Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Dealing with Effects
I read in a recent article, All Washed UP of the Weekly Standard, that, surprising to economists, people wash rental cars more often than they wash their own based on the average use. For example, when I get a rental car, it's already been washed. If I keep it for 4 days and wash it before returning it, then that means that I let it go about 4 days before it needs a wash. I would never wash my own car every four days. The article points out that rental cars are commonly used as an example in economics classes across the country to show the effects of ownership. You would expect owners to take better care of their vehicles than they would a rental car. This is true. If renting a car and the check engine light comes on, you're not going to take it to the shop or get the oil changed or anything like that. You might take it back to the rental agency, but you won't do it or pay for it. Then the article brings out something interesting. If it really is ownership that determines whether we take care of our things or not, then why do we wash rental cars and why do leasers take just good care of their vehicles as if they owned them? The rental washing might be explained by your embarrassment at taking back a dirty vehicle or the innate desire we have to return things the way we found them or something like that, something social. But leasing? People treat leases like temporary ownership. Why? Because they have to deal with the effects of their decisions. If they don't change the oil in their lease vehicle, they may deal with effects while still having the vehicle in their possession. If you have to deal with the effects of any decision, you will treat it with temporary ownership responsibilities rather than rental responsibilities. Can we easily get all three of these confused? Let's break it down:
1. Rental - No ownership responsibility. You take it, use it within the agreed upon guidelines, but take no vested interest in maintaining the original value of what was rented.
2. Lease - Temporary ownership responsibility. You take it, use it within the agreed upon guidelines, taking some interest in maintaining the value of what was leased, inasmuch as it might effect you during the lease period.
3. Ownership - Full responsibility. You take it and do what you will with it. You have complete interest in maintaining the value and no one else has the same interest that you have.
Yes, people do get these confused all the time.
Bodies - We treat our own as if we owned it, but really, it's leased. Some might disagree with this because we should take more concern than for just the effects during our lease period. But when we consider we have not payed anything for this lease, any better care we take of it is to show gratitude for the gift of the lease. That would be above and beyond the lease expectations (except that we're expected to show gratitude). When treated as a lease, it is recognized that God is the owner. They are not our own. The confusion comes in when we start to believe that we own our own bodies. This can be confused in two different ways. I might inappropriately treat my body because I believe that I have full ownership and thus I am the only one concerned with maintaining it's value, which value is what I decide. I can do with it what I will. If I hold this idea, then when I might believe that others can use their bodies as they will, which may even include renting, the equivalent of pornography and other degrading and inappropriate activity. If they are the owners, they have the right to rent. The problem is obviously that this belief is based on the false belief that God does not own the body. When it comes down to it, renting from someone who does not own the rented material is theft. You can't rent out a leased item, at least not in this agreement. It's like the thief who says "I was just borrowing it." Without permission from the actual owner, you can't borrow it. It's not borrowing or even renting. God has told under what circumstances He will give His permission. There is an actual lease agreement. We may not remember signing it, but we did. There are things we agreed to use this leased material for and what we agreed we would not do with it.
Other things that are often confused in this arena include time and agency. I'm sure there are more, I just don't have time to think about them right now. So, how do we deal with a world that doesn't recognize the proper owner? How do you reason with someone who is so fundamentally of course that the entire foundation is wrong. Is this one of those situations where the gospel is the only answer? Can non-Christians believe that pornography is morally wrong for reasons other than social impact? Is there something else that I'm missing?
1. Rental - No ownership responsibility. You take it, use it within the agreed upon guidelines, but take no vested interest in maintaining the original value of what was rented.
2. Lease - Temporary ownership responsibility. You take it, use it within the agreed upon guidelines, taking some interest in maintaining the value of what was leased, inasmuch as it might effect you during the lease period.
3. Ownership - Full responsibility. You take it and do what you will with it. You have complete interest in maintaining the value and no one else has the same interest that you have.
Yes, people do get these confused all the time.
Bodies - We treat our own as if we owned it, but really, it's leased. Some might disagree with this because we should take more concern than for just the effects during our lease period. But when we consider we have not payed anything for this lease, any better care we take of it is to show gratitude for the gift of the lease. That would be above and beyond the lease expectations (except that we're expected to show gratitude). When treated as a lease, it is recognized that God is the owner. They are not our own. The confusion comes in when we start to believe that we own our own bodies. This can be confused in two different ways. I might inappropriately treat my body because I believe that I have full ownership and thus I am the only one concerned with maintaining it's value, which value is what I decide. I can do with it what I will. If I hold this idea, then when I might believe that others can use their bodies as they will, which may even include renting, the equivalent of pornography and other degrading and inappropriate activity. If they are the owners, they have the right to rent. The problem is obviously that this belief is based on the false belief that God does not own the body. When it comes down to it, renting from someone who does not own the rented material is theft. You can't rent out a leased item, at least not in this agreement. It's like the thief who says "I was just borrowing it." Without permission from the actual owner, you can't borrow it. It's not borrowing or even renting. God has told under what circumstances He will give His permission. There is an actual lease agreement. We may not remember signing it, but we did. There are things we agreed to use this leased material for and what we agreed we would not do with it.
Other things that are often confused in this arena include time and agency. I'm sure there are more, I just don't have time to think about them right now. So, how do we deal with a world that doesn't recognize the proper owner? How do you reason with someone who is so fundamentally of course that the entire foundation is wrong. Is this one of those situations where the gospel is the only answer? Can non-Christians believe that pornography is morally wrong for reasons other than social impact? Is there something else that I'm missing?
Powered by ScribeFire.
