Saturday, October 03, 2015

A Moral Puzzle

I was discussing idea-ism with someone the other day when I came up with what turns out to be a very interesting moral dilemma.  Unlike the classic trolley problems, this is actually a somewhat realistic scenario, and one on which reasonable people really do seem to disagree.  Here it is:
John is a wealthy businessman whose heart is failing. If he doesn’t receive a transplant he will die. John has a large family, and his business has many employees. If he dies, they will suffer various degrees of emotional and economic pain. 
John travels to Malawi, the world’s poorest country, where the average income is about $250 per year. He finds a 20-year-old man (let’s call him Achmed) whose tissue type matches John’s, and offers him $15,000 in exchange for his heart (which will, of course, result in Achmed's death). $15,000 is pocket change to John, but it is an unthinkably large amount of money to Achmed. Life expectancy in Malawi is about 50 years, so this is twice what Achmed can reasonably expect to earn in the rest of his life. It will substantially improve the standard of living for his family, to say nothing of the fact that with one less mouth to feed (since Achmed will be gone) the money will go even further. Achmed’s brother is willing to adopt Achmed’s children, so they will not be orphans. The money will substantially improve Achmed’s family’s standard of living. It will allow Achmed’s children to attend school and give them a shot at lifting themselves out of poverty. And Achmed is not well-loved by his family. He’s a bit of a neer-do-well. What little money he currently earns he mostly spends on alcohol, and when he gets drunk he becomes abusive. He will not be missed. And Achmed knows all this, and so his life is not particularly happy, at least not when he’s sober. So everyone will be happier if Achmed accepts the offer, possibly even including Achmed, even though he doesn’t really want to die (or at least he thinks he doesn’t).
The question: is it moral for John to make Achmed this offer?  Would it be moral for Achmed to accept it?  Why?

I am actively soliciting people's opinions on this.  Please weigh in in the comments.

40 comments:

Luke said...

I'm highly tempted to say that treating people as a means to an end is always and forever wrong. The only possible exception to this is that to the extent that a person has treated others as a means to an end, it is ok to respond in kind. To avoid Romeo and Juliet style situations from evolving into existence, the error in even slightly overestimating one's response is 'wrong'. That is, escalation is wrong, and you don't get to make excuses (e.g. ignorance) if you ended up escalating.

As far as I can tell, the attempt to erect some bulwark against doing more than some amount of using people as a means to an end will always and forever get eroded away, until you get an egregious-enough situation such that people revolt (whether successfully or not). This will be done tiny bit by tiny bit, like how rain and wind flatten mountain ranges. At any given point, the erosion will be plausibly deniable.

I will also note that the only reason that the scenario can exist is an incredible wealth disparity. You know that book I had you read a bit of, Bent Flyvbjerg's Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice? Well, wealth disparities are power disparities and they allow rationalizing away evil as good, necessary, inevitable, etc. Even to my ears your argument is tempting, but I think it would be less tempting if it were a much larger sum of money (still 2x projected life earnings), offered to an American family in poverty.

Where this is really insidious is that it attributes the neer-do-well status entirely to Achmed, in the sense that instead of working on altering the contributing factors to that status (for the surely do not all originate within Achmed), the problem is simply 'disappeared' by his 'self-sacrifice'. I mean, if he is gone, and we find ways to marginalize or eliminate other neer-do-wells as well, the problem goes away—right? I suggest a read of William Ryan's Blaming the Victim to see the results of this attitude, this way of [mis]treating other humans.

Don Geddis said...

I like your attempt, but I don't think you've gone all the way to a realistic scenario. (I know you say, "somewhat".) People's intuitions are going to be confused, because this isn't something that could realistically happen. So they look for ways to reject it.

I actually would allow voluntary offers. So, yes, it is moral for John to make the offer, and would be moral for Achmed to accept it. (It's actually not hugely different from volunteering to serve in the military during war, to defend your family with the sacrifice of your own life.)

In reality, Achmed (in 99.99...% of cases) would NOT choose to accept the offer. The logic of lifetime earnings doesn't outweigh the immediate loss of his own life. Moreover, even if Achmed and John agreed, it would be close to impossible to find a competent heart surgeon to go through with the operation. It would be illegal for the doctor in almost any jurisdiction. (He would be convicted of murder for removing the heart of the the living "donor" Achmed.)

As to whether wealth disparity causes immoral power relationships ... I think that IS starting to get at something, where "reasonable people" seem to disagree about actual realistic scenarios. Just think about "exploitation" and "child labor" and "sweatshops in 3rd world countries". Do you think such things should be outlawed? (Many privileged 1st world people do.) It's interesting that a large fraction of professional economists disagree, and think that moral intuitions in this case are misleading, and that the lives of poor people around the globe are NOT made better off, by reducing their options.

I think this is a better moral example: Where Sweatshops Are a Dream. Here's the controversial thesis: "The central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough."

Luke said...

Don, are you aware of suicide bombers who are told that if they go through with it, their [currently impoverished] family will be taken care of?

I have also heard rumors that the kind of organ transplant Ron describes happens in China, possibly in the context of China's execution vans. Ahh, the Wikipedia article notes this concern.

Don Geddis said...

Luke: I did mention the military soldier example in my original comment. Suicide bomber isn't an especially different case. (Particularly if you use an example like Japanese kamikaze pilots, instead of modern middle east terrorists.)

Organ transplant, of people who are going to be killed "anyway", is not at all the same (in the sense of have similar moral intuitions) as allowing someone to voluntarily sell their organs for money. Most especially, when the individual can't survive the procedure. The China vans are for convicted criminals, not for ordinary poor people making a sale.

P.S. I don't buy the thesis in Blaming the Victim. Lack of opportunity, lack of resources, or discrimination, doesn't come close to fully explaining group outcomes of US minorities. There's no question that "culture" is also a huge factor. (And there are surely other factors too.) Whether you call this "blame" is a matter of semantics; in terms of physics, there really isn't "free will" (in the sense of blame and justice). We're just moist robots acting according to genetics + environment. Nothing that happens is really "our fault". At the same time, more capable individuals, with better character, could indeed overcome the obstacles even from the same situation that many failed minority groups find themselves in. (E.g. look at successful minorities, like Asians or recent immigrants.)

Luke said...

@Don:

> Don: I actually would allow voluntary offers. So, yes, it is moral for John to make the offer, and would be moral for Achmed to accept it. (It's actually not hugely different from volunteering to serve in the military during war, to defend your family with the sacrifice of your own life.)
>
> In reality, Achmed (in 99.99...% of cases) would NOT choose to accept the offer. The logic of lifetime earnings doesn't outweigh the immediate loss of his own life.

> Luke: Don, are you aware of suicide bombers who are told that if they go through with it, their [currently impoverished] family will be taken care of?

> Don: I did mention the military soldier example in my original comment. Suicide bomber isn't an especially different case.

I guess I don't see the difference between Achmed voluntarily giving up his heart and the suicide bomber, in terms of what good it would do for their families. The thing that Achmed doesn't get is a sacred reward, which one does get for (i) jihad; (ii) defending one's country.

> Organ transplant, of people who are going to be killed "anyway", is not at all the same (in the sense of have similar moral intuitions) as allowing someone to voluntarily sell their organs for money. Most especially, when the individual can't survive the procedure. The China vans are for convicted criminals, not for ordinary poor people making a sale.

Do you think China's extensive human rights abuses could not extend to this realm?

> P.S. I don't buy the thesis in Blaming the Victim.

The thesis does not need to cover all situations. But when the child-ingestion of lead paint is blamed on the poor renters of apartments instead of the landlords, that seems pretty straightforward. As to cultural matters, e.g. African American vs. Chinese, I would need to look to see whether the Chinese were beaten into submission for centuries before being freed. I have to believe that such a history does not leave a culture quickly. As to your denial of free will, I suggest a discussion about whether causation is an ontological thing, at some time in the future.

Don Geddis said...

Luke: "I don't see the difference ... in terms of what good it would do for their families."

Yes, of course. Agreed.

"The thing that Achmed doesn't get is a sacred reward"

Exactly. That's the whole point. That mere money isn't a sufficient incentive (for most normal humans) to agree to the deal. So if it's merely a voluntary offer, hardly anyone will accept it. You need the mental structure of a "sacrifice for a larger cause" in order to get individuals to voluntarily agree to the deal, and merely offering "money for your family" probably isn't enough.

So the two are very different, in terms of what people will actually agree to. However, I was suggesting that the general concept where they are similar, that of sacrificing your life in order to make your family better, suggests that it shouldn't be "immoral" to make the offer (even if you will find few voluntary sellers).

"Do you think China's extensive human rights abuses could not extend to this realm?"

I'm more sympathetic to China's choices (given the situation they're in, the different problems they need to solve), than many Americans. "Extensive human rights abuses" is often code for "different than America", or "as an individual, I would wish to live in my culture, not theirs". And it's sometimes a sloppy way to say "they are inherently evil, and therefore capable of any other evil I can imagine".

No, I don't believe any of that. I don't believe that China's execution vans have anything to do with voluntarily selling organs for money.

"I have to believe that such a history does not leave a culture quickly."

Are you aware that you just proved my point? My whole claim was that a significant part of the underperformance of some US minorities, was not due to lack or resources, or discrimination, but instead due to local cultural influences. And here you are, agreeing that they could potentially be living in a toxic culture. The fact that the toxic culture "isn't their fault", isn't really relevant.

I suspect you're being misled by the concept of "fault". Try to look at it as an outside observer, like an alien sociologist. What is true about the current situation? What interventions are possible? Which actions have what consequences? "Fault" isn't a relevant concept to this discussion.

Ron said...

@Luke:

> I will also note that the only reason that the scenario can exist is an incredible wealth disparity.

No, that's not true. I deliberately introduced the wealth disparity in order to make that an element of the scenario. And I deliberately made the disparity large enough that the amount was trivial to John but significant to Achmed. But it's not necessary. I could have concocted a scenario where John was also a Malawian, but he was so beloved that he was able to raise the money through a large number of small contributions. Or there was overwhelming social pressure on Achmed to sacrifice himself for John's sake.

FYI, one of the responses I've received when asking people about this face to face is that in order to make it moral, the amount that John pays has to be increased to the point where John feels some financial pain.

@Don:

> I don't think you've gone all the way to a realistic scenario.

Sure, but I think mine is a heck of a lot more realistic than the classic trolley problems. Like the trolley problem, mine can be morphed into many variations that change the dynamic in interesting ways. I'm planning to write about those in a followup post, but I didn't want to prejudice people's responses by showing that hand just yet.

I've found that raising truly realistic trolley problems makes people *very* queasy (cf. your sweatshop example).

> In reality, Achmed (in 99.99...% of cases) would NOT choose to accept the offer.

Probably true, but there are many people like Achmed, and John only needs one.

> It would be illegal for the doctor in almost any jurisdiction.

Many things are illegal that are not (IMHO) immoral. And there are ways to tweak the scenario to get the doctor off the hook. The contract could stipulate that Achmed has to commit suicide before the operation, for example.

@Luke:

> The thing that Achmed doesn't get is a sacred reward, which one does get for (i) jihad; (ii) defending one's country.

Again, a minor tweak to the scenario can introduce this element: Achmed's family encourages him to take the offer because it would be the one good thing he's ever done for them.

Luke said...

@Don:

> Luke: The thing that Achmed doesn't get is a sacred reward ...

> Don: Exactly. That's the whole point. That mere money isn't a sufficient incentive (for most normal humans)... [y]ou need the mental structure of a "sacrifice for a larger cause" ...

Wait a second, 'sacred reward' seems possibly different from 'larger cause'. In Achmed's case, there is a 'larger cause': the well-being of his family. But you seem to be saying this is not enough. So perhaps you could further outline what a 'larger cause' has to be, and why you think that?

> I'm more sympathetic to China's choices (given the situation they're in, the different problems they need to solve), than many Americans.

Well, I know a missionary on the ground working with Uighurs, and the People's Republic has slaughtered them at times. If you want to say that China is just much further back on the "moral road of progress", I might be amenable to that. It would take some convincing.

> "Extensive human rights abuses" is often code for "different than America", or "as an individual, I would wish to live in my culture, not theirs".

And yet, you said "it would be close to impossible to find a competent heart surgeon to go through with the operation"; that presumes that China's culture is sufficiently close to ours on this measure. Is it?

> Are you aware that you just proved my point? My whole claim was that a significant part of the underperformance of some US minorities, was not due to lack or resources, or discrimination, but instead due to local cultural influences.

It would have been due to past, *profound* discrimination. A choice was made to value some human lives more than others, which set the two people-groups on radically different trajectories, trajectories which would persist across multiple generations. It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt. It seems to me that the logic at play here is not too different from in Blaming the Victim.

Luke said...

@Ron:

> I deliberately introduced the wealth disparity in order to make that an element of the scenario.

Well ok, but then what you'd need to do is provide a variety of scenarios which vary all the irrelevant particulars while keeping aspect constant. For example, I cannot show you a colorless apple, but I can show you enough apples of various colors that you can abstract away 'color'. You could do the same with moral situations, so that at any given point in time, something real is being considered by a person, instead of some abstraction.

> FYI, one of the responses I've received when asking people about this face to face is that in order to make it moral, the amount that John pays has to be increased to the point where John feels some financial pain.

All I see this doing is causing people to hide their wealth or convert it into other, harder-to-track forms. You're still using people as means to an end, people who did not do the same, at least at equal or greater intensity.

> Again, a minor tweak to the scenario can introduce this element: Achmed's family encourages him to take the offer because it would be the one good thing he's ever done for them.

Yep, this is why I asked Don to clarify what it takes to be a 'larger cause'.

@Ron's @Don:

> I've found that raising truly realistic trolley problems makes people *very* queasy (cf. your sweatshop example).

Probably because they have to be forced to deal with reality and their role in reality and their way of morally judging others. I wouldn't be surprised if this queasiness has some of the same causes as those who love Dawkins' tirade against YHWH in The God Delusion. In that case, however, there is enough distance that one can "approximate away" the queasiness, transmute it into anger/​disdain/​contempt, or something along those lines.

Don Geddis said...

@Ron: Agreed, realistic trolley problems expose hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Hence, queasiness.

@Luke: "So perhaps you could further outline what a 'larger cause' has to be"

Sorry, I wasn't making a philosophical argument. It was just an observation, from history. If you look at what successfully causes healthy ordinary humans to voluntarily overcome their powerful self-preservation instinct and instead consciously sacrifice themselves ... it's kind of hard to do. I don't think that "get a bunch of money for my family" is enough to pass the high bar, for the vast majority of people.

On the other hand, we've got lots of examples (religion being among the best, but national patriotism can work too) that have successfully convinced large numbers of people to make the sacrifice. I was just observing that some kind of "larger cause" appears to be necessary. Not proposing a moral law or anything.

"If you want to say that China is just much further back"

Since the 1970's, the rise in average wealth in China has provided the most good for the most number of humans in the least amount of time ... in the entire history of human civilization. You need to look at the full counterfactual. What would be the current living conditions of those billion people, if China in the '70s had prioritized "human rights" instead, maybe adopted socialism and a culture that demonizes the wealthy. What would life be like, for the average Chinese citizen today?

Why hasn't India seen the same progress, with its billion poor, begging and starving in the streets of Delhi?

I think most people take for granted China's incredible growth, and don't stop to consider whether crackdowns for social stability may have been a necessary part of that achievement, rather than an accidental and easily-changed side effect.

"It would have been due to past, *profound* discrimination"

That's a VERY different statement. If you say, "blacks underperform because of [current] discrimination", then you seek interventions that identify and correct and punish current discrimination. But if the current underperformance is NOT due to current discrimination, then a crackdown on discrimination will have no effect on the problem.

I'm interested in what IS causing the actual problem today, and what (if anything) can be done to fix it, today? Historical narratives may (or may not) be relevant. In this particular case, I think it's leading you away from any practical solution.

"It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt."

I think your sense of justice is giving you a convenient excuse for failure. "Well, we tried the 'right' thing, because we care, and if 100 years goes by and there is no improvement -- in fact, things get worse -- well, it can't be my fault, because I care and I tried."

I'm not interested in how you feel about your actions. I'm interested in whether you can actually solve the problem. And the evidence is clear: rich white people "helping" poor black people, out of a sense of guilt or moral obligation, has essentially no effect on future generations of poor blacks in the US becoming successful. It's a failed approach, because it doesn't address the actual causes of the current underperformance.

Luke said...

@Don (1/2):

> Since the 1970's, the rise in average wealth in China has provided the most good for the most number of humans in the least amount of time ... in the entire history of human civilization.

I don't know how to evaluate this, since pushing forward the frontier (which is what the US did) is very, very different from catching up to the frontier. The latter can be done much more quickly than the former.

> You need to look at the full counterfactual. What would be the current living conditions of those billion people, if China in the '70s had prioritized "human rights" instead, maybe adopted socialism and a culture that demonizes the wealthy. What would life be like, for the average Chinese citizen today?

With a better knowledge of history around the world, I could probably use real situations to answer you, and provide more options than the simple dichotomy (which I understand to just be due to succinctness of argument). I am tempted to say that Christians in the first few centuries AD managed to both prioritize human rights and practice the kind of socialism which yields great improvements for humans.

> Why hasn't India seen the same progress, with its billion poor, begging and starving in the streets of Delhi?

That is a huge question. I wouldn't be surprised if England's colonization is a huge part of the answer. The East India Company was downright evil at times.

Luke said...

@Don (2/2):

> That's a VERY different statement. If you say, "blacks underperform because of [current] discrimination", then you seek interventions that identify and correct and punish current discrimination. But if the current underperformance is NOT due to current discrimination, then a crackdown on discrimination will have no effect on the problem.

Meh, I see this as an issue of discrimination currently happening and which happened a long time ago—not to mention everything in between. The badness in cultural heritage will provoke rational discrimination in the here-and-now. It's a huge, self-reinforcing system.

> I'm interested in what IS causing the actual problem today, and what (if anything) can be done to fix it, today? Historical narratives may (or may not) be relevant. In this particular case, I think it's leading you away from any practical solution.

Apparently, I think history is fantastically more relevant than you.

> I think your sense of justice is giving you a convenient excuse for failure. "Well, we tried the 'right' thing, because we care, and if 100 years goes by and there is no improvement -- in fact, things get worse -- well, it can't be my fault, because I care and I tried."

Who says we tried "the right thing"? I find that humans are much better at identifying problems than solving them. And so, I don't immediately presume that since someone (i) identified the problem; (ii) tried to solve it; (iii) then failed, that (iii) indicates [fatal] error in (i).

> I'm not interested in how you feel about your actions.

Where did I talk about "feel"? Two things: you seem to be using the category of the 'emotional' as a cipher for the 'irrational' and/or 'unevidenced', in the face of contradictory scientific evidence.

> I'm interested in whether you can actually solve the problem.

Me too. I am intensely practical, but also concerned that failing to take a properly global, and therefore necessarily theoretical perspective, will result in the kind of failure mode described by Peter Buffett's 2013 NYT piece The Charitable–Industrial Complex. That piece is apropos; the definition of "helping" is probably quite similar. If you want to see some criticism of said "helping", see Mary Douglas' and Steven Ney's Missing Persons: A Critique of the Personhood in the Social Sciences.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: Yes, of course it's easier to catch up, than to push the frontier. Yes of course that's the only reason China has been able to succeed. I'm not interested in comparing China to the US. I'm interested in comparing China to Africa, or India, or South America. A century ago, Argentina and the US were both at the top of the richest countries in the world. Then 100 years went by of Argentina remaining essentially flat, while the US had ~3% annual compound GDP growth. The difference in living conditions in the two countries, today, is astonishing.

The choices that China has made, has allowed their average citizen to go from the poorest of the poor, into the middle-income territory (Mexico, Greece, etc.). That's an incredible achievement. One that hardly any other "poorest of the poor" ever achieve. DESPITE the opportunity for "catch up", that you seem to suggest is so easy. But China did it. How did they do it? If you don't really understand, then I'm cautious about accepting your criticism of their human rights record.

"Christians in the first few centuries AD managed to both prioritize human rights and practice the kind of socialism which yields great improvements for humans."

Christians offered some moral and social advances, and I don't want to discount that. At the same time, the living conditions of the average person in 0AD, wasn't hugely different than in 1400AD. Essentially every human was doing subsistence farming, on the edge of starvation, with constant danger of horrific war.

"I think history is fantastically more relevant than you."

But you should be able to separate "current civil structures exist because of historical accident" from "because of current culture, these groups have those outcomes". If you look at the second topic directly, and look for interventions to fix it, then the first topic only has passing relevance.

"Where did I talk about "feel"?"

Let's put it this way: you said "It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt." A moral use of "should" like this, is about what you feel would be "just". But since it offers zero evidence that any particular intervention would be effective, I find it ... irrelevant. It seems that you would be satisfied, as long as those doing well, paid for some intervention. But you don't seem terribly concerned with what, exactly, that intervention is.

I, on the other hand, don't particularly care who pays; I care whether we can identify an intervention that will succeed. On the question of what interventions have which effects, the question you pose -- about who gives and who receives -- is a useless distraction.

That's why I say it's about how you feel. Because you clearly feel satisfied if you can right historical wrongs by taking from (someone that reminds you of) a previous oppressing group, and giving to (someone that reminds you of) a previous oppressed group. That will satisfy your need for justice.

Whether the action actually improves the long-term welfare of the individual humans today, doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours.

"Peter Buffett's 2013 NYT piece"

I hate that article. He doesn't understand capitalism or poverty.

Luke said...

Don, I'm not sure it is worth continuing my discussion with you, because you are clearly modeling me as a fucking idiot. I do not use expletives lightly. Evidence:

> DESPITE the opportunity for "catch up", that you seem to suggest is so easy.

Nothing I said necessarily leads to "easy". Nothing.

> A moral use of "should" like this, is about what you feel would be "just".

This presumes emotivism, which I deeply, deeply reject. While not necessarily in the "fucking idiot" category, it does push toward the idea that my conception of morality does not go beyond the specific type of emotion that is 'irrational'. That is at least offensive.

> It seems that you would be satisfied, as long as those doing well, paid for some intervention.

This is insanely false. Jesus cared quite a lot about fruit, not just feeling righteous. In fact, he abhored those who were happy just appearing righteous. See the beginning of Mt 23. Those who judge by appearances are scum, and you have very clearly indicated that I am likely scum, for this reason.

> Whether the action actually improves the long-term welfare of the individual humans today, doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours.

And there you have it. According to one Don Geddis, Luke Breuer is a horrible human being by any reasonable standard accepted by any reasonable number of intellectuals in today's world. Don, I suggest asking Ron if you have gotten anywhere close to capturing the kind of person I am. And I'm highly reticent to give you any excuse, given how much you've read of what I've written, so far. You had a choice, to model me as a decent human being interested in making life better for other people (without showing partiality), or to model me as something else. You made your choice, whether implicitly or explicitly. Your 3x use of "seem" is 100% irrelevant; I reject any ostensible plausible deniability which might be asserted. You painted me as a fucking idiot.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: When you accuse someone of misreading your writings and intentions, you might want to take a moment to consider whether you may be doing the exact same thing, in that very moment. Pot, kettle, etc.

Luke said...

@Don:

Let's review:

> Don: I'm interested in whether you can actually solve the problem.

> Luke: Me too. I am intensely practical, but also concerned that failing to take a properly global, and therefore necessarily theoretical perspective, will result in the kind of failure mode described by Peter Buffett's 2013 NYT piece The Charitable–Industrial Complex.

> Don: Whether the action actually improves the long-term welfare of the individual humans today, doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours.

How does this not flat-out imply that I am a liar?

That being said, you are welcome to articulate, in detail, how I engaged in "misreading your writings and intentions".

P.S. Whether Buffett is right or not is actually irrelevant to the idea that he points out a global problem that if ignored, can easily persist with local attempts to "make things better". Given your admiration for what China did, you should surely be attentive to the need to sometimes do things in a systematic, top-down fashion instead of hoping that all the little bits and pieces magically generate the right emergent behavior.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: I don't believe that Buffett has correctly identified a problem (or a solution), so I don't see the "kind of failure mode" that you're trying to refer to, and so I suspect that "trying to take a properly global ... theoretical perspective" eventually turns into an excuse for not actually solving the problem. (But I have to admit that I don't really have a good idea what specifically you might be referring to here, so perhaps I'm mistaken.)

As to my statement that "long-term welfare of humans doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours", that wasn't a reaction to the Buffett piece or your use of it; it was a very specific reaction to this very specific sentence of yours: "It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt."

Taken in isolation, this describes an attitude that I find very common in others, which I think is counterproductive on this topic. I would assert that leads to people embracing actions that make them feel good about how much they care, without actually solving the problem in the real world. I think it's a horribly misleading and misguided perspective.

For me, that sentence was a key insight into how you view the world, and it's one that I strongly disagree with (on this specific topic, namely minority underperformance in the US).

Luke said...

@Don:

(1) You did not answer my question: "How does this not flat-out imply that I am a liar?" I said "I am intensely practical", and you denied precisely that, with your "doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours".

(2) You did not articulate "how I engaged in "misreading your writings and intentions"."

Perhaps the most ironic thing in this whole discussion is that Peter Buffett's 2013 NYT piece The Charitable–Industrial Complex, which you "hate", contains this bit:

>> As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.

Despite my advocacy of Buffett's article, you multiply imply that I myself am engaged in "conscience laundering", which constitutes a charge of hypocrisy. In your own words:

> Taken in isolation, this describes an attitude that I find very common in others, which I think is counterproductive on this topic. I would assert that leads to people embracing actions that make them feel good about how much they care, without actually solving the problem in the real world. I think it's a horribly misleading and misguided perspective.

In case it isn't blindingly clear, "conscious laundering" = "make them feel good about how much they care".

So, at this point in time, you have strongly implied that I am a liar and a hypocrite (doubly so on the hypocrite; #1). You didn't just state a difference of beliefs; you turned them into accusations of lying and hypocrisy. I don't give a rat's ass whether they are asserted or strongly implied, and sneaking in "seem" doesn't help.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: How did you misread me? You say over and over again that I called you a liar. But lying requires that you consciously state something that you internally consciously don't actually believe. I never once said that you were lying.

Hypocrisy is a different question, but it seems unlikely that any human can follow the full logical consequences of their beliefs, so it's likely that we all have contradictions here and there, between different things that we think we believe. Not to mention cognitive dissonance, where your brain actively tries to avoid noticing or resolving the contradiction.

So, I never called you a liar. And sure, if your self-image includes and absolute "I am intensely practical", then I agree that I don't believe that claim, both because of some explicit things that you've written, and even your recent reactions on this comment thread. So if you think I'm claiming a conflict between your statement of "I am intensely practical", and other evidence that I think shows you aren't ... well, sure! Yes, I don't believe you.

But that's hardly an insult. It may simply be that your self-image is slightly mistaken. (Or perhaps I am slightly mistaken.) There's nothing particularly dramatic about a charge of hypocrisy. It could simply be pointing out one of the very many ways that all of us humans are not perfectly logically consistent.

As for the actual charge itself, I stand by it. You wrote both "I am intensely practical", and also "It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt." In my opinion, those two sentences, both written by you, are in conflict. (I don't think "conscience laundering" gets at quite the same concept, but I do see that it's closely related.)

I think you're overreacting to an (implied) charge of hypocrisy -- which is a very common state -- and I think you're completely wrong about an imagined charge of lying, which never happened.

That's how you "misread my writings and intentions."

Luke said...

@Don:

> You say over and over again that I called you a liar. But lying requires that you consciously state something that you internally consciously don't actually believe. I never once said that you were lying.

Ok; the alternative to 'liar' is not prettier: 'deluded'. More strictly, what you implied is that I am either a 'liar', or I am 'deluded'. Feel free to offer a third option. I didn't see the distinction between these two because I was focused on the imputation of bad character, whether the character is evil or incompetent probably doesn't matter in terms of allowing evil to prosper. To someone focused on making the world suck less, either option is either deeply insulting (if false) or deeply condemning (if true).

> But that's hardly an insult. It may simply be that your self-image is slightly mistaken.

I reject this attempt to downplay the kind of hypocrisy you accuse me of. I all but say that I really care about actually solving the problem on the ground, and you say that it "doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours". The words 'hardly' and 'slightly' do not fit, here.

> I think you're overreacting to an (implied) charge of hypocrisy -- which is a very common state -- and I think you're completely wrong about an imagined charge of lying, which never happened.

Thank you for articulating.

As to the charge of "overreacting", my observation is that the most effective way to attack someone's character is to do it with seemingly little remarks, with plausible deniability. It was telling that your initial response was not to say, in no uncertain terms (that is, remove all option for plausible deniability), you did not mean to paint me in a terrible light. After all, 'hardly' and 'slightly' indicate at most a minor disagreement, not a major one. You didn't even back down from your "seem to suggest is so easy" remark, with something like: "While that might have been a plausible interpretation, I see now that there are much better interpretations of what you said."

So, what you've really accomplished with your particular strategy, Don, is to have me be painted in an even worse light, now. Whether you intended to do this is irrelevant, for you seem utterly unapologetic about it. I've seen this before: a person is insulted and demeaned, and any response [s]he makes is utilized to further insult and demean. This interaction we're having is a study of mine into this matter. This is a very 'live' matter to me: one of my friend's lives was destroyed by this very tactic: little by little, always with plausible deniability, never with a meaningful apology that cannot be later denied (again, via plausible deniability).

Ron said...

@Luke:

> I suggest asking Ron if you have gotten anywhere close to capturing the kind of person I am.

I've been staying out of this because I didn't want to influence the conversation. But since the rhetoric is escalating a bit, and since you asked...

> Nothing I said necessarily leads to "easy". Nothing.

Well, you did say:

> pushing forward the frontier (which is what the US did) is very, very different from catching up to the frontier. The latter can be done much more quickly than the former.

Reading "quickly" as "easily" is not the kind of extrapolation that justifies lobbing an F-bomb, IMHO. We're all friends here, lets try to keep this civil. A wise friend of mind once opined that one ought to try to read what people say in the most charitable light, and I'm not sure you've held yourself up to that standard here. I'm pretty sure Don doesn't think you're an idiot, I think he just disagrees with you. (I also think you wouldn't care so much about Don's opinion of you if you didn't think that his views have some merit.)

Luke said...

@Ron:

Only once, in my entire life, has an attack on my character been defended by someone else, with both attacker and defender present. It was in a Christian event this year, when an arrogant doctor-in-training spoke as if I had been grossly incompetent. Someone else in the group shot him down in no uncertain terms, noting that I had gone above and beyond the call of duty, and actually everyone else in the group, including the doctor-in-training, had ignored my efforts.

It remains "only once".

> Reading "quickly" as "easily" is not the kind of extrapolation that justifies lobbing an F-bomb, IMHO.

And I would not have, if that were the only thing. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to take a note out of discrimination against women in technology these days. No longer are the single offenses large. They're much smaller. However, all that is necessary to have the same detrimental impact is to multiply them. The law can easily target single offenses, but it is much harder to characterize a large number of tiny instances which, each judged in isolation, is plausibly deniable as discrimination. I suggest that the same lens can be used to understand the over-arching model Don clearly has of me. See my list—I can update it if you really need me to.

> A wise friend of mind once opined that one ought to try to read what people say in the most charitable light, and I'm not sure you've held yourself up to that standard here.

Please indicate, in no uncertain terms, whether you think Don read what I said "in the most charitable light". In particular, please note whether he almost attained that "most", in the spirit of his "hardly" and "slightly". After all, it seems pretty clear that you and Don think I've done more than "slightly" fall short of the standard of "read[ing] what people say in the most charitable light".

> (I also think you wouldn't care so much about Don's opinion of you if you didn't think that his views have some merit.)

The irony in this is that what is more important even than charitable reading is trying to find truth, and you've picked precisely that aspect out. Attempting to derive truth from what a person says is a higher honor paid to that person, than merely interpreting his/her views charitably.

Ron said...

> Please indicate, in no uncertain terms, whether you think Don read what I said "in the most charitable light"

Probably not. But AFAIK he's never advocated that people adhere to this rule, so I have no basis for holding him up to that standard. But you have, so I do.

> The irony in this is that what is more important even than charitable reading is trying to find truth

I agree, and I'm pretty sure Don would too. And let us grant for the sake of argument that Don, for whatever reason, chose not to pay you the honor of trying to extract truth from your words. I still think that lobbing an F-bomb at him was not the appropriate response. I mean, can you really be sure that Don thinks you're a fucking idiot? Maybe he just thinks you're a non-fucking idiot. Or maybe he thinks you're an unqualified idiot, and the fuckingness of your idiocy is indeterminate, like a quantum superposition of fucking and non-fucking states.

Can you see how this could lead to a rhetorical quagmire? So please, can we dial it down a notch or two? You solicited my opinion (or at least, you invited Don to solicit my opinion), so I'm telling you: I don't see a personal attack. All I see is an honest disagreement.

Luke said...

Thank you for answering my question.

I am fully aware of the flamewar aspect of this. I've argued online for over 15,000 hours; there is virtually nothing in this attention which escapes my attention. I am aware that ever comment, every paragraph, every sentence, indeed every word, has a range of possible interpretations. The estimated probabilities of those interpretations will vary by person. I've addressed this multiplicity in phenomenological matching vs. ontological matching; one can also consult Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. If I need to appeal to an expert in order to be [possibly] believed, I can cite Michael P. Nichols' The Lost Art of Listening.

I note that nobody has expressed appreciable concern about how the words Don chose affected me. All† the fault has been mine, mine, mine. Sadly, this has been the way of much of my life, so I am used to it. But I should think that you might object to such asymmetry. After all, this is your blog; you get to set the rules. Other people comment at your leisure.

† You're welcome to alter that "All" to match the spirit of Don's "hardly" and "slightly", except [obbviously] the inverse. I am well-acquainted with the symbolic taking-part-of-the-blame, but where the actual blame taken is negligible as compared to the total blame allotted.

> But AFAIK he's never advocated that people adhere to this ["in the most charitable light"] rule [...]

Really?:

> Don: When you accuse someone of misreading your writings and intentions, you might want to take a moment to consider whether you may be doing the exact same thing, in that very moment. Pot, kettle, etc.

Don certainly seems to be treating "misreading... writings and intentions" as a bad thing, something to be avoided by all. Such avoidance seems awfully close to "read what people say in the most charitable light". Indeed, I would be interested to see how one can avoid "misreading... writings and intentions" without accomplishing "read what people say in the most charitable light".

(Sorry, I wasn't able to appreciate your attempt at humor, if that is what it was.)

Don Geddis said...

Luke, this is actually pretty simple, and I'm not quite sure how the whole discussion got so sidetracked. (Not to mention that the entire topic was already a tangent off of Ron's original post.)

The one key sentence seems to be, that you said: "It seems to me that those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt." when we were discussing the topic of what policies might effectively solve the problem of minority underperformance in the US. (I guess I also used China's growth as an example, you said it was "more quickly" than the US, and I suggested that you said it was "easier". Don't know if you're still bothered by the China one.)

In my personal opinion, a framework like that -- as common as it is -- is at odds with an alternative practical process of searching for a real policy solution.

You also claim to have a self-conception that you are "intensely practical".

So:
1. Maybe I'm in error, that focusing on "those who benefited have an obligation to help", interferes with finding practical solutions.
2. Maybe it is a high priority for you to focus on "those who benefited have an obligation to help", and you are mistaken that your intellectual behavior is 100% "intensely practical", and that instead -- like any normal human -- you are motivated by a whole host of different things.
3. Maybe I overemphasized that phrase, and you really are intensely practical, and you didn't mean to emphasize (or I read in to) that a solution to "the minority problem" would necessarily involve "those who benefited..."

Are there other reasonable cases? I don't see how any of these interpretations, are an attack on your character, or deserving of such vitriol in return.

You seem to think that any claim of hypocrisy, is an insult and attack on character. I, on the other hand, seek out accusations of hypocrisy, as an attempt to learn something about myself or the topic, and to better align my conscious principles with my actual actions. I see it as a possible learning opportunity. Either the hypocrisy accusation is wrong, or my principles need adjusting, or my behavior needs adjusting. I value consistency, and I welcome constructive criticism about it.

Somehow you have become very offended by all this discussion, but to be honest I don't quite know what triggered your offense.

Luke said...

@Don:

I request two points of clarification, which I should perhaps have asked before my "fucking idiot" comment. Clarification will tell whether I guessed correctly or incorrectly. If incorrectly, I will happily apologize for my part in this mess.

1. The comment which most sparked my comment was this:

> Don: Whether the action actually improves the long-term welfare of the individual humans today, doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours.

Were you possibly logically justified in inferring this? Or is it possible that I have two top concerns (you said "a", not "the"):

     (I) principles/ideals (also known as truth, at least of theoretical kind)
     (II) pragmatics (that is, doing what is required to actually help people)

For, if (I) is weighted just slightly higher than (II), that would seem to generate the situation at hand. However, (II) can be arbitrarily low-weighted, and the lower it is, the worse I think it makes me out to be, which leads me to my second point of clarification.

2. Do you realize that the more (I) outweighs (II), the more one can be compared to an NT Pharisee, with all the vitriol Jesus poured on them? Furthermore, are you aware of a sort of hatred "in the air" of those who value ideals (or 'principles')? From a 1963 book written by a Christian in the UK:

>>     Idealists are the most tortured people in our midst. We get along very nicely with cranks and foreigners. We are tolerant of rogues and criminals. But idealists—those people who insist on logically relating principle to practice, end to means, purpose to process, goal to route—we have no time for them. Literally no time. There is too much to do. Their misgivings would slow us up, prevent us even from making a start. Besides they would set us all at each other's throats in fierce controversy if once they were allowed a sober hearing. The best thing is to shut them up. (The Christian Mind, 19)

In my experience, this is plenty true in 2015 America. One can then ask why idealists (= values principles, even if only a tiny bit above pragmatics) are so hated, and I think the only rational answer is that they are very damaging to human welfare.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: You seem to have interpreted my comment about "the long-term welfare of the individual humans ... doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours", as a universal statement, applying to all your behaviors on any subject, which naturally is at odds with your self-conception. I actually meant it only in the narrow context of looking for policy solutions to the specific question of underperformance of US minorities. I didn't mean to imply anything about your actions or attitudes outside of that narrow context.

As far as within that narrow context, you clearly have both ideals and pragmatism. You did of course claim an ideal of "those who have benefited have an obligation to help those who have been hurt". I remain convinced that this (very common) attitude, is a barrier to actually solving the problem. I don't think you've even attempted to respond directly to my concern here.

As to your point 2, I'm not familiar enough with Pharisee, Jesus, hatred of idealists, The Christian Mind, etc., so I don't have any particular comment to make on that material. If there was a specific question in there that you wanted me to answer, I apologize if I missed it.

Luke said...

@Don:

> I didn't mean to imply anything about your actions or attitudes outside of that narrow context.

No, but people aren't ultra-inconsistent, so it is a not-unreasonable extrapolation of what you said, especially since you didn't carefully qualify it. I hope you realize this. The extrapolation I did do was aided by other things you said, such as conflating "more quickly" and "easy"† (a different domain than blacks), presuming I hold to a morality close to emotivism (a global domain), or being happy merely if principles are satisfied (possibly limited to the topic of the black situation in the US). I don't think it's reasonable to think I only do all these (bad) things when it comes to restoring "equality of opportunity" to blacks, while I am plausibly perfectly reasonable in all other areas. People generally aren't that fragmented, such that they do 'the bad thing' in just this one area. More often, they'll do 'the good thing' in just this one area, and be stupid outside of it.

Furthermore, the very narrow context in which you were speaking is in fact a huge deal in the US right now. To have a terrible strategy there is still worth some pretty heavy condemnation. Such people are part of the problem of why more blacks are needlessly dying by cop. This isn't a light issue!

† China was allowed to modernize and increase the welfare of its citizens "more quickly" than the US because it didn't have to do a lot of the hard work it takes for culture to first develop a new way of thinking and living. Instead, it could copy, stand on the shoulders of giants, etc. However, nothing in this constitutes "easy". For example, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Chinese Famine were by no means "easy". And I'm haven't yet raised the question of what things would have been like had these two things been avoided (I certainly hope you think those two events were despicable!). Anyhow, to say that China had an "easy" time modernizing is a stupid, stupid thing to say.

> As far as within that narrow context, you clearly have both ideals and pragmatism.

Sure. So is it true or false, that (I) could be only a bit higher than (II), and explain the phenomena you observed? Recall that you implied that (II) is significantly below (I), with your "doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours".

> As to your point 2, I'm not familiar enough with Pharisee, Jesus, hatred of idealists, The Christian Mind, etc., so I don't have any particular comment to make on that material.

You really aren't aware of the hatred aimed at 'idealists' in our culture? Well, at the very least you unwittingly lined me up with that hatred, that vitriol. At some point, we have to be accountable for the statistically predictable effects of our words, and not just the intentions we had. Ignorance is not always an excuse, and neither is incompetence.

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: [Part 1 of 2]

I said: " I didn't mean to imply anything about your actions or attitudes outside of that narrow context."
You said: "it is a not-unreasonable extrapolation of what you said ... I don't think it's reasonable to think I only do all these (bad) things when [...] while I am plausibly perfectly reasonable in all other areas."

I disagree completely. I both think it's reasonable for people to strive for some ideal in their own behavior while falling short from time to time. And I think it's unreasonable for you to take a narrow comment, and react as though it was an accusation about all of your behavior at all times.

You said: "such as conflating "more quickly" and "easy""

"Conflating", huh? Because just in this very comment, you also say, "didn't have to do a lot of the hard work". I'm sorry, this goes beyond just overreacting. This sounds crazy to me. I gave an example that the largest boost to aggregate human welfare in the last century, came from an abstract process (adoption of capitalism) that was driven by "selfish" motives, and didn't really involve caring about the poor people (who were subsequently greatly helped, "by accident"), at all.

You dismissed my example, by saying that China was only "catching up", which can be done "much more quickly". Certainly true, but totally irrelevant to the significance of my point! And when I summarized your comment as you saying that China's catchup was (relatively) "easy", you got all offended again! Even though, right here, you agree that China "didn't have to do a lot of the hard work".

I'm sorry, but this goes beyond people misinterpreting each other. I'm not going to be able to communicate with you at all, if you just start making up your own definitions or connotations of different words. Please: ask anyone whether if one person says "China didn't have to do a lot of the hard work in order to grow", and the second person says "the first person said that it was easy for China to achieve growth" ... then ask any third person whether the second person was offensive in his paraphrase of the first person's statement. Seriously. Ask anyone. (And I agree the statements aren't 100% identical. But this isn't about whether they were exactly the same. You were offended by my comment!)

"For example, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Chinese Famine were by no means "easy"."

Absolutely. And those led to more poverty and starvation, not less. So they are unrelated to the reason why China had such incredible economic growth since 1970, such a huge increase of aggregate wealth.

"to say that China had an "easy" time modernizing is a stupid, stupid thing to say."

But you were the one who was dismissing my China example. I was the one who was pointing out -- exactly as you say! -- that the China miracle should not be taken for granted, and it was probably much, much harder to accomplish the good that they did, than most people realize. (In particular, I left the door open to at least partially excusing Chinese human rights abuses, because it's far from clear whether that was a required part of the path, or merely a side accident that could have been avoided without disrupting the successful path.)

Don Geddis said...

@Luke: [Part 2 of 2]

You said: "To have a terrible strategy there is still worth some pretty heavy condemnation. Such people are part of the problem of why more blacks are needlessly dying by cop."

I completely agree! It's a very important topic. And I think that most people -- including you -- are sadly on the wrong track when trying to address it. I'm sorry, but in this case "good intentions" towards the topic may well be counterproductive.

Again, I'm not saying that you (and most others) don't mean well. I'm saying that you're not heading in a direction of effective policy interventions. Life for blacks in the US (on average) has gotten worse since the 1960's & 70's (or so). The entire continent of Africa is plausibly worse off, because of all the interventions from people who "care" and tried to "help".

Good intentions in these cases aren't even unrelated to effective outcomes. Sadly, it's worse than that. The correct solutions are counterintuitive, so good "intuitive" intentions (in my opinion) actively lead people astray, into policies that (by accident) harm, rather than help.

It's not impugning your character, to wonder whether you, too, are heading down the wrong intellectual path, exactly because you desire to help (just like so many others). It's not your intentions that I'm faulting. Only the outcome.

"Recall that you implied that (II) is significantly below (I), with your "doesn't seem to be a top concern of yours"."

You're misreading again. "not a top concern" doesn't mean "is significantly below" (rather than "only a bit higher"). You're creating conflict here out of whole cloth. I didn't say -- or even imply -- what you're reacting to.

"You really aren't aware of the hatred aimed at 'idealists' in our culture?"

No. And, to be honest, I don't even believe your assertion that it is true. And I for sure never intended that labeling you as an idealist (if in fact I did so), was a deliberate attempt to make you the target of this "well known" hatred. And thus, apparently, was insulting to you.

I don't believe idealists are hated (in general). I don't believe I claimed you were an idealist (although you did seem to have a high-level ideal in one narrow topic area). I wouldn't describe labeling someone an idealist, as attempting to target hate against them. I don't think it is an insult (even if I had done it, which I didn't).

I disagree with essentially every aspect of your reaction.

"Ignorance is not always an excuse, and neither is incompetence."

Fair enough. Better be careful whether you can stand up to the same scrutiny, though! You're asking for a pretty high standard from a comment thread, and taking it out of the realm of comfortable, informal discussion. I'm sure you think that you know the truth and I'm the one who is ignorant, and maybe you're right. But I hope you're humble enough to realize that, once you release the sword of truth, there's a chance it may target you instead of me.

Publius said...

On The Contrary...

It is neither ethical to make such an offer, or to accept it if it is made.

An ethical theory as straightforward as Albert Schweitzer's Reverence For Life will direct you to this conclusion.

The more complex deontological ethics applied to these questions will also lead to their rejection. Indeed, such offers would appear to directly oppose the categorical imperitive:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

A person has a perfect duty not to use the humanity of themselves or others as a means to some other end.

P.S. I read in a book from the future that you conclude that God exists in 2015.

Luke said...

@Don:

> Please: ask anyone whether if one person says "China didn't have to do a lot of the hard work in order to grow", and the second person says "the first person said that it was easy for China to achieve growth" ... then ask any third person whether the second person was offensive in his paraphrase of the first person's statement. Seriously. Ask anyone. (And I agree the statements aren't 100% identical. But this isn't about whether they were exactly the same. You were offended by my comment!)

I will do so. But I will do so with the precise wording:

> Don: Since the 1970's, the rise in average wealth in China has provided the most good for the most number of humans in the least amount of time ... in the entire history of human civilization.

> Luke: I don't know how to evaluate this, since pushing forward the frontier (which is what the US did) is very, very different from catching up to the frontier. The latter can be done much more quickly than the former.

> Don: The choices that China has made, has allowed their average citizen to go from the poorest of the poor, into the middle-income territory (Mexico, Greece, etc.). That's an incredible achievement. One that hardly any other "poorest of the poor" ever achieve. DESPITE the opportunity for "catch up", that you seem to suggest is so easy. But China did it. How did they do it? If you don't really understand, then I'm cautious about accepting your criticism of their human rights record.

Hmmm, I actually erred: you did not just say "easy", you said "so easy". I was probably reacting to the intensifier word. The fallacious inference is:

     (1) "much more quickly" ⇒ "so easy"

You seem to have been offended (either intellectually or personally) that I would note that I don't know how to evaluate your claim, for the reason that I know there exists a major dissimilarity [with anything in my web of knowledge]. You clearly write as if I should understand that what China did is "an incredible achievement", and yes, that I'm a "fucking idiot" for doing the following replacement:

     (2) "an incredible achievement" → "much more quickly"

By (1), this becomes:

     (3) "an incredible achievement" → "so easy"

Only an idiot would do this replacement, if "an incredible achievement" is indeed true. No, only a "fucking idiot" would do that replacement.

Ron said...

> Only an idiot would do this replacement

Well, then I'm an idiot, because, as I said before, I don't think "much more quickly" --> "so easy" is an unreasonable extrapolation. Certainly not one worth getting this worked up over.

> only a "fucking idiot" would do that replacement

Fine, then I'm a fucking idiot (though the actual distinction between an a fucking idiot and a non-fucking idiot continues to elude me. Further evidence, I suppose, that I'm a fucking idiot.)

I'd like to make a suggestion: how about we both go re-read Matthew 5:39 (or maybe I should cite it as Luke 6:29) and let this whole thing slide? Life is too short for this.

Luke said...

@Ron:

> Well, then I'm an idiot, because, as I said before, I don't think "much more quickly" --> "so easy" is an unreasonable extrapolation. Certainly not one worth getting this worked up over.

No, the "(1) "much more quickly" ⇒ "so easy"" is not the direct cause of what I'm pissed off about; it is merely the symptom. The cause is that only a "fucking idiot" would think that "so easy" was possibly a sane thing to say in the conversation. Only by modeling me as a "fucking idiot", would it make sense to think I meant to imply "so easy". See, the term "much more quickly" is polysemous. Yes, I can see you making a case that (1) is legitimate, in the abstract. But in context, that interpretation—one of multiple vying interpretation—could only be true if I, Luke Breuer, were a "fucking idiot". After all, I would be reducing what Don Geddis labels "an incredible achievement" to "so easy".

See, when I read or hear the words of another person, I am performing a multi-way intersection operation:

     (a) what I know
     (b) my model of that person
     (c) what the person said
     (d) what I think the other person knows

There can be error in any of these locations (for example, I can mishear). The biggest part of charitable interpretation, IMO, is to insist in the best possible model (which still plausibly fits the evidence) at (b). So, for example, I would only think that you said something that only a "fucking idiot" would say, if all other possibilities were exhausted. Even then, I would phrase the response as confusion: "You couldn't possibly mean Y when you said X, could you?"

I see no way for Don Geddis to have inferred "so easy" without deciding that deep down, I am a "fucking idiot" in a widespread way. What is that way? It is the implication that I, Luke Breuer, cannot understand how hard it was for China to modernize, seeing as almost no other nation did what it did (did any? I'm not well-read on developing countries). To fail this way is a pretty massive failure. I'll bet I could convince your average homeless person that "so easy" is a terrible, terrible way to describe China's accomplishment. Any average-educated person should know it after about ten seconds of explanation, if not as background knowledge.

> I'd like to make a suggestion: how about we both go re-read Matthew 5:39 (or maybe I should cite it as Luke 6:29) and let this whole thing slide? Life is too short for this.

It sounds to me that you're not very interested in understanding this from my perspective, such that I can say, "Yes Ron, you've captured what so ticked me off." Is this true? (You are a busy guy, so I won't hold it against you if you affirm that you're "not very interested".)

Don Geddis said...

@Publius: Thanks for actually commenting on Ron's original post! I disagree with you, but at least you're on topic. I feel sad for accidentally hijacking this thread. Although, apparently, not sad enough to prevent me from continuing to do so...

@Luke: You really seem stuck on the China thing now. OK. Believe or not, I was actually trying to be charitable to you. I mentioned how impressed I was with China's growth, so impressed that I'm open to (possibly) forgiving their human rights abuses (as despicable as they are).

You reply with a comment that "pushing forward the frontier (which is what the US did) is very, very different from catching up to the frontier". Apparently your point was to show that you "don't know how to evaluate this". But in fact, your comment was essentially irrelevant. Comparing China to the US is not the point. Sure, it's difficult to do that comparison. But it's also irrelevant! The relevant comparison, is comparing China's growth, to the economic performance of other poverty-filled large population farming countries or areas. India. Africa. South America. Those would be useful comparisons. Comparing China to the US is not useful.

So I was trying to find some relevance in your comment. To find a charitable interpretation, to be honest. And the best I could think of, was that you were dismissing my China example, because you didn't think it was that impressive, given that they only had to catch up (rather than the much harder job of pushing the frontier).

Yes, of course it's much hard to push the frontier. But how is that at all relevant to whether China had an incredible achievement or not? It's just a totally different, unrelated, case.

So it must be (I thought) that you wanted to diminish and minimize my example, and the best you could come up with was "well, they had it easier than the US did". (Yes, you said "more quickly", but in context the difference escapes me.)

So, all right, if you want to claim that your ONLY point was "I don't know how to evaluate this", then I'd say you gave completely the wrong justification. Being unable to compare China to the US would not be a good reason, why you are unable to evaluate whether China's growth is impressive or not. That would be a terrible reason, to not "know how to evaluate" it.

So, even now, I still don't know why you actually wrote about the US pushing forward the frontier being "very, very different" than China "catching up to the frontier". How is that relevant to anything? What's your point? You apparently (now) didn't mean to suggest that China's growth wasn't impressive. You only wanted to suggest that you didn't know how to evaluate it. But that would be a terrible reason to not evaluate China.

So: was that your intent? Did you really use the US as a justification for why you had no opinion about China? If you did, then I would say you're even less clever than I had assumed you were. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you had deliberately implied some at least relevant connotation. You became offended at the implied connotation. But ok, if you want to retreat to you just saying irrelevant things, I suppose I can apologize for assuming that you were attempting to make an on-topic comment.

Or perhaps there's some other interpretation that I'm still missing. If so, I'm listening.

Ron said...

> No, the "(1) "much more quickly" ⇒ "so easy"" is not the direct cause of what I'm pissed off about; it is merely the symptom. The cause is that only a "fucking idiot" would think that "so easy" was possibly a sane thing to say in the conversation.

Yes, I get that. But here's what you don't seem to grasp: I sincerely believe that "so easy" is in fact a sane thing to say. Moreover, I think it's actually a reasonable (if possibly incorrect) paraphrase of what you actually said.

So the situation we have here is that you've said, explicitly, that only an FI could believe X. Well, I believe X. Therefore, by elementary logic, you must believe I'm an FI.

BTW, I am not at all offended by the fact that you think I'm an FI. You wouldn't be the first person to think that, and you surely won't be the last. Who knows? You might even be right.

> I see no way for Don Geddis to have inferred "so easy" without deciding that deep down, I am a "fucking idiot" in a widespread way.

Yes, I get that too. But unless you are omniscient, there might in fact be such a way despite the fact that you don't see it.

> It sounds to me that you're not very interested in understanding this from my perspective

Just because someone doesn't *agree* with your perspective doesn't mean they are not interested in understanding it.

Look, we know each other. You've quite possibly read more of my blog than any other person on the planet. You are a regular attendee at a meetup group that I founded whose mission statement is to get people to understand each other's perspectives. I can see how you might conclude that I *don't* understand your perspective, but I don't see how you can possibly believe that I'm not *interested*. And yet, here you are, saying exactly that. So I'm obviously missing something.

And, I'm pretty sure, so are you.

Ron said...

> @Publius: Thanks for actually commenting on Ron's original post!

Yes! Indeed!

Danston said...

I haven't thought this out in too great a depth but my initial feeling is that it is immoral for John to make the offer but that it is moral for Achmed to accept the offer.

I worked backward from this conclusion so I'm not taking some well-considered first principles and deriving it from them.

John's offer reminds me of things that I hear about where corporations or wealthy individuals can be above the law because of their money. John is mostly selfish in this scenario, his primary motivation is to prolong his own life. It reminds me of when a corporation does something against the law that they know is illegal and hurts a lot of people then they get found out. They pay a fine which is relatively low (like a small percentage of what they gained by their crime) and acts more as a toll, legitimizing their actions.

Achmed, on the other hand, would be paying a high price himself (the same thing that John is trying to avoid). He would be taking a position of selflessness by accepting the offer. Especially because in this scenario the people who depend on him (his family) would be better off if he took the offer it seems like he wouldn't directly benefit but would help other people. That doesn't sound immoral to me.

John has more power and privilege than Achmed and he's using that to kill Achmed and take his organs so that he might live. He's not forcing Achmed to die but in this case it sounds like the incentives are high enough that the offer itself is unfair. So why is it not unfair for me to pay a waiter to wait on me at a restaurant when he might not make enough money in that job to afford the same luxury? Well, that is unfair too. I might make the argument that all power imbalances are unfair. Unfairness is not the same as immorality and something about Achmed being killed because the power is so imbalanced gives me the feeling that this scenario crosses the line of being immoral. I don't think I could define that line rigorously.

I could see my mind changing on this but I wanted to get some thoughts out there and contribute.

Don Geddis said...

@Danston: I like your thoughts (although I disagree with them!), but you can expand on the against-John case? A lot of that paragraph seems to be about legal matters: "above the law", "against the law", "know is illegal". But Ron asked a moral question: what ought the law to be? You can't really use a question of what current law happens to be, in order to resolve what the law should be.

Can you restate that part, but leaving out "illegal"? You mention selfish, "hurts a lot of people", and (later) "power imbalances". Maybe you could try to state your argument again, using those concepts?

Jefferson Carpenter said...

There is no general answer whether this kind of trade is moral. There are always more contingencies to consider.

It is up to John and Achmed to decide whether it is moral (to them).