Wall Street Journal runs an interesting article about a recent research published in the journal Science (pay-walled).
Critics of market economies say that they make participants indifferent to costs imposed on third parties (foreign workers, polluted communities, endangered animals, etc.) in other words, that markets degrade morals. In what may have been a first, the German economists Armin Falk of the University of Bonn and Nora Szech of the University of Bamberg wanted to test this idea empirically.
They gave volunteers €10 ($13.90) and told them that as standard lab protocol, a young, healthy mouse would be killed unless the volunteers bought it for €10 in which case it would live out its life, well cared-for. Did they want to take the money or save the mouse? Of the subjects, 46% wanted to kill the mouse for the money. This constituted the baseline for individual decision-making.
Now for a "bilateral market" involving pairs of subjects. If each pair could agree on a way to split €20, the mouse would die, and the pair would get the money; otherwise, the mouse lived. Thus the mouse became a third party to the pair's dealings. In this case, 72% of subjects would kill the mouse.
However, a core of about 20% of individuals will never take money over the mouse, regardless of financial incentive.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 12 2014, @11:47AM
Interesting experiment. I'm left wondering... how many lab mice did the researchers have to find life-long homes for as a result of the promises made? Do they take the home and keep them as pets, or do they pay the lab to pamper them indefinitely?
Or was the whole mouse-killing / mouse-saving part of the experiment a lie? Those people who gave up the money might be pissed off that they didn't get to save any mice after all.
(Score: 1) by Oligonicella on Monday May 12 2014, @02:21PM
Add to that, people aren't as tabula rasa as these experiments presume. They probably knew it was all a lie to begin with. Biggest problem in social studies experiments, that tabula rasa presumption.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday May 12 2014, @05:47PM
Yes, they need to repeat the experiment with cats, and they MUST follow through with the consequences.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Monday May 12 2014, @04:48PM
I think it was a very poor experiment. Mice? Who gives a damn about a mouse? Mice are filthy vermin, you might as well make it a cockroach. There's absolutely nothing immoral about killing mice. This doesn't test morality at all.
So I can get ten Euros for killing a mouse or feed it and clean its cage for the rest of its life? That's a no-brainer, of course I'll take the money.
Do the experiment with puppies and you'll see a different outcome. In that case I'd take the dog and sell it.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @05:12PM
> So I can get ten Euros for killing a mouse or feed it and clean its cage for the rest of its life?
Why do you think there was an obligation to care for the mouse beyond giving up the E10 (that was gifted to to the participant at the start of the study)?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 13 2014, @03:01AM
And I wondered... did they account for the people who simply hate mice?
After you've had a few irreplaceable books chewed and pissed on by mice, you too may develop an urge to make mice die horribly. My question wouldn't be "what happens to the mouse," but rather, "How many times can I get paid to kill mice??"
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Monday May 12 2014, @11:51AM
How many of those volunteers are dumb enough to really believe that 10 Euros would be enough to pay for the costs of caring for a mouse for the rest of its life?
How about they ask volunteers to pay 10 Euros so the researcher's uncle can live out his life, well cared-for? Guess how many will pay?
More like, 46% were smart enough to call their bluff knowing that the researchers will NOT really kill a mouse simply because they took the money.
(Score: 1) by khakipuce on Monday May 12 2014, @12:11PM
I agree, 46% seems high for the amount of money involved, hence I suspect they were not really bought into the experiment one way or another. Also 72% could not agree how to split the money - I guess the 46% persuaded 30% not to buy into, leaving the 20% who would not be swayed to be, well, not swayed
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khchung on Monday May 12 2014, @12:42PM
How true. I guess the 2nd experiment probably goes like:
Volunteer 1 : Let's save the mouse, it is the right thing to do!
Volunteer 2 : You are really dumb enough to believe that?! There is no way they will really kill a mouse because of our actions, that would violate tons of animal protection laws and research ethics!
Volunteer 1 : Um... I guess you are right. Let's take the money instead.
Well, those 28% that saved the mouse, probably when 2 dumb guys coming from the dumber 54% meet. Umm... 0.54 * 0.54 = 0.29, that's about right!
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Monday May 12 2014, @03:37PM
Really?
In Germany, 91% are non-vegetarian [wikipedia.org] - i.e. they are happy for animals to be killed on their behalf.
For me, 0.01 Euros would be enough. Otherwise the mice I have killed in my home would be entitled to call me a sentimentalist hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @03:55PM
> For me, 0.01 Euros would be enough. Otherwise the mice I have killed
> in my home would be entitled to call me a sentimentalist hypocrite.
I don't think that follows. A mouse in your home has a potential cost significantly higher than a euro penny. Spoiled food, disease, bites, damage due to nesting, urine, etc.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday May 12 2014, @12:19PM
That's not the important part of the experiment. What is important is that 24% more people were willing to let a mouse get killed if they were negotiating with another person. The implication, if I understand them correctly, means that when most people are busy negotiating with one person, they aren't capable of morally considering the consequences for somebody who isn't present.
So for example, if a farmer is negotiating a natural gas lease on his property, he's probably not thinking about the effects of his decision on his neighbors unless some other outside force requires him to do so.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday May 12 2014, @12:36PM
More like, when people are busy, they are less likely to play pretend with you, and won't bother to pretend to be nice to save an imaginary mouse.
It is a HUGE leap to go from there to assume it means anything in real world situations.
(Score: 1) by Oligonicella on Monday May 12 2014, @02:25PM
Since when is a mouse a "somebody" in the manner you're suggesting.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 12 2014, @03:21PM
I'll put it this way: A lot of people have roughly the same reaction to killing a mouse (who, in this case, is basically a pet) as they would to killing a dog. Yes, it's an animal, and we don't put people on trial for murder for putting down their dog, but there's a moral revulsion that affects the behavior of about half the population (according to the earlier control study).
That's significantly less than the people who have a moral revulsion towards killing people (about 95% of the population), but it's definitely not 0.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @01:05PM
> How many of those volunteers are dumb enough to really believe that 10 Euros
> would be enough to pay for the costs of caring for a mouse for the rest of its life?
You are assuming that they were also 'told' that the E10 was the full cost. It could easily have been a matching contribution or similar system where their contribution was necessary but not sufficient.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday May 12 2014, @02:24PM
And you would believe that? Here, I have a nice bridge for sale which you may be interested.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @02:47PM
You seem intent on projecting your own pathologies onto this study. I can't imagine why you are doing that, but at best you are simply arguing from ignorance.
Go read the study. The researchers did exactly what they promised - mice that were selected to live were kept alive in a healthy and enriching environment and allowed to live out the remainder of their natural lives.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday May 12 2014, @03:06PM
Yeah, great advice, when the study is behind a paywall. You can claim whatever and nobody would be wiser.
And the ones supposedly will be killed? Did they also kill them right before the volunteers to prove they were serious?
Consider this objectively. Would a sane person with common sense believe that someone doing scientific research would actually kill an animal for no reason other than because a random volunteer refuse to pay 10 Euros? I'd say half of them would not believe it is about right.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @03:12PM
> Yeah, great advice, when the study is behind a paywall. You can claim whatever and nobody would be wiser.
Here is how to read research papers that are behind paywalls. Pick a sentence from the abstract and google it. You'll find other copies of the study.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Monday May 12 2014, @05:22PM
Step 3: post said URL to SN
Step 4: Profit! (karma)
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @05:25PM
Teach a man to fish...
Besides, can't get more than 50 karma points.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 12 2014, @07:56PM
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Monday May 12 2014, @11:46PM
Alternate step 2: get someone else to look it up for you
Alternate Step 3: profit! (for readability and having the info TFS should have had so that everybody in the discussion can see it)
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @06:07PM
If they actually did what they claimed, to have sacrificed animals for no reason other than a human volunteer said "no," then the sponsoring institution should expect some calls from the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry. They might be able to argue that they didn't really do experiments on the mice, and aren't subject to institutional oversight in that sense, but the German Animal Welfare Act prohibits to use an animal for filming, exhibition, advertising or similar events causing the animal pain, suffering or harm.
I do do experiments involving animals. We absolutely take great care to respect the animals and to minimize their stress and discomfort. If there really is a group out there killing mice because some human volunteer wouldn't give the 10 Euros back, they're giving the rest of us a bad name. They deserve whatever visitation PETA has for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @06:30PM
>> Go read the study.
>
> If they actually did what they claimed, to have sacrificed animal
Jesus fucking christ, what part of "go read the study" do you fail to understand?
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday May 12 2014, @07:19PM
> Jesus fucking christ, what part of "go read the study" do you fail to understand?
The part where it's behind a paywall would be my guess.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @07:54PM
> The part where it's behind a paywall would be my guess.
More like convenient helplessness. He could have found the paper in less time than it took type all that self-congratulatory crap.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Monday May 12 2014, @03:23PM
Not only would I believe that, but I would believe that 10 Euros could be enough on its own to keep a mouse alive for years, if done at a laboratory where animals are routinely handled in bulk.
(Score: 2) by emg on Monday May 12 2014, @06:02PM
"More like, 46% were smart enough to call their bluff knowing that the researchers will NOT really kill a mouse simply because they took the money."
You don't know many researchers, do you? I wouldn't want to find myself in a dark alley with many of those I've met.
But the other problem is quite obvious: most people don't much like mice, and set traps and poison if they see one. It's not much more sensible than asking people if they'd pay $10 to save a cockroach.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday May 12 2014, @11:55AM
"German economists"
Maybe its a German thing but I've spent more than $20 to kill mice before, so I'd be thrilled to have both a dead mouse AND some dough rather than the more stereotypical EITHER-OR.
Rather than a food ruining plague spreading feces dropping house infesting pestilence, they should have tried a fluffy kitten, that might have actually worked.
Fing mice, can't believe it. Gotta be a "German thing".
Next time they should try cockroaches, bedbugs, or maybe ebola viruses (Note to German economists: I'm kidding here, stick with the kitten idea...)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 12 2014, @12:18PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 12 2014, @12:45PM
"won't *someone* think of the cheese??"
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @12:39PM
In other words, you're one of the 46% who would have decided to get the mouse killed anyway. But those are as uninteresting as the 28% who would always pay for the mouse to live.
The interesting part is those 26% who would normally pay for the mouse to live, but not in a market situation. That is, almost half of those people willing to pay for the mouse to live will not do so in a market situation.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 12 2014, @02:12PM
That is an interesting point and I believe relates to interpersonal relations and group dynamics more than inherent component of markets.
So I don't particularly like rodents, but I know there are people who keep them as pets. Therefore alone if my decision is kept secret I'd zap it, if the experimental assistant goes on about how cuddly and cute they are or how much they hate killing animals I might be guilt tripped into letting it live, but if its an open market, much as I don't are who sees me buy mouse traps at the store, I wouldn't care if everyone knew I don't like mice.
So if had to sit there with someone while we watched a mouse trap kill a mouse I might be guilt tripped into letting it live. But I simply don't care who sees me at home depot buying mouse traps. Its not really a story about marketplaces so much as a story about group dynamics.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 12 2014, @07:59PM
So what do you think is a market place, if not a special case of group dynamics?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday May 12 2014, @05:31PM
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @04:35PM
OK, so every time you masturbate God kills a kitten.
But God is unconditionally good, isn't he? Therefore anything God does must be unconditionally good. So if God kills a kitten, then it is because it is good if God kills that kitten. But if by killing that kitten, God does something good, then making God kill that kitten is making God doing something good. But anything which makes God do something good must be good in itself, right? Therefore we have proof: Masturbation is good. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @12:08PM
The second test adds the moral dilemma that if you decide a mouse's life is worth more than money you not simply give up your share, but also deny the person you're teamed up with his/her share.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 12 2014, @12:13PM
Possibly, but I'd also be interesed to know whether morals degrade markets.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @01:55PM
>> Do Markets Degrade Morals?
> Possibly, but I'd also be interesed to know whether morals degrade markets.
You will need to start by defining what a degraded market is. It doesn't sound like a difficult task, or at least, it's one that's simpler than defining a degraded moral.
The answer, of course, will depend on the definition you chose.
(Score: 1) by Oligonicella on Monday May 12 2014, @02:31PM
Hell, the experiment didn't do a good job at defining what degraded morals are. They're mice, not people. We kill them all the time.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 12 2014, @08:05PM
So you think the experiment should have been done using people instead of mice? I guess for that it would have had to be performed about 70 years earlier ... ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday May 12 2014, @12:42PM
A mildly interesting study, serving as a formal proof of what we all know from both history and our own observation: humans, by and large, with few and all-too-rare exceptions, are greedy selfish bastards.
For business people, the mouse poses no moral dilemma. MBA types excel at rationalizing any secondary consequences of their behavior behind the ostensible "greater good" of their self-assigned fiduciary obligation.
Gordon Gekko, the One True Prophet of Wall Street.
(Score: 1) by Oligonicella on Monday May 12 2014, @02:35PM
There was an experiment done when I was getting my degree. The ethics committee approved it. The front feet of newborn mice were cut off. The idea was to see if having no tactile feedback from the feet would inhibit scratching with the forepaws.
Don't talk to me about moral dilemmas concerning business people vs experimenters.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday May 12 2014, @01:47PM
People are generally greedy, self-serving and care more about present gains than future consequences.
Now there is some experimental proof...to which I for one say DUH!
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Monday May 12 2014, @02:07PM
Another explanation for this outcome is that people were more willing to admit "yes, I want the money more than I care about the little rodent" to the guy in the lab coat when they weren't alone.
Congratulations, you have discovered that people alter behavior based on social context! Here, have a science badge of participation.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 12 2014, @02:10PM
If you want to get rid of that "core" of 20% who would not harm the mouse for money, simply offer more money until the mouse dies. It will happen. They're not saints, they just value life (even rodent life) a little more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @04:29PM
Speak for yourself. When presented with the choice of 10 quid or a live mouse my brain interprets it as 'What is more important to you, money or life?'. I have what I need, therefore money has little meaning on comparison to everything another creature has. If it was a creature that is on my normal menu, the interpretation would change to 'Money or food?' which is quite different.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 12 2014, @05:43PM
OK, how about 1 million pounds? 10 million? 100 million? At one point you are going to say "it's only a damned mouse". People are wired that way. For 10 quid I wouldn't kill a mouse either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @07:56PM
This would be an interesting study to perform. And probably embarrassingly cheap as well...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 12 2014, @08:09PM
Well, at some point any reasonable person would think "they're not serious; there's no way they'll give me that much money for it."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday May 12 2014, @09:19PM
Suitcase of money then "But I assure you, something gets lost in the translation."
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday May 13 2014, @01:34AM
I think the real issue is that capitalism and markets reward immoral and amoral behavior. But then the same can be said about the more extreme forms of socialism such as communism. But then you will see plenty of this reward in more moderate socialist societies such as in France, Germany, and Sweden.
So, the moral of the story? Moral behavior is a personal decision. A person has to do what he can to live with himself. That's what makes sociopaths very dangerous people.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.