3 ms·

"it's a product there is demand for, but it's not in anyone's interest to buy it" Pick one. That's what demand means -- that it's in someone's interest (in th

"it's a product there is demand for, but it's not in anyone's interest to buy it" Pick one. That's what demand means -- that it's in someone's interest (in their own opinion, since no one else can decide a person's interest) to buy it.

scott_s 18y ago
Heroin has demand. That doesn't mean it's in anyone's best interest to use it.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  It may not be in their best interest in our opinion, but it certainly is in their own. And that's all there is: opinion, ours and theirs. Top-level goals cannot be reasoned to; there is no "ought from is".
  - philwelch 18y ago
    But this isn't a top-level goal. Someone who buys bottled water wants a drink of water. They can get an better drink of water for less money by drinking (possibly filtered) tap water. Bottled water is a poor means to an end, it's not an end in itself. Using heroin isn't usually a top level goal either. Usually, the top level goal for addictive drug use is to satisfy the addiction. (That's rather recursive, which means there must have been a base-case goal that got the person to use drugs in the first place, but heroin is still not an end in itself either.)
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      you have to take into account people's overly high time preference when trying to make sense of "irrational" behavior.
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      The reference to "top-level" goals was about heroin. I agree that it's probably no one's top-level goal to drink bottled water. ;) Reply to edit: Yes, but heroin is so close to the top-level goal of "pleasure" that we can almost treat them as the same (and certainly for purposes of internet arguments). Even assuming the physical addiction was removed, lots of heroin addicts would go back to it, or to something else if it had a better high for them (I'd guess tasps will eventually reduce demand for drugs quite effectively).
      - philwelch 18y ago
        Heroin comes bundled with lots of pain and expense and dysfunction too, though. It goes against pleasure as soon as you're without it for long enough, and it also goes against other top-level goals many people have. I don't know many heroin addicts but I know smokers, and in my experience, smokers always advise me not to start smoking because it's not worth it. I'd take that as a sign that smoking does not satisfy the top-level goals of the smokers whom I have spoken with on this topic. In any case, addictive drugs are only an analogy. Yet even in this analogy we can see where top-level goals are often incompatible with the means people use to achieve them. I'd also advise you that if your argument rests upon the lemma that heroin use is a rational means to achieve pleasure, you may have a mistake in reasoning somewhere :)
        randallsquared 18y ago
        I'm not suggesting that heroin use is something I'd support, just that I don't think we can say for someone else what their own best interest is, and the fact that people go back to heroin after being clean suggests that it is worth all the downsides, in their value system, if not mine and yours.
        scott_s 18y ago
        People rarely make fully rational decisions. Addicts succumb, they don't decide to start using again.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    No, sometimes they can rationally know it's not in their long-term best interest, but they do it anyway because withdrawal is so bad. I know smokers who smoke despite knowing it's not in their best interest. Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they actually think it's good to want it.

scott_s 18y ago

Heroin has demand. That doesn't mean it's in anyone's best interest to use it.

randallsquared 18y ago
It may not be in their best interest in our opinion, but it certainly is in their own. And that's all there is: opinion, ours and theirs. Top-level goals cannot be reasoned to; there is no "ought from is".
- philwelch 18y ago
  But this isn't a top-level goal. Someone who buys bottled water wants a drink of water. They can get an better drink of water for less money by drinking (possibly filtered) tap water. Bottled water is a poor means to an end, it's not an end in itself. Using heroin isn't usually a top level goal either. Usually, the top level goal for addictive drug use is to satisfy the addiction. (That's rather recursive, which means there must have been a base-case goal that got the person to use drugs in the first place, but heroin is still not an end in itself either.)
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    you have to take into account people's overly high time preference when trying to make sense of "irrational" behavior.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    The reference to "top-level" goals was about heroin. I agree that it's probably no one's top-level goal to drink bottled water. ;) Reply to edit: Yes, but heroin is so close to the top-level goal of "pleasure" that we can almost treat them as the same (and certainly for purposes of internet arguments). Even assuming the physical addiction was removed, lots of heroin addicts would go back to it, or to something else if it had a better high for them (I'd guess tasps will eventually reduce demand for drugs quite effectively).
    - philwelch 18y ago
      Heroin comes bundled with lots of pain and expense and dysfunction too, though. It goes against pleasure as soon as you're without it for long enough, and it also goes against other top-level goals many people have. I don't know many heroin addicts but I know smokers, and in my experience, smokers always advise me not to start smoking because it's not worth it. I'd take that as a sign that smoking does not satisfy the top-level goals of the smokers whom I have spoken with on this topic. In any case, addictive drugs are only an analogy. Yet even in this analogy we can see where top-level goals are often incompatible with the means people use to achieve them. I'd also advise you that if your argument rests upon the lemma that heroin use is a rational means to achieve pleasure, you may have a mistake in reasoning somewhere :)
      - randallsquared 18y ago
        I'm not suggesting that heroin use is something I'd support, just that I don't think we can say for someone else what their own best interest is, and the fact that people go back to heroin after being clean suggests that it is worth all the downsides, in their value system, if not mine and yours.
        scott_s 18y ago
        People rarely make fully rational decisions. Addicts succumb, they don't decide to start using again.
- scott_s 18y ago
  No, sometimes they can rationally know it's not in their long-term best interest, but they do it anyway because withdrawal is so bad. I know smokers who smoke despite knowing it's not in their best interest. Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they actually think it's good to want it.