Boarchariot
2d ago
The original hypothetical from Peter Singer is a child drowning in a shallow pond, where you could just walk over and pull them out. It is designed to be a zero risk situation.
Boarchariot
2d ago
He's saying that hypothetically saving a drowning child has no negative impact on his ability to care for his family.
Boarchariot
2d ago
How compatible do the women you go on dates with seem when you are setting things up? I found my current partner via a dating app. I always thought the app was just a means to go on a date with a girl, where I could get a much better idea of how compatible we were. In retrospect, it was incredibly obvious even talking over the app how compatible my partner and I are (and how incompatible I was with everyone else I spoke with).
Be very open about what you are looking for and why someone might be looking for you on your profile. Make sure you include the stuff you have included here about where you want the relationship to go. If not wanting to get married in the future is a dealbreaker, include it! This will save you a lot of time and effort.
If you feel like you are wasting time going on dates, go on less dates. You can spend more time talking on the app or via text messages. You seem to have a decent idea of what you are looking for and are good at written communication. Just weed out more people online. If it feels like a drag to go on a date, don't do it.
Boarchariot
13d ago
I explained in next sentence: comparing prison cost to damage of a single theft that resulted in the conviction is clearly wrong and misleading.
I don't understand why that can't be the starting point. Beyond that, what factors would you include?
There is no reason it has to cost this much. I can guarantee you that 70 years ago, it didn’t cost (inflation adjusted) $150k.
Prison statistics in my country do not go that far back, unfortunately. The oldest statistics are only from 2000, but the cost per prisoner is almost the exact same when you account for inflation. Beyond prison conditions, I would guess other factors like guard salary and construction are almost certainly higher as well (based on things in the rest of the country) I don't know that imprisoning more people would help in those regards.
Boarchariot
13d ago
I've not heard an economic argument from the pro-abortion tribe.
I don't think I've heard one from either side, but that's the point. The moral ground for either side is imovable and never addresses the other point.
I respect that many place importance on the morality of policy and laws on both the left and right, and I think that deontological rules are an important boundary for unchecked utilitarian thinking (which can go off the rails). But from my perspective, utilitarian thinking is mostly absent these days, in favour of emotional arguments that do not take into consideration the full range practical issues. Everyone seems very concerned about how wrong the other guy is, but not so interested in looking at why both sides are dreadfully unhappy with things. This is exacerbated by hot button issues like trans people, who are a minority minority, when there are huge day-to-day economic changes in the past 10 years.
I wish the government was more concerned with being a transparent public service that deals with things the private market tends to bungle, rather than invested in tit for tat status quo or promoting an idealistic agenda. To me this seems worse in the USA than my country, but it is present here too. And I don't think one side is better than the other in that regard, when so many of the messages are "the other guy did it first". Hold politicians accountable to being productive rather than performing.
Boarchariot
13d ago
The thing that strikes me about this statistic is that they must either be committing lots of crimes, or the police is very good at solving crimes.
Or some criminals are easier to catch, or criminals are easier to catch after they have been involved with the justice system. From what I can tell, the latter is the most accurate, because the arrest statistics include parole and probation violations.
It seems like this:
A sixth (16 percent) of released prisoners were responsible for nearly half (48 percent) of the arrests. About two in five (42 percent) released prisoners were either not arrested or were arrested no more than once in the five years after release.
The longer released prisoners went without being arrested, the less likely they were to be arrested at all during the follow-up period. For example, 43 percent of released prisoners were arrested within one year of release, compared to 13 percent of those not arrested by the end of year four who were arrested in the fifth year after release.
is the best indication of how successful a prisoner will be going back to society, and also who you would want to keep in prison for a long time. To me, that supports punishment increases after recidivism, not intense sentences for the first crime committed.
I don't know that the different states would be so willing to cooperate like that, regardless of political difference. But I guess there are potential incentives.
Boarchariot
13d ago
The maximum welfare someone can receive here is is about $26000 for being a single parent with a child. That is still $124000 net cost per year for incarceration, or $2.48 million per 20 years (about 1240 thefts of $2000 value).
Boarchariot
13d ago
You have a consistent stance. I do not know what Wlxd thinks, I was just answering his questions.
The marginal extra year in prison of violent offenders costs society far less than the crimes they would commit during that time.
This seems entirely dependent on the criminal and the crimes they might commit, not to mention where they live/are incarcerated.
Boarchariot
13d ago
I tend not to hate anyone, especially people who take a different political stance because they think it is better for their community. I don't agree with them, but I see no reason to hate them.
Boarchariot
13d ago
In my country it costs about $150000 per year to keep someone in prison. To imprison someone for 20 years would cost $3 million. The average theft incident here is under $2000. Assuming a $2000 cost average, that means someone could commit theft 1500 times before a 20 year sentence would be worthwhile. Or flipped around, is it possible for the average thief to commit theft 1500 times in 20 years? This clearly seems like a waste of resources.
comparing the cost of imprisonment to just the direct cost of the theft, suggests that you either don't understand the arguments being made, or are trying to pull a fast one.
I am not trying to pull a fast one. Can you explain?
Boarchariot
13d ago
I linked an ACX article a couple times. It's a good overview. If you disagree with it I would love to know why.
I should be more clear: harsher punishment is not a deterent. Getting caught and punished generally is a deterent. Increasing a sentence is not. That makes sense for many reasons (criminals are worse at risk management, passionate crimes, crimes of opportunity where the criminal doesn't believe he will be caught, social pressures).
I agree that putting criminals in prison is the best way to prevent crime.
Cost and benefit is in terms of society as whole. It isn't free to punish people, just as it isn't free to repair a road. It costs money to detain people, or otherwise punish them. It costs money to have a police force and arrest people. Crime also costs money. The simple way of framing it: does it cost society more money to detain a criminal (easier to calculate), or deal with their crime (very difficult to calculate)? That's a cold calculus, but it's a starting point. I think you would agree that punishment clearly has diminishing returns after a certain point. Locking someone up for minor theft for 20 years costs more money than the theft is worth.
Boarchariot
13d ago
Is it the dominant framework for the discussion? I don't think I have ever spoken to someone about utilitarianism outside of rationalist ajacent circles.
To me the important question for government is, how do we get all of society's moving parts to work well together? How do we build a stable society for the future? It is, for better or worse, not a very warm approach (that's just how I tend to approach problems in general though). I acknowledge the human need to feel better about wrongs, but I think it can do more harm than good in a society of many. I also think preventing future crime is more important than punishment; it is preventable and crimes that have already happened are not. There is little evidence to show that punishment acts as a deterent for crime in our current society.
The other issue with something like retributive justice is that everyone's sense of what constitutes proper retribution is different. Retribution is not just a concern of conservative justice, it is the foundation for a lot of social justice movements. I take the same stance there. If the solution creates a bigger problem, it is not a solution (obviously this is a bit of a tautology). Or a step further: if retribution is a solution but there is a solution with better outcomes that does not involve retribution, the latter is better.
I don't think the desire for retribution isn't an important factor, just that retribution in itself isn't something to maximize as a value for me. I think the greatest pitfall of retribution in a large society (versus a small one, where it makes a lot more sense) is that the moving parts are no longer in sync. You can see this with public shamings that target relatively innocent people with great impunity and consequence. Or when two groups take opposing sides, and the desire for retribution is an infinite push back and forth.
That may have been a problem in the past. I haven't seen good faith discussion between tribal lines in a hot minute. It seems to me that it is often less about disagreeing about the solution, and disagreeing about framing altogether, e.g. the left framing abortion as a women's rights and bodily autonomy issue, the right framing abortion as a religious and ethical issue. Part of this is political posturing (saying that murdering babies is fine isn't a popular move), but part of it, to me, is missing the fundamental reason for government and politics (what makes for a more successful/stable/flourishing/insert adjective society?)
In the abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education, and many creative ways of gaugibg the effect. Usually the answer to whether something is a good idea in hat sense is contextual and not an absolutist stance (compare a country with a popukation that is too large to support, versus one that cannot replenish its population).
Boarchariot
14d ago
Have you read this ACX article on crime?
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you
It goes into detail on the effectiveness of deterence via harsh punishment. Yes, people have a sense of cause and effect, but I don't think all people have an accurate sense of how dangerous something can be. Or, put another way, is someone who has trouble with rational decision making and risk analysis more, or less likely to commit a crime? If more likely, why try to prevent crime via a mechanism that they do not pay attention to? It seems counter productive.
My own thinking is that rational decision making is lost in passionate crimes like assault and murder (hence why there is no evidence of the death penalty working as a deterent, and why the ACX article finds little deterence to violent crime in general with harsher penalties). On top of that, I believe that rationality is offset by desperation (does the chance of getting caught and charged outweigh the cost of a necessity or livelihood? Are you able to think more or less clearly when agitated or stressed?), and offset by opportunity/pressure/confidence, such as being pressured by friends, normality in the community, or thinking there is a good chance of success.
making sure that crime doesn't pay
What I meant was that crime as a cost/benefit calculation pays better when you aren't well off and resources are scarce. If you are well off, you stand to lose a lot more (plus you are usually in a better position to make a rational decision), and committing a crime is no longer a viable option. A stable life with supports (including material things as well as important people) is less likely to lead to crime. That's the hypothesis, anyway. There is a correlation between lack of wealth and crime. Of course, there are lots of complicating factors and poverty is a hard problem to solve.
Boarchariot
14d ago
I agree that I don't consider retribution the same as deterence, but the person I replied to seemed to.
Boarchariot
14d ago
There are mixed findings on punishment as a means of preventing crime, which matches my impression of most low level criminals (not a rational pro/con crowd) and understanding of why crime is committed (passion, opportunity). I don't think people commit crimes with the thought they will get caught and punished. Keeping criminals imprisoned seems to have a bigger effect on general crime (i.e. keeping them from doing it again because they are locked up).
I would guess the pre-emptive way to discourage crime is to make it so that crime doesn't pay. People are less likely to commit crimes when they have more to lose, can gauge the benefits and downsides and see the downsides are greater, or live comfortable and stable lives with loved ones in a safe community. Someone without a home, food, family or friends is way riskier than someone with any of those things.
Boarchariot
14d ago
Yeah, that's the article I meant. I hope you enjoy it.
Thanks for the links. I agree that that is compelling evidence, and I wish there was more stuff like that at the centre of discussions from both sides. My impression is that the left tends to supply evidence of social problems but comes up with a lot of counterproductive solutions to make people feel better without much material change - dealing with the most outrageous problems instead of the ones that are at the root of the matter (which are much harder to address). And you are right, a lot of people are not willing to address evidence if it is not in their side's favour. But that kind of loses sight of the goal, which should be to figure out what works and what doesn't (or at least, I would think so).
What does better evidence look like, and what precisely makes it "better"?
Well, things like having a wide scope, multiple data points, being able to compare multiple sets of data, considering context (what policies changed? Funding? Cultural/demographic changes?). And going beyond that, making hypotheses about how changes in those factors and context would change outcomes, which allows for the development of constructive changes for the future. Of course, all of these things aren't always available, but I think considering how much information exists in the world now, we should be placing value on analysis and data collection to actually better social conditions (rather than data collection that furthers more selfish end games, or flyong blind). It's ironic to me that now that so much data is (potentially) available, people are more interested in the highest profile/heated things that divert attention from basic government functioning.
My government, for example, just stopped tracking the number of people who die while waiting for a medical procedure. That seems easy to collect, and also really useful when trying to gauge how successful your healthcare system is! This inspires a lot of cynisism in me, and very little confidence in what they are doing, even if they end up doing a good job - it's what a deceitful government would do if they wanted to cover up poor health care management.
The opposite is taking measures to promote transparency, which is exactly what people who are serving the public should do, in my opinion. Transparency is not a partisan issue, but when people, whether they are politicians or their supporters, act unscrupulously then it is clearly in their best interest to be as opaque as possible. The issue is that opacity is seen as a good thing when it is on the good side, and bad when it's on the other side. But there is no way to tell which side is good when they are both opaque.
Boarchariot
14d ago
I guess we just disagree. In a hypothetical world where a caught criminal could instantly be turned into a productive, law abiding member of society without punishment, there is nothing but benefit in my view. (You can find ways to tweak that thought experiment in ways that make it closer to our messy reality, or make the result less clearcut; but as a over simplified thought experiment, it demonstrates how I feel very well).
To me, retribution seems like the heat that happens when you are trying to optimize for light.
Boarchariot
14d ago
Please, assume I know nothing about what the red tribe thinks. I do not live in the USA, and I do not really know what the red tribe complaints are, I suppose. I thought it was something like tough vs lenient on crime. I wandered into this post because I used to participate on the old motte subreddit (I still post in the wellness thread here), and the inaugaration events got me thinking.
I assume most people who are affected by the justice system are everyday people. They are the people who shoplift, or have something stolen, or have to deal with drug addicts, or speak to police officers, or feel that their neighbourhood is generally safe (or not).
I guess you are referring exclusively to political crimes or crimes that are comitted for the purpose of affecting politics, which is a fair thing to focus on. But again, there are arguments from both sides, and I don't really know how to gauge or weigh things outside of everyone being extremely dissatisfied, which isn't a good sign. It's tough for me to take evidence or arguments without a lot of skepticism because they are so one sided and seem to just go back and forth, further and further into ancestral feuds. Or that's what it feels like. The actual time frame is just a few years.
That's not really your problem nor should you be obliged to dig up information. I find a lot of political discussions disheartening because there is very little discussion of what works, and a lot of discussion about how bad the other guys are, which is not what I care about (and personally I think is extremely counter productive to finding a viable solution, which is maybe what you sense in my initial comment). I think the discussion culture here has changed quite a lot, in general and here.
Boarchariot
14d ago
(That's the joke.)
Boarchariot
14d ago
Things like general statistics, trends that can be gained from a large volume/scale of evidence, while being able to sort for other factors that are justice ajacent. I am not arguing a case for the "Blue Tribe". I am genuinely asking if you know of an overview that attempts to be non-partisan. The blue tribe talking points are systemic, but also clearly lop-sided and cherry picked.
Did you read the ACX article On Prison and Crime? (sorry, I would link it but I am a luddite and am on a phone). That is the sort of overview I find compelling, in part because the ground floor view of the justice system is absolute chaos. Alternatively, case studies might suffice, but non-partisanship is important to me because I am non-partisan myself and I don't follow news cycles.
I am also way less interested in politically big cases than what affects average people. What happens in my neighbourhood (and other neighbourhoods more generally) is way more important to me than a politically charged case, but unfortunately a lot less interesting to talk about. I am skeptical that the most newsworthy cases make good case studies because they are, by definition, exceptional. I am more interested in how crime and punishment impacts life more generally - economics, safety, etc. Questions like, "can the justice system be more efficient?" Or, "if we change x about the justice system, what are the pros and cons that will result?" In theory, those things are answerable, but the discussion is rarely about that.
Boarchariot
14d ago
What are the arguments that it is compromised? I don't know that I have seen a well laid argument. I have seen many piecemeal or specific cases that people bring up, but I have seen that from both sides, where evidence is cherry picked. In fact, it might be fair to say that in terms of public opinion, the justice system is pretty bad. No one is satisfied. Both sides can be correct even if they disagree on the problems (just as ADHD can be both over diagnosed and under diagnosed, to use an ACX example). I haven't seen a non-partisan (or even close to non-partisan) take, outside of Scott's recent post on prisons, which only scratches the surface of one part of the justoce system.
Boarchariot
14d ago
It's incentive for people who have committed crimes to give their money to the justice system, which supports the justice system. That's the benefit it provides society as a whole.
I am making it as a simple comparison, because there is a difference between a man vs a man, and the political situation where it is group vs group. The obvious difference to me is that the most vocal, violent, and dissident points of view control the dialogue (and retaliatory actions from each side continue indefinitely) while other people, who are not involved, are caught in the crossfire. Hence the tragicomedy of Romeo and Juliet.
To the other comparisons to war, which are also group vs group: defecting in this sort of political dilemma, rather than war, serves to improve the standing of specific people within the society, and not the group as a whole. The difference should be that the detriment of your neighbours is a sign of the detriment to yourself. Even if you believe that defecting helps the party who does so (to me it seems like a defect-defect downward spiral, not a defect-cooperate situation where there is any benefit), it does not folow that a benefit to the party is a boon to the people of the country more generally. But as long as people are happy to watch politicians (pretend to) club each other over the head, happy that their outgroup experiences tribulations (which means everyone gets a turn), and happy that the other side is upset, I don't see how anything constructive can happen. The reality is that the politicians will drink Johnny Walker with one another after the show is over, but the general public will have no such consolation.
You've added in the factor of saving multiple lives instead of one life (at the cost of a nice suit), which is saying something different from the original. The original means to point out the moral obviousness of saving the child at very little real cost.
To me, Singer's hypothetical points out that there are people you or I can easily help/save at a financial cost that we normally don't blink an eye at (the cost of a phone, a suit, a plane ride...), at no real danger to ourselves. This isn't a philosophical imperative, it is an observation. The observation becomes obvious when the person is next to you, but it still exists when the person in trouble is on another continent. Of course, most people are viscerally affected by someone in danger next to them, and generally have no reason to think of anyone on another continent. Singer's hypothetical attempts to address that disconnect.
I ised to have a lot of beef with the trolley problem because it is almost tautological in its obviousness. But reading some variations on it by the original author, and knowing she was a virtue ethicist, the major point I took away was that real-world moral decision-making is hard! The trolley problem is easy, but recognizing when you are faced with a "trolley problem" in real life, and figuring out which track is which, is difficult. Humans are concerned with ethics, but we have to practice to be discerning and virtuous. Ethics are not (just) a math problem.
I don't know if that follows from what you said. I can see why foreign aid isn't a consideration in a vacuum. But I would think that if helping people who are far away at a low cost to ourselves is considered a good thing, it is a consideration that a society and its government can make on a grand scale.
More options
Context Copy link