This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I just pointed out how important the distinction is between fist fights and unprovoked assaults. A world with fewer fist fights sounds nice to me, but to each their own. A world with fewer unprovoked assaults, though, is one I'd really like to live in, even if that means I never get to blindside someone myself. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't "I can never safely give someone a black eye out of the blue" be a price so small that it's worth paying for even a slightly reduced risk of being punched and possibly even killed out of the blue? Maybe not when we're thinking about 22 year olds, I guess? It's a real shame that men often become old enough to murder people with fists before they become old enough to realize they should avoid any risk of murdering people with fists.
Everything I'm reading about this case makes it sound like it moved from "unprovoked assault" to (albeit unfair) "fist fight", from which point Cranston did escalate to manslaughter if not murder ... but I wouldn't dare swear to any of that before seeing the video, nor generalize it to other cases. Would you? I've seen enough cases where the initial descriptions and the eventually published videos turned out to be tangentially related at best.
You're also ignoring the distinction between different dead bodies. Why? If someone invents the "murder a little child" button, a magic device which can only be used once and has a fifty-fifty chance of working, would you kill them if that was the only way to stop them from pressing it? 1 expected death for 1/2 would be an increase in dead bodies, which in this arithmetic we're treating as interchangeable, so that seems like a no, but maybe that ratio is fairly described as quibbling. What if it only had a 0.1% chance of working? We're now talking about multiple orders of magnitude, right? So at this point it's too steep a price to pay, and little Suzie might need to risk biting it so the guy who gets a kick out of her risk doesn't have to? Except ... couldn't he just not press the button, if he's aware of our position and his life has value to him? If the answer is "yes", then we've solved the problem! 0.001 deaths would have been worse than than 0 deaths. If the answer is "no", then his life is so grossly different from his likely victims that even comparing 0.001 deaths to 1 death seems to be comparing apples and oranges ... and so perhaps we've still solved the problem.
So, must we still treat attackers equally to victims? If so, do we need to worry about the QALYs of jail, too? Just glancing at my local laws, giving someone a black eye out of nowhere looks like it can earn up to a year in jail. I vastly prefer published sentencing guidelines and fair trials over even heat-of-the-moment vigilante "justice", but if we're only comparing punishment magnitudes, at a QA ratio of .5 for jail time that year is already 1.5 OOM worse than an expected risk of "~a week". Is that still too harsh, except in the unlikely case every jailing manages to deter dozens of potential assaults? Or is 0.5:0.02 now a reasonable punishment ratio, nothing like that crazy 11:0.02?
I would happily accept even a certainty of being killed if I ever punched someone hard enough to knock them off their feet or concuss them, for even a slight deterrence of the possibility of being a sudden battery victim at that level myself. If it was made a clear societal expectation, I would expect this to generalize to others too, at least anyone who's a moral agent capable of being deterred. The probability you're not multiplying in here is "what are the odds that I might innocently do this awful thing by accident", which is itself orders of magnitude below 1 or should be. Knowing that you might die for doing something that might murder someone is a worthwhile deterrence effect, because a decade of the life of a human who can't be dissuaded from risking others' lives so easily is not necessarily even a positive! Violence tends to escalate, especially from someone who doesn't consider its consequences. Escalating an argument to battery that might murder an innocent person is quite bad, and most of the badness is an externality, so unless much of that badness is internalized, the distribution of consequences does not generally give the perpetrator the right incentives. You might still value the life of a battery perpetrator and their victim on exactly the same scale ... but clearly the perpetrator does not.
(The "clear societal expectation" here is as important as the "guidelines and fair trials" bit above; the less/more clear a consequence is, the less/more you can conclude about the future danger of a person who risks it. That 22yo is currently likely to have grown up watching action movies where the hero gets their head bashed in every ten minutes and walks it off. That shooter should have known he'd be jailed unless he could show it was self-defense and not retribution, and in the latter case I'll be happy he's not on the street still either.)
I'm still waiting on some outstanding questions from earlier. Can we escalate from handguns to long arms? From bludgeoning weapons to guns? What is your risk level at which the "on switch" goes on, if it's so clearly off at 0.1% and so clearly on by 11%? How does the victim know his attacker is unarmed, rather than merely stunning him before losing the element of surprise by drawing a weapon? How can it be reasonable to expect the victim of a sudden attack to the head to rapidly yet carefully predict all the possible outcomes of fighting back or not? Why is the attacker, who hasn't been similarly impaired and has had all the time he wanted to think ahead, not to be held equally if not more responsible for predicting the risk of the outcome that he initiated and was entirely capable of avoiding?
Whether the death happens to a victim or a perpetrator is not "less important". It's more important than just about everything else relevant to the situation.
Only if utilitarianism doesn't distinguish between QALYs for a perpetrator and a victim. Also, using QALYs here at all produces bizarre results because it becomes much less bad to kill an older perpetrator than a younger one.
Tossing a punch at someone is an attempt to kill, or a reckless act that may kill, and should be treated as such.
This argument proves too much. If most people had a son and their son tried to kill someone, they would prefer that the son not be killed in self-defense at all. If you're taking this argument seriously, it doesn't actually matter how high the chance of death from the lethal attack is, killing in self-defense is wrong, period.
Also, you should consider it from behind the veil of ignorance (not the actual version of veil of ignorance, the popular version): If A is lethally attacking B and you don't know whether A or B is your son, would you prefer that B be able to kill A in self-defense even if the lethality isn't too high? I would, and I think most people would.
Why? Remember, we're assuming self-defense. If B shoots A and A is your son, your son is a murderer who was shot in self-defense. If B doesn't shoot A and B is your son, then your son is a murder victim, with some probability. Surely you'd be more concerned for your son's survival if he's innocent than if he's a murderer, so if you don't know whether he's A or B, you'd prefer the scenarion where B shoots.
Unless you're saying that you don't want B to shoot A because your only concern is reducing the chance of death, and it doesn't matter who started it. Then this proves too much and implies that you oppose lethal self-defense, period. Do you?
A lethal confrontation is inherently a situation where you have no time to make a considered, reasoned, conclusion about exactly what actions are appropriate in response.
Requiring a balancing test is essentially saying "either no self-defense at all, or take the risk of going to jail". I find it unacceptable to judge people in a sudden lethal confrontation based on factors that no victim could actually take into account when they are thrust into a lethal confrontation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link