's view of right and wrong
For the above situation, a lawyer might say, "This is of course A's fault. This is premeditated murder. What's there to discuss?"
Yes, if the evidence is conclusive, in the lawyer's eyes, this is A's fault. However, this kind of satisfying view of right and wrong may not prevent similar cases from happening again - what lawyers can't do, economists might be able to do.
Economist's view of right and wrong
For the above situation, economists may have a different view: it's C's fault.
Some people may say, "Ah? Why? C is too wronged, isn't it?"
Economists think this way: the total cost of society to prevent B from being lured by A into C's construction site is much higher than the cost of C locking the construction site door. Although punishing C may make him feel wronged, all future construction site owners will lock their doors, reducing such incidents greatly.
Economists judge who is right or wrong in a situation from the perspective of "total social cost". Although sometimes such a judgement seems unreasonable, it is more "effective" than judging from a purely moral perspective.
Businessman's view of right and wrong
For the above situation, a businessman might think: whether it's A's fault or C's fault, B is dead; regardless of who is held responsible, B can't be brought back to life - from the perspective of maximizing individual benefits, B can only blame himself.
As individuals, we should adhere to the businessman's view of right and wrong. Under the premise of not hurting others, we should strive to protect our own interests. A politician, however, should be more like an economist, considering issues from the perspective of the total social cost. Politicians are like the captains of cruise ships; their main task is how to safely return the ship to the port, not how to make the passengers happier. Politicians should focus on more than just securing votes.
Today marks the first advance voting day for the Toronto mayoral election. I hope our new mayor isn't someone who, deep down, is a businessman, but pretends to be an economist, and behaves like a lawyer.