4 ms·

> rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods. So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally

> rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods. So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally would rather not live in a world where my choices are artificially limited by someone's idea of what is "good for me". I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself, and willing to accept consequences of my mistakes.

bumby 5y ago
FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position. >I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health. Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master. > I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.
      - bumby 5y ago
        If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Where is this social contract written? I don't see anything about welfare in the constitution.
        bumby 5y ago
        Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States Nationalized healthcare which you’ve previously stated you're against, for example, would likely be payed for by a tax. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled the penalties within the ACA amounted to a tax and were legal. Article I Section 8 also outlines Congress’s ability to regulate commerce, despite your claim that amicable interactions of private individuals “minding their own business” are outside its jurisdiction. You can be against all of these as policy, but that doesn’t mean they breach the social contract or are somehow immoral. Your Rugged Constitution[1], while old, is interesting because it frames each Article in terms of both what you give and what you get from the social contract, the former part being lost on many people. For example, regarding the aforementioned clause, you give the federal government additional power in exchange for the ability “to take care of the needs of the country at home”, I.e., general welfare. [1] Findlay, Bruce Allyn, and Esther Blair Findlay. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -, 1919.
hxtk 5y ago
Your choices are already being shaped in that way. That's why, for example, modern residential roads are designed with shorter sight distances, narrower lanes, speed bumps/humps, and more roadside shrubbery compared to their counterparts from a century ago. It turns out that the mere suggestion of a speed limit—albeit carrying force of law—does not make everyone choose to drive that speed. Instead, human factors are taken into account so that it "feels more natural" to drive the road at the speed the engineers intended. We try to make it easier to use the system in a way that is safe and accomplishes the user's goals than in a way that causes harm. Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy. I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.

bumby 5y ago

FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position. >I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.

thegrimmest 5y ago
> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health. Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.
- bumby 5y ago
  >One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master. > I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.
    - bumby 5y ago
      If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Where is this social contract written? I don't see anything about welfare in the constitution.
        bumby 5y ago
        Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States Nationalized healthcare which you’ve previously stated you're against, for example, would likely be payed for by a tax. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled the penalties within the ACA amounted to a tax and were legal. Article I Section 8 also outlines Congress’s ability to regulate commerce, despite your claim that amicable interactions of private individuals “minding their own business” are outside its jurisdiction. You can be against all of these as policy, but that doesn’t mean they breach the social contract or are somehow immoral. Your Rugged Constitution[1], while old, is interesting because it frames each Article in terms of both what you give and what you get from the social contract, the former part being lost on many people. For example, regarding the aforementioned clause, you give the federal government additional power in exchange for the ability “to take care of the needs of the country at home”, I.e., general welfare. [1] Findlay, Bruce Allyn, and Esther Blair Findlay. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -, 1919.

hxtk 5y ago

Your choices are already being shaped in that way. That's why, for example, modern residential roads are designed with shorter sight distances, narrower lanes, speed bumps/humps, and more roadside shrubbery compared to their counterparts from a century ago. It turns out that the mere suggestion of a speed limit—albeit carrying force of law—does not make everyone choose to drive that speed. Instead, human factors are taken into account so that it "feels more natural" to drive the road at the speed the engineers intended. We try to make it easier to use the system in a way that is safe and accomplishes the user's goals than in a way that causes harm. Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy. I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.