The notion of fair and equal treatment also can run up against the value of trade and efficiency. Consider some of the programs to make mass transit accessible to disabled passengers. In New York City, it has long been the case that buses are capable of accepting passengers in wheelchairs. In essence, the bus “kneels down” until the wheelchair can board and then the bus elevates again.

Equipping buses in this fashion was very costly. A study commissioned by Ed Koch, the mayor of New York City at the time of bus conversion, estimated that it would have been cheaper for each wheelchair user or severely handicapped person to take a taxi than refit all buses. Not only would it have cost less, but it would have been more convenient, as well. But would that have been the right thing to do? On one side of the equation stands the virtue of efficiency. Taxpayers would have saved money and disabled people, if they took taxis, would have had easier and more luxurious transport options. But defenders of the bus investments claimed that the principle of “equal treatment” was more important than buying each disabled person free taxi trips for life. Even if the taxpayers and disabled people both agreed that taxis were preferable, the critics were saying that more is involved in mass transit than getting a person from place A to place B. Mass transit was, in part, about the sacred value of equal treatment and not making people feel different or disadvantaged.

Economics does not make distinctions between the sacred and the profane, but these issues underlie many arguments about public policy. When thinking about trade-offs, we need to be aware of the resulting tensions and subtleties, many of which are ethical in nature.