ZICw2w

anking really was not in accordance with a subsequently improved understandingof the ultimate end. Like scientific theories, desirable endsshould also be subjected to empirical testing and falsification.Neoclassical economists reduce value to the level of individual tastes orpreferences, about which it is senseless to argue. But this apparent tolerancehas some nasty consequences. Our point is that we must have a dogmaticbelief in objective value, an objective hierarchy of ends ordered withreference to some concept of the ultimate end, however dimly we mayperceive the latter. This sounds rather absolutist and intolerant to moderndevotees of pluralism, but a little reflection will show that it is the verybasis for tolerance. If A and B disagree regarding the hierarchy of values,and they believe that objective value does not exist, then there is nothingfor either of them to appeal to in an effort to persuade the other. It is simplyA’s subjective values versus B’s. B can vigorously assert her preferencesand try to intimidate A into going along, but A will soon get wise to that.They are left to resort to physical combat or deception or manipulation,with no possibility of truly reasoning together in search of a clearer sharedvision of objective value because, by assumption, the latter does not exist.Each knows his own subjective preferences better than the other, so no“values clarification” is needed. If the source of value is in one’s own subjectivepreferences, then one does not really care about the other’s preferences,except as they may serve as means to satisfying one’s own. Any talkof tolerance becomes a sham, a mere strategy of manipulation, with noreal openness to persuasion. 15Of course, we must also be wary of dogmatic belief in a too explicitlydefined ultimate end, such as those offered by many fundamentalist religions.16 In this case, again, there is no possibility of truly reasoning togetherto clarify a shared perception, because any questioning of revealedtruth is heresy.Chapter 3 Ends, Means, and Policy • 43■ The Presuppositions of PolicyEcological economics is committed to policy relevance. It is not just a logicalgame for autistic academicians. Because of our commitment to policy,we must ask: What are the necessary presuppositions for policy to makesense, to be worth discussing? We see two.First, we must believe that there are real alternatives to choose from. Ifthere are no alternatives, if everything is determined, then it hardly makes15 For a fuller exposition of this argument, see C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, New York:Macmillan, 1947.16 Many economists seem to view “efficiency” or growth as the ultimate end and border on religiosityin their convictions. See Robert Nelson, Economics as Religion, University Park: PennsylvaniaState University Press, 2002.