Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't optimize your way to being a good person

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#101

Post by SoftTalker »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #30
nuancebydefault wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess i would have done the same. Do they throw 17 yos in jail, where you live? If so, do they do that over stealing a phone? If so... maybe it would be more moral in stepping into a political career and try to change some laws?

I knew someone that spent about 18 years in Maximum Security adult prison, from 17, because he burgled the house of an important person. One of the smartest people I ever knew. Probably had an IQ of 140. He was an HVAC tech, and had trouble staying employed. It totally wrecked his life, and he ended badly. Yes, we do that stuff in the US.

Sounds really unusual for a first offense at that age even for burglary. So I assume there’s more to the story.

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#102

Post by kelseyfrog »

roughly wrote: post #12
kelseyfrog wrote: post #6

I'm a moral incompletist. That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive…

That's a good way to phrase it, and something I agree with. I'd heard the phrase "epistemological modesty" a while back, and it goes nicely with this - I think a great deal of harm is done in this world by people looking at other people suffering and either convincing themselves or being convinced that there's a greater systemic reason why those people need to suffer. Epistemological modesty suggests whatever grand d…

> moral incompletionism suggests they can never be fully right

Yes. My conclusions are twofold.

1. Attempting to create a complete and consistent moral framework is a fools errand. There will always be either moral gaps (cases that are outside the moral framework's ability to judge), or moral inconsistencies (cases where we have two incompatible moral conclusions).

2. Attempting to render a moral framework invalid by either pointing out its incompleteness or its inconsistency is not meaningful - since all moral frameworks are susceptible to one or both of these flaws. Therefore our justification for deciding the virtues of a moral framework cannot be that it is consistent nor complete - rather it has to be something else entirely.

We have to accept that there are unknowable or conflicting moral facts and each of these results in moral ambiguity either by absence or excess. This is independent of any particular moral framework (Yes even yours dear reader).

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#103

Post by zmgsabst »

tombert wrote: post #96
zmgsabst wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the kid, doesn’t it? > I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17. For example, being forced to confront the consequences of their actions at 17 when the punishment is lesser and likely to include diversion or similar might have prevented them from committing a similar crime when older and receiving a harsher penalty — which in…

Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that this would go to grownup court and they’d be given the full consequences. “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. I think it is extremely naive…

> “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away.

People call it “toxic empathy” not because empathy is inherently wrong, but because it leads to people such as yourself minimizing the use of force in a crime (which you admit this was) while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims.

> Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”.

> I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison.

These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc.

> I think it is extremely naive to think that sending someone to an American prison will create anything but a worse felon. This isn’t Norway, American prisons are purely punitive.

They likely would’ve negotiated a plea for a misdemeanor and treatment on a first offense, in the US. Even first time lower felonies result in supervised probation and mandatory treatment, eg, the recommended outcome for drug felonies.

Again, you seem to be focusing entirely on your feelings — without an honest account of either the likely outcome of prosecution, the criminal’s future (having normalized violent robberies), or their future victims.

This is why it’s called “toxic empathy”: because you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also.

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#104

Post by sugarplant »

tombert wrote: post #96
zmgsabst wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the kid, doesn’t it? > I didn't see any good coming from throwing a 17 year old kid into jail, and I remember how stupid I was when I was 17. For example, being forced to confront the consequences of their actions at 17 when the punishment is lesser and likely to include diversion or similar might have prevented them from committing a similar crime when older and receiving a harsher penalty — which in…

Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that this would go to grownup court and they’d be given the full consequences. “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. I think it is extremely naive…

the irony in calling someone "extremely naive" while talking about a 17 year old getting prison time for snatching a phone. on top of the rest of the posts

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#105

Post by [deleted] »

atmosx wrote: post #38
Clubber wrote: post #8

I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. I like your hair, I like your shirt, etc. It's the simple things. The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.

> I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.

[deleted]

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#106

Post by Clubber »

atmosx wrote: post #38
Clubber wrote: post #8

I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I try to compliment someone on something whenever I go out and about. I like your hair, I like your shirt, etc. It's the simple things. The author and their anecdotes seem like compulsive behavior/thinking. They'll hopefully get over it once life beats them down a bit more. Just be good to people, don't over think it.

> I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want to come across as harsh, but your approach/wording seems condescending, egotistical, and ultimately an empty way to live. Wise people learn by observing others (as the saying goes), but allowing others to dictate who you are reflects a lack of character IMO.

>> I always tell my daughter to be a kind person because there is currently an oversupply of assholes.

>I don't want to come across as harsh

Found one!

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#107

Post by sandspar »

jimt1234 wrote: post #19

This whole article just feels like analysis paralysis. Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought.

Cynically, the more you think about being a good person, the more superior you can feel to others who don't think about it as much. This interpretation fits with explanations for Trump's win, that intellectuals like Vox readers have become detached from common concerns and also smug.

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#108

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

SoftTalker wrote: post #101
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone that spent about 18 years in Maximum Security adult prison, from 17, because he burgled the house of an important person. One of the smartest people I ever knew. Probably had an IQ of 140. He was an HVAC tech, and had trouble staying employed. It totally wrecked his life, and he ended badly. Yes, we do that stuff in the US.

Sounds really unusual for a first offense at that age even for burglary. So I assume there’s more to the story.

Yeah. He never got specific, but I think so. However, this was also "Down South," where the rich folks literally have the prosecutors and police on their payroll.

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#109

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

scotty79 wrote: post #100
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was angry . I mean, really angry. He was also very big and intimidating. That didn't help. Most of the anger came from prison, and from being screwed over, to be thrown in there. That can make it difficult to get along with others, and those who don't play well with others, have trouble staying employed. But it's also possible to transcend that kind of thing. I see it regularly. It just takes a lot of work. Painfu…

But he did burgle a house, so obviously he had some pre-existing behavioral issues, right? And those are probably not gone. > Most of the anger came from prison, and from being screwed over, to be thrown in there. That clearly illustrates that he didn't progress at all in his understanding of life. I'd be afraid to live within few kilometers of him let alone having him work at my company if I had one

Yup. He never adjusted. He was always acting as if he was still in The Yard.

Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person

#110

Post by x-complexity »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #87
poincaredisk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent. So you mean "incomplete or inconsistent"? It sounds like this is what you meant. Then I disagree. Two examples of a complete and consistent (and computable) moral system: * everything is good * everything is evil

Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean.

> Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning.

My biggest gripe (& source of hatred) with this reasoning is that you can do this infinitely without any remorse. It's a black hole, wherein all effort becomes wasted because the other side refuses to pin down definitions, and instead goes "nuh uh, not like that" infinitely.

But fine then. Here's what I think they're trying to do.

Given a universal set encompassing all actions (defined as A):

- All actions within A are permitted without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably positive to everyone, without exceptions.

OR

- All actions within A are forbidden without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably negative to everyone, without exceptions.

> One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean.

Again, refer back to my utter hatred towards universal moral relativism.

> "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant).

Side note: Deriving from current physics, the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative, and thus it can be reasoned that the destruction of all matter is morally good from the universe's perspective, including the destruction of all living life. By continuing to expand the universe & increase entropy, the universe has chosen to take such a moral stance.

It can thus be concluded that genocide, in accelerating towards maximum entropy, is deemed morally good by the universe. QED.

Post reply on HN