3 ms·

While there may be very good counter arguments, I dont buy your bank robber argument. If I were putting together an ocean's 11 team, I would try to attract bett

While there may be very good counter arguments, I dont buy your bank robber argument. If I were putting together an ocean's 11 team, I would try to attract better bank robbers by offering them a greater cut. Sure this is negative value for the bank, but positive value to me and my team.

dvt 9y ago
I think you're extrapolating a bit too much. This is what I meant: an idiot with a ski mask walks into a bank, waves around a shotgun and yells "Give me all your money!" I would argue it provides negative value because not only does the bank get hurt, but, more importantly, his fellow citizens do -- after all, he's stealing my money and your money. If someone gets physically hurt (e.g. shot), even more so. I think I could beat your Ocean's 11 caper argument, too, but it would have to involve more discussion about what "value" is. For example, there's probably more "value" in being a doctor than in being a stock broker (even though one makes more money than the other). Similarly, being an art thief, let's say a world-class one, (weirdly) provides more value than being a run-of-the-mill bank robber, but it's still negative. It seems plausible that this kind of argument could work, but I'd have to think about it more. PS: This discussion reminds me a bit of Peter Geach's Good and Evil[1] (1956). [1] http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil
- subroutine 9y ago
  Mmmm, I guess I don't see how value to society-at-large is a central factor in determining a person's value to a private company, where the primary goal is to maximize profits. My simple assumption is that gross earnings are maximized by employing the most talented group of individuals possible, while profits are maximized via some function relating each person's talent (roughly translated as their propensity to foster earnings for the company) vs. each person's cost (salary). If Woman-A, Woman-B, Man-A, and Man-B are all attorneys of similar cost (require same salary to recruit), the most pragmatic move is to hire the most talented among them. If this isn't happening, there is some underlying inefficiency lurking; and it could very well be gender bias. Now, as for a metaphor, I think the bank robber thing is far too abstract; instead how about this... Say there is a law firm specializing in criminal law. Specifically they defend people charged with murder. Consider that innocent people charged with a murder are, on average, easier to defend than people who actually did commit murder. This means that... the better this lawfirm is at their job, the more actual murderers they will successfully defend. I think it's safe to assume that absolving actual murderers has a net negative value to society. As a law firm, I don't give a single shit about that. OJs of the world are simply not interested in paying thousands of dollars to law firms concerned with whether their acquittal will have a net positive value to society-at-large.
  - dvt 9y ago
    There's a few issues with this hard-line utilitarian POV, mainly what's called the "utility monster", first discussed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia[1] (1967). This is getting pretty complicated (and I could very well be wrong), but I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...
    - subroutine 9y ago
      > I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society. If a female lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer, does that provide more societal value than when a male lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer?

dvt 9y ago

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much. This is what I meant: an idiot with a ski mask walks into a bank, waves around a shotgun and yells "Give me all your money!" I would argue it provides negative value because not only does the bank get hurt, but, more importantly, his fellow citizens do -- after all, he's stealing my money and your money. If someone gets physically hurt (e.g. shot), even more so. I think I could beat your Ocean's 11 caper argument, too, but it would have to involve more discussion about what "value" is. For example, there's probably more "value" in being a doctor than in being a stock broker (even though one makes more money than the other). Similarly, being an art thief, let's say a world-class one, (weirdly) provides more value than being a run-of-the-mill bank robber, but it's still negative. It seems plausible that this kind of argument could work, but I'd have to think about it more. PS: This discussion reminds me a bit of Peter Geach's Good and Evil[1] (1956). [1] http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil

subroutine 9y ago
Mmmm, I guess I don't see how value to society-at-large is a central factor in determining a person's value to a private company, where the primary goal is to maximize profits. My simple assumption is that gross earnings are maximized by employing the most talented group of individuals possible, while profits are maximized via some function relating each person's talent (roughly translated as their propensity to foster earnings for the company) vs. each person's cost (salary). If Woman-A, Woman-B, Man-A, and Man-B are all attorneys of similar cost (require same salary to recruit), the most pragmatic move is to hire the most talented among them. If this isn't happening, there is some underlying inefficiency lurking; and it could very well be gender bias. Now, as for a metaphor, I think the bank robber thing is far too abstract; instead how about this... Say there is a law firm specializing in criminal law. Specifically they defend people charged with murder. Consider that innocent people charged with a murder are, on average, easier to defend than people who actually did commit murder. This means that... the better this lawfirm is at their job, the more actual murderers they will successfully defend. I think it's safe to assume that absolving actual murderers has a net negative value to society. As a law firm, I don't give a single shit about that. OJs of the world are simply not interested in paying thousands of dollars to law firms concerned with whether their acquittal will have a net positive value to society-at-large.
- dvt 9y ago
  There's a few issues with this hard-line utilitarian POV, mainly what's called the "utility monster", first discussed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia[1] (1967). This is getting pretty complicated (and I could very well be wrong), but I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006 https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...
  - subroutine 9y ago
    > I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society. If a female lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer, does that provide more societal value than when a male lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer?