The Subjective Harm/Benefit vs the Subjective Harm.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

When does subjective pleasure trump objective harm? I have been trying to come up with a consistent view of utility, but I can't. On one hand, I would think that objective harm would trump subjective harm/pleasure, but it doesn't seem consistently doable.

For instance, it seems perfectly fine when comparing interpersonal relations. Person A wants to hit person B. Hitting B will be an objective harm, physical, and painful. A will gain pleasure. I would think that the objective harm would outweigh it, but I can't really prove it.

But we also would approve of paternalism in some cases; Mr. Wong in the case of obesity and smoking. Prima facie, it doesn't seem wrong to me, due to the above, but it seems as if a lot of people argue that they get "subjetive pleasure" from hurting themselves. I think it would have consequences to society as well though in terms of costs and emotional costs to the family, but the second one is subjective.


However, I wouldn't say that subjective harms or benefits shouldn't count. It would still be wrong to go around causing random people to cry and feel bad. And you certainly wouldn't say it would be good live such that yo u are bored silly, but physically safe from objective harm. But if objective harms and benefits are worth more, would it be ok to cause sadness to prevent someone from being harmed? I guess one has to factor in what level of harm, but how do you weigh that vs the subjective? There's no real measuring stick.

I keep running against the argument from freedom, and it seems as if the freedom issue always is seen to trump the harm issue when I talk to some people.

One clear example is in schools; some people say that banning certain foods or limiting intake of certan foods is "wrong" because it limits freedom of the parents to give them what they want. But, for obese children, this contributes to an objective harm.

So, I guess, how do you personally feel is the correct way to balance subjective vs objective wrongs and rights?

[Darth Wong]

I think you have to draw a bright line between subjective harm and subjective wish denial, which is what a lot of self-indulgent people classify as harm.

Before we learned about neurotransmitters and nerve impulses and the like, pain would have been classified as subjective harm (it's still largely subjective in many cases, since we don't have any easy ways of monitoring someone's neurotransmitters and nerve impulses, and we certainly can't evaluate them after the fact, like we would a broken bone). But something like "you won't let me do this, and that annoys me" is wish denial, not harm. Even wish denial shouldn't be assigned a value of zero, but it is certainly not to be equated to harm, especially not objective harm.

[NecronLord]

People emphasise freedom a lot, because, aside from modern Western (esp American) culture lauding it as the highest of virtues, historically every effort for cultures to dictate people's personal lives has ended in disaster, be it prevalance of male genital mutilation in America ("It stops wanking! Waah!") or the Cultural Revolution in Communist China. Trying to legislate people's personal behaviour below a certain level (objective harm - ahem, bedroom - though smoking's a far more legitimate example) seems to often end up with lots of people getting maimed, killed, and/or brutalised.

Freedom is a necessery safeguard to stop any regime created by humans doing lots of harm for 'the right' reasons.

[Darth Wong]

True. The use of subjective criteria as major weighting factors can lead to virtually any outcome one desires, because all you have to do is say that something is really important to you, and all of a sudden you've changed what's ethical.

[NecronLord]

Indeed. That's pretty much how you get to any kind of perverse ethics. "To preseve the socialist state from counter-revolution, anything necessery is good." Of course, that's the fun of ethics. Trying to construct a system that works as best as possible for all possible circumstances. It's pretty much impossible to please everybody with anything, though.

Just as well, really. I'd hate to see how badly a real government could fuck up a perfect ethical system.

[K. A. Pital]

Freedom is a necessery safeguard to stop any regime created by humans doing lots of harm for 'the right' reasons.

Sadly enough, even "freedom" can't really stop that from happening. What is "freedom" anyway in that context?

The bureaucratical machine of democracy that ensures the removal of a leader after certain time and the separation of power, the "checks and balances"? That's not "freedom", that's the inner workings of a democratic political system. "Freedom" is another word.

So what kind of "freedom" is spoken about?

People emphasise freedom a lot, because, aside from modern Western (esp American) culture lauding it as the highest of virtues, historically every effort for cultures to dictate people's personal lives has ended in disaster

Many of them were done under the slogans of freedom. In fact, I'm interested greatly in just how much the American definition of "freedom" differs from that in other countries, if we're talking about a cultural idea, so to say.

Freedom is also not "equal justice", which is what generally leads people to be oh-kay to their fellow neighbor and does not give the ability to practice the "justice for some, for others injustice" principle by "free" people who choose to do so out of populist hatred, etc.

So what exactly is freedom, and how can it be a safeguard? Democracy easily slides into dictatorship, ochlocracy, oligarchy, it's dominated by forces of populism. So perhaps it's not that good of a safeguard, and democracy isn't freedom either.

The freedom to speak and act means little if your acts are not supported by a majority, so even if everyone's "free" to act and speak, opression can and will be created by the majority versus the minority. Large national movements of populism may have enormous support of free, at least as I see it, people - even if they're opressive, like Christianity.

So which kind of freedom, really, can be any safeguard against doing harm? The masses are easily manipulated and act out violence out of free will. There can't be any safequard IMHO.

[NecronLord]

Sadly enough, even "freedom" can't really stop that from happening. What is "freedom" anyway in that context?

I'm explaining the reasoning in abstract, Stas, not actually making an argument.

The bureaucratical machine of democracy that ensures the removal of a leader after certain time and the separation of power, the "checks and balances"? That's not "freedom", that's the inner workings of a democratic political system. "Freedom" is another word.

And you of course, presume that I'm talking about that. In this context, Freedom is leaving people (especially consenting adults) alone to do what they want so long as it harms no one. Not, of course, that there is much specifics in this thread. I am explaining why people try to counter paternalistic arguments with claims about freedom, or (more stupidly) absolute rights, I am not saying which I 'believe' in.

So what kind of "freedom" is spoken about?

See OP. People [EDIT: perhaps this should be 'try to' but I'll let it stand...] counter such pro-paternalistic arguments with ones about freedom.

Many of them were done under the slogans of freedom. In fact, I'm interested greatly in just how much the American definition of "freedom" differs from that in other countries, if we're talking about a cultural idea, so to say.

Just for the record. I'm not an American. You don't actually seem to have read my post.

I am not advocating any particular method of ensuring 'freedom,' I am explaining why people say that 'freedom' is more important than safety, in general terms. Specifics of course, vary on a case by case basis. Democracy certainly is not perfect, nor even particularly effective (though some democracies do quite well, I'd contend that it's more to do with an educated and motivated populance, than any inherent trait of the setup) and I am insulted that you seem to think I would argue that.

[Darth Wong]

The freedom vs safety argument is also seriously impacted by ignorance. Specifically, the people who tend to argue for the "freedom" side know deep down that severe safety risks do in fact warrant regulation, but they believe the safety issues are overblown.

That's one thing I've noticed about everyone I've ever met who argued for "freedom" from things like seatbelt laws. If you pry, they will eventually admit that they don't think seatbelts really make a big difference to safety. Most of them spout ignorant tripe about how it's safer to be "thrown clear". Similarly, the people who argue against strict smoking regulations tend to think that smoking isn't really as bad as those pesky doctors and medical researchers say.

Another issue is child safety. So many people say things like "we did this when we were kids, and we all survived". If they look at the statistics, they did not all survive. Many of them died. In fact, accidents kill more children than all of the things we do worry about, like pedophile psychopaths and violent crimes.

[NecronLord]

A little unrelated, but one thing that always annoys me - is how many sets of traffic lights they could buy with the money they spend cataloguing pedophiles to reassure the readers of the News of the World.

I would bet several of my teeth that they could probably save more children by spending the same monies they spend on endless reports, files, indexes, databases and radio-alarmed anklets on fences by railroad tracks and extra traffic lights and other road safety measures.

But it's far less dramatic.

[Middleclass]

For instance, it seems perfectly fine when comparing interpersonal relations. Person A wants to hit person B. Hitting B will be an objective harm, physical, and painful. A will gain pleasure. I would think that the objective harm would outweigh it, but I can't really prove it.

So, I guess, how do you personally feel is the correct way to balance subjective vs objective wrongs and rights?

From my point of view, the whole subjective vs. objective thing is blown out of proportion. To me, it doesn't really matter. From a strict economic utility perspective, it doesn't matter at all. You have to measure the degree of benefit or harm to make a real analysis, if you are going to accept that punching a guy may be justified because you really, really want to. So ask the guy how much he would be willing to pay to avoid being punched. Then ask yourself how much you would be willing to pay to punch him. If your amount is higher, punch him, then give him some amount in between the two bids. Ta-da, everyone is happier.

This method gives a close enough estimation of benefit vs. harm, but has the added benefit of internalizing the externality*. This is anywhere and everywhere a good thing. I think we can all agree that if someone wants to do something that is harmful only to themselves, and they are aware of the consequenses, then no one should stop them. The problem is when their actions hurt everyone else. To me, it is often simpler to internalize these negative externalities than to forbid the action entirely.

Of course, as many of you are thinking, economics does not a moral code make. This much is obvious. I bring it up for two reasons:

1) You used economic terms, such as utility, and seemed to be thinking in that direction.

2) Economics can inform a moral code.

This second point leads to several possible moral codes, one of which is quite popular. It says that in light of uncertain levels of utility between the harmer and the harmed, combined with the disparity of burden of the harm, we should strive to avoid any action with a negative externality. Or, as any grandfather would put it, your right to throw a punch ends at my face.

*Internalizing the externality refers to the process of an economic actor absorbing the costs of action that would otherwise be absorbed by someone else. The textbook example is a polluting factory being made to pay for cleanup, or at least pay off the people who live in a messy environment. It is considered good becuase with negative externalities a producer is not paying the full cost of production, which leads to ineffecient overproduction. I include this as a footnote because it seemed to break up the flow, also because I assume that some of the readers will be aware of this idea.

[K. A. Pital]

People [EDIT: perhaps this should be 'try to' but I'll let it stand...] counter such pro-paternalistic arguments with ones about freedom.

Oh. That's fine. I just misunderstood you. Yes, that's the kind of arguments people make. Though there is no clear concept of freedom, it is obviously used as a counter to paternalism.