1. A Metaeconomics Look at the Case for a Multiple Utility Conception Gary D. Lynne, Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and School of Natural Resource Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA See Adobe paper at: http;//www.ianr.unl.edu/agecon/lynne/metapape.htmhttp;//www.ianr.unl.edu/agecon/lynne/metapape.htm

2. Trying to answer one question: “Do moral sentiments differ from ordinary tastes?” (Khalil, 1997)

3. Three Contentions Time to include and make explicit the moral sentiments in economic models Patently impossible within either moralist sociology or amoralist economics to develop a unified theory It can be done using reasonably well-accepted concepts from both programs: –Key ideas separated out and then reintegrated –Biological base of neuroscience (brain) research –Philosophical base of utilitarianism: Adding the will.

4. Purposes Explore evolution of the scientific literature since Etzioni (1986) Clarify the amoralist v. moralist perspectives: Like Khalil (1997), “locate exactly the origin of the disagreement” Offer a Unified Social Theory at the interstice (or within the inbetween ground)

5. How Recognize Progress?... whether the proposed unified approach is less burdened with empirical anomalies than alternative ones (Khalil, 1998, p. 614)

6. Biological Basis Biological and physical processes naturally interdependent: wool and mutton; any kind of production within the environment (1 st law and 2 nd law thermodynamics) Triune brain in humans: ego and empathy (we, too, are a dissipative energy structure, inextricably intertwined, interdependent)

7. Neocortex Neomammalian Complex (balancing) Paleomammalian Complex (empathy) Proto- Reptillian Complex (ego) Triune Brain Structure (Cory, 1999, p.10)

8. Self- Preservation Program Affectional Program EMPATHY Other-Interest EGO Self-Interest EXECUTIVE PROGRAM Conflict Systems Model (Cory,1999, p.33) Balancing!!

9. Science presumes? Inherent independence as in (micro)economics Inherent interdependence as in sociology In metaeconomics: A scientific question, not a presumption

10. As Duesenberry (1960, p. 233) quipped: “Economics is all about how people make choices; sociology is all about how people don’t have any choices to make.”

11. Philosophical Basis Individual entity is “in command” Satisficing, balancing-at-work Person distinguished by the will

12. In the spirit of Consilience* Metaeconomics as a Unified Social Theory *Wilson, E.0. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.

13. Recycled Paper Anomaly Not rational to pay more for recycled paper Consumers observed vacillating Disciplined consumers perhaps are satisficing rather than maximizing

14. Using Figure 1... Regular paper q 2 on the vertical axis Recycled paper q 1 on the horizontal axis

16. Using Figure 2... Utility of regular paper U S on the vertical axis Utility of recycled paper U O on the horizontal axis

18. Paying more... Find it economically (self) rational at A o Yet, consumers actually bid recycled prices higher, and, instead of staying at A,’ Consumers go to B’ or even C’

19. Observed vacillating... Sometimes buying “more expensive recycled, ugly paper over cheaper, more attractive regular paper (Etzioni, 1998, p. 605)” at C’ Next time buying cheaper, more attractive regular paper at A’

20. Finally satisfied... Selecting point B’ The Will at work Maximizing reflects weakness of The Will –Maximizing pleasure utility, the material –Maximizing moral utility, the symbolic The Will is satisficing, not maximizing Distinct Entity emerges, on a different plane

21. Conclusions Bring moral inquiry into economic science: Recognize the fallacy of the egoistic presumption Bring rational cost benefit calculus into the empathic, moral dimension: Recognize the fallacy of moral absolutes Eliminate the class distinctions among all the sciences, and especially within the social sciences and humanities

22. Conclusions (cont.) Cost benefit does not determine the ultimate choice: The Will determines choice, and p 1 /p 2 determines the will, simultaneously –Prices have moral content (as subset of empathic content) –Moral dimension has (relative) price content “Do moral sentiments differ from ordinary tastes (Khalil, 1997)?” YES!

23. Implications for Rural Social Sciences... Find ways for all the social sciences to sit at the table Need to do the moral inquiry, the studies of rural values Rural residents do not live by bread (material) alone; nor do they live by the symbolic, alone. Metaeconomics: Unified Theory of Rural Social Sciences? Consilience looks feasible Rural Studies looks different from this unified perspective