A lot of arguments, whether in social policy or politics, emphasise the economic rational for making a change. Think of the economic impact of divorce or flexible working. But is the economic argument always the most effective?
There are very good reasons to encourage smoking on economic grounds. Firstly the extra revenues from taxes on cigarettes and smoking producers could cover the costs of treating smokers. Secondly many smokers will die before reaching retirement therefore reducing the burden on the nation’s pension problems because the government can transfer the now deceased pension’s to those who have made it to retirement.
Both arguments in the above paragraph seem to make economic sense – they free up more money thereby diverting problems or meaning something else can have more money spent on it. But both neglect the moral arguments - such as the impact on relatives and loved ones or the difficulties one has valuing health or well being.
Whilst the economic argument sometimes does have its uses it can be overblown too. Sometimes morality is more important than good business practice. To what extent though is another matter.
I have added the debating society to a open feed on the EEO blog http://edwardbauereeo.blogspot.com
The idea is create a online platform so students can start setting the agenda of guild politics if don’t want to be on it let me know.