The Seventh Moral Dimension

In the previous essay, we looked at Moral Foundations Theory, which contains five well-researched moral dimensions, and a sixth (liberty/oppression) that has some support. In this essay I propose that a seventh moral dimension, efficiency/waste, exists. 

The moral sense of efficiency is concerned with making good use of and conservation of resources, usually personal resources, or those of the kin group. Its opposite is waste, the profligate or uncaring expenditure of resources. It differs from care/harm in that care/harm generally applies to empathy and kindness to people, and neurologically involves the parts of the brain that concerns living things, while efficiency/waste applies to non-living useful things, and likely involves parts of the brain that are involved with understanding inanimate objects. 

Efficiency/waste is concerned with resources that are necessary to survival, especially food, water, and personal effects. It participates in mental accounting related to the effort needed in acquiring food and resources necessary for survival. Since it involves extra-body objects that are important to survival, having this moral sense reduces risk of shortages in food and water supply, and has a direct impact on evolutionary success.

Aspects of this moral sense are likely highly related to the endowment effect of behavioral economics. It likely also participates in supporting the conception of property rights. In psychology, it could be  intertwined with the parts of mind involved with calculating the relationship of the body to nearby objects. It may also interact with Prospect Theory, in which the pain of a loss is disproportionately felt compared to the pleasure of a gain of equal magnitude.

Examples and Illustrations

People with well-developed sense of efficiency/waste will be more careful with usage of all resources, especially those that they personally own. They will tend to perform more planning of expenditures and uses, and will be motivated to make use of planning tools to allocate usage over time. They are concerned with rates of income and expenditure, rates of return on investments, and are fairly interested in making investments that generate additional resources well beyond their investment.

A person with an over-developed sense of efficiency/waste may be a miser, a hoarder, or have trouble making investments. They may maintain inventories that are too large relative to their actual usage. In the case of hoarding, they may be unable to part with even worthless items, since further use could be made of them "if only the opportunity favored it."

A person with an under-developed efficiency sense will tend to be spendthrift, even to the point of using the resources of others when theirs run out. They find it more difficult to delay gratification, and would fail the "marshmallow test." A "waster" is able to readily part with anything, even if their own personal inventory of food and other resources is low. They may tend to look at resources owned by others as their personal backup, and rationalize their failure to plan by believing that planning is unnecessary when there are  resources owned by others nearby.

The phrase "there is no use crying over spilled milk" is rationally unnecessary, since once milk is spilled, it is gone and can't be retrieved. That such a saying exists indicates that people regret the loss more deeply, even though it is not directly painful.

Proposed Experiments to Test Efficiency/Waste

The Ultimatum Game is played, in which a proposer suggests a division of $10, and the responder has to decide whether to accept, or cancel the entire split. For those cases where the responder declines, one of two events then happen. In option 1, then experimenter then shows both players that the $10, in cash, has been shredded into particles that cannot be recovered, not even at the U.S Treasury and the participants are surveyed to find out their sentiments about the events of the experiment. In option 2, the experiment shows the players that the $10 will be recycled for future experiments, and again the participants are surveyed. The surveys ask the participants feel about the money, not about the other participant.

The experiment is repeated with other items that are to be divided. These could include bottled water, jars of food, or candy. Again, for those situations where the responder declines the offer, the items are visibly destroyed or ruined in front of the participants.

The game is also repeated, with groups being told before the start that they are dividing items, and that if no agreement is lost, the items will be destroyed. The control group is not told this information.

Use of Efficiency/Waste in Understanding of Society

If efficiency/waste is a valid moral dimension, then it would be worthwhile to find out if there are particular distributions of it in defined segments of the population. Disparities might arise due to family upbringing, social status, education level, income, financial circumstances, or acculturation.

Use of Efficiency/Waste in Investing

If this moral dimension exists, it would be worthwhile knowing the approximate level of efficiency/waste moral sense that the executives of a company possess. This might be especially important to know for the COO, who generally would have the most control over the efficiency of company investments. 

I would guess that among American CEOs, Warren Buffett would be among those with the highest sense of efficiency/waste. Others I would also rate high on this attribute are Jeff Bezos, and many of the executives that Peter Lynch mentioned in his book One Up on Wall Street.