3 ms·

My question is not accusatory, though I did frame it quite specifically, so maybe it feels confining. But, in reading your response I’m not sure what question y

My question is not accusatory, though I did frame it quite specifically, so maybe it feels confining. But, in reading your response I’m not sure what question you’re answering. I didn’t ask why people don’t behave differently. I asked the question that comes before it. Why is it hard to think about the meaning of your actions? In a way, your response does answer it: you said people see that their actions won’t be effective unless they are a coordinated with other’s on a scale that can make a difference. I think that’s the same as saying: your actions are meaningless in themselves. What an interesting idea. But I’m sure you don’t feel that way about everything. A better analog than people sending the Federal Reserve more money than they owe to the IRS would be voting: does your vote not matter unless it is the decisive one? Which vote is decisive? Is the meaningfulness of a vote or of voting found only in its effectiveness? But that’s still not a good enough analog. The points that you and other commenters have made all point to the need for collective, coordinated action. I won’t dispute that; but if we’re talking about effectiveness and not meaningfulness (or, again, do you think they’re the same thing?) then the dynamic of collective action is fundamentally a social dynamic: people are neither provoked by nor affirmed by what they see the people around them doing. If you made visible, ethical choices (as I’m sure you do) you find that a friend or colleague is starting to make similar choices. The visibility encourages others. Maybe the very same arguments about the futility of action make it all the more critical. I should be explicit about one other thing. I may be wrong, but my assumption in asking my question about how thinking about the meaning of your actions is hard is that that thoughtfulness is what will change your behavior.

tomhoward 6y ago
The central question of your original comment seemed to me to be: "We’re all ok with this?" You've followed up pointing out that the actual central question was "So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions". As I said in the my first reply, I think it's pretty clear that people in this discussion thread, and most people frequenting this website, are not OK with this. And in response to the more recent comment: plenty of people in this thread are demonstrating that they are thinking about the consequences of their decisions. But as I, and plenty of others here have pointed out, no amount of "thinking about consequences" will change the fact that the consequences of an individual's actions in insolation are profoundly different to the consequences of the same action co-ordinated across the entire society. The voting system works (to the extent that it does work - and I must say where I live, in Australia, it works much better through being legally compulsory and therefore not subject to manipulation of eligibility+attendance), because the cost is low (take a few hours out of your day once every couple/few years) and the payoff relatively high (feel you have a stake in your democracy/society, influence policy, celebrate the victory if your candidate/party wins). Other forms of co-ordinated activity all have equivalent factors of cost vs. payoff that lead to the intended outcome. So I guess there's your answer: to solve this problem, there needs to be a cost vs. benefit formulation that leads to a widespread change in behaviour.

tomhoward 6y ago

The central question of your original comment seemed to me to be: "We’re all ok with this?" You've followed up pointing out that the actual central question was "So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions". As I said in the my first reply, I think it's pretty clear that people in this discussion thread, and most people frequenting this website, are not OK with this. And in response to the more recent comment: plenty of people in this thread are demonstrating that they are thinking about the consequences of their decisions. But as I, and plenty of others here have pointed out, no amount of "thinking about consequences" will change the fact that the consequences of an individual's actions in insolation are profoundly different to the consequences of the same action co-ordinated across the entire society. The voting system works (to the extent that it does work - and I must say where I live, in Australia, it works much better through being legally compulsory and therefore not subject to manipulation of eligibility+attendance), because the cost is low (take a few hours out of your day once every couple/few years) and the payoff relatively high (feel you have a stake in your democracy/society, influence policy, celebrate the victory if your candidate/party wins). Other forms of co-ordinated activity all have equivalent factors of cost vs. payoff that lead to the intended outcome. So I guess there's your answer: to solve this problem, there needs to be a cost vs. benefit formulation that leads to a widespread change in behaviour.