Those who distinguish between „human costs“ and „economic costs“ are either making an ideological point or do not understand what economic theory calls costs. To quote just one example: financial times As if it were a given, the columnist cited the „economic, military and human costs“ of further confrontation with Iran's rulers („Israel has no good options against IranApril 16, 2024).
In economic theory, a cost is the sacrifice of something scarce (if only in one's time) in order to pursue a desired outcome or avoid an undesired outcome. (Note that in both cases, the cost is an opportunity cost. Avoiding an undesired outcome implies a more desirable alternative. ) Desirable and undesirable outcomes concern only the human individual and the individual's mind. will be evaluated within. Economic theory is the result of centuries of scientific effort by some of humanity's greatest minds to understand costs, benefits, and values in a logically consistent way to understand what is going on in society. .
The ideological reason for distinguishing between “human costs” and “economic costs” may be virtue signaling. That's the same as saying, „Look, I care about the human cost, but my adversary only cares about the cost of Sirius, which is nine light years away from the human.“ Or, „This is my badge of honor for membership in the Bienpensant Society.“
Martians landing on Earth might find it necessary to distinguish „human costs“ (as if there were anything other than costs to humans) from animal costs. To lighten the mood, consider the costs bears incur for drinking beer. (See featured image in this post.)
Returning to humans, there is no epistemological objection to classifying cats as dogs and dogs as cats, as long as everyone understands who is referring to which animal. There is a major epistemological objection to calling „human costs“ only those costs that do not affect shunned or disliked individuals, such as social outcasts, bad capitalists, or individuals whose pension funds are invested in capitalist enterprises. There isn't. However, such distinctions are at best moral, and at worst morally arbitrary, and are essential to understanding how society (relationships between individuals) works. Not helpful. The distinction between human and economic costs reflects subliminal advertising of a highly questionable ideology.
One argument against my argument is that „economic costs and human costs“ are just standard phrases that everyone understands. But my point is precisely that „everyone“ incorrectly understands this as implying that economic costs are not all human costs. And there are ways that economically savvy newspapers can tweak standard language without sacrificing its rhetorical benefits. For example, you can say „economic costs, including the cost of life and limb“ or „economic costs, including of course all kinds of human costs.“inside financial times As quoted at the beginning of this post, „military“ is redundant except in constructs such as „economic costs, including military expenditures and the cost of life and limb.“ What worries me is that most of the writers on this site financial timesbelieves that, like other media, there are two types of costs. The cost to bad or unpopular people and the human cost.
*******************************************
The featured image in this post, a collaboration between the humble blogger and DALL-E, shows a bear paying for a beer, suggesting there are more costs than human costs . That's news for the cashier girl.