Philosophy Embedded in University Teachings – An Example
Here is a good example of philosophy of the day being argued for by a cleverly disguised argument which requires some insight to see the hidden assumptions. Universities push this kind of deception with omissions of unstated assumptions and often accompanied with omission of facts or unchangeable laws set up by God.
Given: Every rental movie costs $8
|
| Quentin | Spike | Ridley | Martin | Steven | Totals |
| 1st Film | 7 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 19 |
| 2nd Film | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 13 |
| 3rd Film | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 4th Film | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 5th Film | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 22 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 46 |
9a. What is the efficient number of movies to watch with efficiency defined as the number that maximizes the surplus?
9b. From the standpoint of each student, what is the preferred number of movies?
9c. What is the preference of the median roommate?
9d. If the roommates held a vote for the most efficient outcome versus the median voter’s preference, how would each person vote?
9e. If one of the roommates proposed a different number of movies, could his proposal beat the winner from part d in a vote?
9f. Can majority rule be counted on to reach efficient outcomes in the provision of public goods?
There are different ways to view this problem with assumptions about the amounts of freedom and decision making given to each of the five roommates producing very different results. Assumptions that can be made in different combinations:
1. For some answers, all roommates must be willing to put in all money they want to put in for all amounts of movie rentals up front.
2. Roommates do not receive back any monies left over after each movie rental, and any leftover monies from a previous rental goes toward the next movie rental.
3. Or roommates are not allowed allocate monies one movie after another – e.g., after renting the first movie, they cannot carry forward any money left over after renting the first movie ($11) and must start with the total they would allocate for the second movie only – total of $134. Freedom of will is violated. If a movie is rented, they each pay $1.60. Steven is forced to pay more than $1, or what he was willing to pay for the first movie. If all were forced to pay $1.60, this would be against their will in the case where they were only willing to pay $1 or even 0 dollars for a movie.
5. Or Assumption four is replaced by the assumption that all do not pay an equal share but only what they are willing to pay but get to watch any movie they did not pay an equitable share for. If the roommate’s total dollar contribution is exceeded by the splitting of the cost of a movie, then they are not forced into paying $1.60, even if this exceeds what they were willing to pay. For example, if the first movie is rented, Steven is not forced to pay $1.60 or 0.60 more than he was willing to pay, but pay only $1.
9a. What is the efficient number of movies to watch with efficiency defined as the number that maximizes the surplus?
Given the constraints above for this method of calculation, assumptions 1, 2 & 5 kicks in to alter the answer from the answer with different assumptions. After one rental of $8 and $19 put in by all five for the first movie rental, $11 remains. For two movies, they are willing to put in a total of $32. Two movies cost $16 leaving a surplus of $16.For three movies they are willing to put in $41. Three movies cost $24, leaving $17. Four movie rentals they put in $45 and it costs $32, leaving $13.For Five movies they put in $46 with a cost of $0, leaving $6. Using the assumptions above, the answer is 3 movies. Using different assumptions, e.g., assumption 3 (and 5), unused or surplus monies from a previous rental is to be given back to the roommates and the next movie rental only receives the monies the roommates are willing to put in for that movie. Let’s work it again this way and see how the answer changes with more freedom of will given to the roommates. After one rental of $8 and $19 put in for the first movie rental, $11 is returned to the roommates and not available for movie rental number two. $13 is put in by four roommates for the second movie as in the table. The second movie also costs $8 leaving a surplus of $5 for movie number two.For the 3rd movie they are willing to put in $9, leaving $1.For 4th movie rentals they are willing to put in only $4 for which they can buy 0 movies, leaving either $4 or $0 depending on the interpretation of remainder.For the 5th movie they put in $1, for which they can buy 0 movies, leaving either $1 or $0 depending on the interpretation of remainder. Using the different, more freedom of will, assumption above, the answer is 1 movie.If roommates are not required to pay more than they are willing, the answer is 1 movie.
9b. From the standpoint of each student, what is the preferred number of movies?
The answer again depends on the assumptions made. If roommates can watch films for which they have not paid, then the largest number that the total dollars will buy is the answer – entitlements work like this. If all are forced to put in all $46, all they are all in total willing to contribute for all, a maximum of five movies, then $46 buys 5 movies and therefore 5 is an answer. A more likely answer is that roommates should only be allowed to watch what they paid for. If movie rentals cost $8, then Quentin is willing to put in a total of $22 or 2.75 movies worth. Spike $13 or 1.675 movies worth. Ridley $7 or 0.875 movies worth. Martin 43 or 0.375. Steven $1 or 0.125 movies. If we round up, the answers are:Quentin 3; Spike 2, Ridley 1, Martin and Steven 0 each. Assuming that each really has to pay $1.60 for every movie they watch, whether they want to pay 0 or $1 only, (violation of freedom of will) the answer changes again.In this case, for every movie they are willing to pay more than $1.60 they can watch a movie. Using these assumptions the answer becomes:Quentin 4; Spike 3, Ridley 2, Martin 1 and Steven 0.This works only if Steven and Martin are forced to pay more than they want to for movies 1 and 2. The answers change again if the monies left over from a previous movie rental can be applied to the next rental.
9c. What is the preference of the median roommate?
The median roommate is Ridley. Depending upon the assumptions, the answer can be 1,2 or even 5. A more personal freedom and right to chose answer is that roommates should only be allowed to watch what they paid for. Then from above, the answer is Ridley only is willing to put in the total cost for one movie. Then Ridley should only watch one movie. Assuming that each really has to pay $1.60 for every movie they watch, whether they want to pay 0 or $1 only, (violation of freedom of will) the answer changes again.In this case, for every movie they are willing to pay more than $1.60 they can watch aIn this case the answer is Ridley’s preference is 2 movies. This is most likely the University philosophy answer, although violation of freedom of will. If all are forced to put in all $46, all they are all in total willing to contribute for all, a maximum of five movies, then $46 buys 5 movies and therefore 5 is an answer. Ridley only contributed $7 total and gets to see five movies. Entitlement programs work like this having many pay more than others, even though they are forced into it and would chose not to do. This is the violation of democracy and is the socialism and communism forced distribution of wealth – receiving something for nothing at the expense of others.
9d. If the roommates held a vote for the most efficient outcome versus the median voter’s preference, how would each person vote?
If we make the assumption that lead to 3 being the answer for the most efficient being defined as the most money left over if all forced to pay even if it is more than they wanted to, the voting would go: All vote for getting the most movies or 3. If the roommates are not forced to pay for more than they wanted (true democracy), Steven, Martin, Ridley would vote for 1 movie with Quentin and Spike voting for the 3 movies. It would be 3:2 for the median vs efficient. Two completely different results using true democracy vs some power forcing payment by the majority for more than the will of the majority. If the assumptions are such as in 9a for the most efficient with freedom of will of the roommates not usurped, 1 is the most efficient (where roommates do not pay more than they are willing), then all would vote for 1 movie and be in agreement, 5 to 0 for 1 movie. Democracy works.
9e. If one of the roommates proposed a different number of movies, could his proposal beat the winner from part d in a vote?
Again, if the assumptions are as above and lead to 3 being the answer to 9d, then the answer is no. Even if the answer is one movie, the answer to this question is still no. 1 is the most efficient with freedom of will and no other proposal would win with freedom of will. The most efficient wins. Democracy works again.
9f. Can majority rule be counted on to reach efficient outcomes in the provision of public goods?
This is the real philosophy of this somewhat deceptive question. For the democratic, freedom of will of the majority not being usurped assumption, the answer is YES. The answer no doubt in today’s University classrooms is no. The answer can only be NO if freedom of will of the majority is usurped and the philosophy of distribution of wealth at the expense of freedom of will of the majority is applied to force people to pay more than they are willing to pay for a particular good.
