3 ms·

To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1

To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict sentencing laws don't work in many situations (and often have unforeseen consequences, like the Revolving Door effect in American prisons [2]). In this situation, as much as we wish we could have directed the poor man to the nearest homeless shelter serving hot soup, it doesn't seem likely that taking away the threat of a 6 month prison stay would make him less likely to do that. The various hardships that are overindexed in the homeless population, from drug addiction to mental illness [3] (to perhaps a language barrier in this case) not only make them less likely to be able to find food consistently, but also make them less likely to respond to criminal disincentives. It is a more enlightened philosophy of justice to acknowledge that saying 'you should have known better' won't make people know better. As the concept of morality progresses from a simple Hammurabian ear-for-an-ear justice game to a nuanced empirically-founded optimization problem, it will be interesting to see whether or not people continue to take pleasure in exerting it. That the latter problem tends to be incredibly engrossing to the technically literate means many of us will respond to this quite positively. Postscript: If morality were a solved problem, would there be as many Effective Altruists? [1] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivism http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publication/230755953_Homelessness_in_schizophrenia/links/540dafa10cf2df04e7564937.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publicat... | relevant quote : estimation of mood disorders at "12% to 30% in various homeless samples".

objectivistbrit 10y ago
Interesting to meet an effective altruist here. I was somewhat involved in EA for a while and even interned at an EA org, but after reading up a bunch of different philosophies the one which I found most consistent with reality was -- perhaps surprisingly -- Objectivism. The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, though, I'll simply say that the two schools of thought fromthemorning cites both assume that the purpose of morality is to maximise the greater good (rather than, say, teaching individuals principles to maximise their own long-term personal happiness). On the off chance that someone on the fringes of the EA movement reads this, someone who shares the concerns I once had - the ultimate issue with EA is that it's hyper-empiricist: EAs love evidence but are highly distrustful of theoretical arguments. This is an understandable position, but ultimately a mistake, because you end up unable to synthesise the vast amounts of data you gather. All truths are simplifications - what you need are rules to form correct simplifications. Objectivism isn't taken seriously in mainstream intellectual circles but it should be, because it shows how to avoid the pitfalls of both empiricism and rationalism. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details).
- fromthemorning 10y ago
  I was arguing from the standpoint of an Effective Altruist, but like you a few years ago, I'm in the process of leaving the camp. I'm currently unsure of which moral philosophy to base the rest of my life on, though luckily I'm at a stage in my life when I can take my time to make an informed decision (early 20's). Also, bear with me, as I'm not very well-versed in the nomenclature. EA-styled morality is beginning to seem a silly set of rules society has taught us to enjoy following, like an owner would teach their dog Fetch. I've grown out of one such set of rules before when I rejected my family's fervent Catholicism, but the idea that there is no set-in-stone validity of rules underpinning my entire value system has proven much more harrowing. Gtg right now, but I might look up the book you recommended after I read up on some of these things on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Feels like the beginning of an interesting journey.

objectivistbrit 10y ago

Interesting to meet an effective altruist here. I was somewhat involved in EA for a while and even interned at an EA org, but after reading up a bunch of different philosophies the one which I found most consistent with reality was -- perhaps surprisingly -- Objectivism. The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, though, I'll simply say that the two schools of thought fromthemorning cites both assume that the purpose of morality is to maximise the greater good (rather than, say, teaching individuals principles to maximise their own long-term personal happiness). On the off chance that someone on the fringes of the EA movement reads this, someone who shares the concerns I once had - the ultimate issue with EA is that it's hyper-empiricist: EAs love evidence but are highly distrustful of theoretical arguments. This is an understandable position, but ultimately a mistake, because you end up unable to synthesise the vast amounts of data you gather. All truths are simplifications - what you need are rules to form correct simplifications. Objectivism isn't taken seriously in mainstream intellectual circles but it should be, because it shows how to avoid the pitfalls of both empiricism and rationalism. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details).

fromthemorning 10y ago
I was arguing from the standpoint of an Effective Altruist, but like you a few years ago, I'm in the process of leaving the camp. I'm currently unsure of which moral philosophy to base the rest of my life on, though luckily I'm at a stage in my life when I can take my time to make an informed decision (early 20's). Also, bear with me, as I'm not very well-versed in the nomenclature. EA-styled morality is beginning to seem a silly set of rules society has taught us to enjoy following, like an owner would teach their dog Fetch. I've grown out of one such set of rules before when I rejected my family's fervent Catholicism, but the idea that there is no set-in-stone validity of rules underpinning my entire value system has proven much more harrowing. Gtg right now, but I might look up the book you recommended after I read up on some of these things on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Feels like the beginning of an interesting journey.