|
| Thread: The Hierarchy of Preferences |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 01, 2012 02:42 AM |
|
|
The Hierarchy of Preferences
Corribus once asked me how I can criticize Apple users while supporting consumer sovereignty. Others elsewhere have been confused as to how I can support the legalization of drugs while opposing their use. This is my answer.
Occasionally there is some confusion about how one can support individual choice (sometimes described as “consumer sovereignty”) while appearing to criticize people’s choices. Isn’t it inconsistent to oppose paternalism on the part of government while (on the individual level) arguing that someone shouldn’t do or consume something? If you believe that individuals know their own preferences better than anybody else, you rightly think that governments cannot improve their welfare by restricting their choices - but then why do you think you know better than that individual?
(For clarity, let’s call the person advocating for something A, and the person whose preferences being questioned Q.)
The answer is that personal advocacy is not about A imposing his preferences upon Q, but an attempt to impose consistency. For example, the preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream is entirely arbitrary, and there is no serious argument to be made that one objectively tastes better than the other. On the other hand, A arguing that Q should abstain from eating ice cream for health reasons is sensical - it’s usually not an imposition of A’s preferences, but an investigation of whether the Q’s preference to eat ice cream should outweigh his preference to maintain a healthy diet. A is not saying, “Q, it’s objectively bad for you to eat another tub of ice cream”, he’s saying, “Q, assuming you value your health at a certain level, and eating another tub of ice cream at a presumably lower level, it would be a bad idea for you to eat another tub of ice cream.” Q can accept this argument and not eat more ice cream, or can argue that A holds an incorrect belief about the relation between Q’s health and ice cream consumption (“It’s not as bad for me as you think”) [1] or that A holds an incorrect belief about how much Q values ice cream and his health [2].
(Alternatively, A could argue, “You shouldn’t eat so much ice cream because then you won’t have as much room for cake, and you like cake.” Q can accept this argument and not eat more ice cream, or argue that he likes ice cream more than cake to an extent that would justify him eating more ice cream.)
If Q chooses the “I value ice cream relative to my health more than you think” argument, A can then argue that Q should value their health more. For example, A could say something like, “If you eat too much ice cream, you’ll get diabetes, which means you’ll have to control your diet more later in life and be inconvenienced in other ways.” Alternatively, A could say something more general, “If you ruin your health, your general enjoyment of life will decrease, and you’ll be less happy.”
Q can counter the first argument either by somehow proving that he won’t/can’t get diabetes [1], or by asserting that he values ice cream so highly that risking diabetes is worth it [2]. Q also has two ways of countering the second argument: he can say, “My health isn’t as connected to my happiness as you think” [2], or “I don’t care about my future happiness, I only care about pleasure now.”
If Q believes the last of these arguments, then there is nothing A can say except “Really? Are you sure? Why not?” because the two have reached a disagreement about foundational values.
Preferences/values, then, can be divided into three levels.
1. Preferences concerning specific goods, activities, etc. These are arbitrary in the sense that A cannot argue that one of these is superior to another without reference to a more fundamental preference/value. However, A may be able to convince Q to act differently without referring to another level of preference/value by pointing out that in the past, Q had made a certain tradeoff between two goods/activities, and now he seems to prefer a different tradeoff (perhaps Q has partially forgotten about one of them). Or Q may not know about a certain good/activity, and A believes that if Q possessed fuller information, he would make different choices.
2. Instrumental values, such as health, friendship, etc. These may be referenced when a preference seems to be inconsistent with them. The tradeoff between these is arbitrary in the same sense as the tradeoff between preferences is arbitrary: arguments about them can only reference more fundamental values or whether the tradeoff currently being made is consistent with tradeoffs made in the past.
3. Foundational values, such as happiness. These are axiomatic, and A can make no argument to convince Q to hold a different foundational value. The most that can be said is, “Is that really your foundational value?”, but that’s not an argument.
Thus, we see that each tradeoff is arbitrary vis-a-vis its own level, but is not arbitrary if looked at in the context of more fundamental preference/value. The partial exception to this is 3, foundational values, in the case of which no reference to more fundamental preferences/values can be made.
Thus, there is no inconsistency between opposing paternalism and arguing that people should act differently. A knows more about the tradeoffs Q has made in the past (if he knows him personally) and what values Q holds, so A is in a better position to advise Q to make a certain tradeoff than the government is. Government paternalism is (at best) based on the assumption that people make the same tradeoffs at the level of instrumental values and are bad at deriving preferences from instrumental values. But people don’t make the same tradeoffs at the level of instrumental values, and that is why paternalism is fundamentally mistaken.
—-
[1] While there is an objective truth that would be a resolution to this disagreement, there may not be sufficient evidence to convince A that Q is correct, or vice versa.
[2] While arguments marked by this are impossible for A to counter assuming this is what Q really believes, A may have good reason to believe that Q is mistaken about the relative value of the subjects of the trade-off.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 03:04 AM |
|
|
I believe that people should have the freedom to indulge themselves as they will, it would certainly make the illusion of democracy a little more believable.
And no, the banning of alcohol did not turn the great country of America pure, and neither did its legalization turn her people into drunk savages, NEITHER will the legalization of drugs turn the populous into dug addicts. Even if it did, wouldn't you consider that the "will of the people"?
Who is the Government to deny the people their right to govern themselves? Sure, taking drugs is likely to lead to ruin, I don't deny it, but locking away the option is directly telling the people that they're too dumb to make the distinction between what's good and bad for themselves. And this says a lot about all Governments.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 11:03 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 11:33, 01 Dec 2012.
|
Quote:
Government paternalism is (at best) based on the assumption that people make the same tradeoffs at the level of instrumental values and are bad at deriving preferences from instrumental values. But people don’t make the same tradeoffs at the level of instrumental values, and that is why paternalism is fundamentally mistaken.
This is extremely simplified and in many ways incorrect. Government paternalism is based on the assumption that an individual can be reckless, irresponsible and short-sighted, ultimately undermining the efficiency or even the safety of the society as a whole. The government concerns itself with pattern-based groups of people at the lowest level, not individuals because it's not possible to consider the characteristics of each individual and be able to construct even a remotely accurate model that can be applied in real life (too much info to analyze for too short time, let alone to make decisions based on it). An example - a single person who doesn't care about his/her health, eats chocolate until he/she starts to vomit, leads a life mostly sitting on his/her ass, smokes likes a factory chimney and so on is nobody's problem but his/her own. A large group of such people, especially if there is a tendency towards the increase of their number, is everybody's problem - lower life expectancy, reduced work efficiency due to bad health, more work for the hospitals, etc. This damages the economy - that's what the state cares about.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 11:22 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 11:39, 01 Dec 2012.
|
I recognize this a LOT.
I'm asked how I can be against how the EU works right now while still supporting stuff like the Bank Union and not wanting to destroy it.
I'm asked why i'm very skeptical towards politicans while being one myself.
I'm asked why I support decriminalizing all drugs while opposing the use of drugs myself.
I'm asked why I want to legalize prostitution while not wanting to go to a brothel myself.
I'm asked why I want to get rid of the alcohol monopoly without wanting to drink very much myself.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 04:18 PM |
|
|
The only people I ever accuse of being inconsistent is anarchists. And they only occasionally showcase this, most of the time they are really consistent, even if their skill of arguing is lamp shading and giving people ideas(just like everyone else: they won't admit their ideas have potential downsides).
If anybody ever wondered why Nietzsche said that Socrates poisoned the west, this "trope" is why. People can't into actually arguing. I mean if I was wrong I wouldn't accept that, and yet if I was partially right, my opponent wouldn't accept that either.
On the top of that, there is this trope, where people can't into actual debating and then go full speed for randomly attaching things to the people they are debating, on the top of the lies, the human condition and the inability to get rational.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Occasionally there is some confusion about how one can support individual choice (sometimes described as “consumer sovereignty”) while appearing to criticize people’s choices.
I don't have any confusion at all, so I'm not sure how or why I would have questioned it. Out of simple curiosity, can you point to where I did?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Government paternalism is based on the assumption that an individual can be reckless, irresponsible and short-sighted, ultimately undermining the efficiency or even the safety of the society as a whole.
and so? he is going to act recklessly and irresponsibly anyway. he will find a way. drugs are illegal but there are still junkies.
Quote:
An example - a single person who doesn't care about his/her health, eats chocolate until he/she starts to vomit, leads a life mostly sitting on his/her ass, smokes likes a factory chimney and so on is nobody's problem but his/her own. A large group of such people, especially if there is a tendency towards the increase of their number, is everybody's problem - lower life expectancy, reduced work efficiency due to bad health, more work for the hospitals, etc. This damages the economy - that's what the state cares about.
lol. we can thank the state for not being all fat, lazy, disguting smokers. or it might be the fact that most people are just clever enough to not lead such a life?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and so? he is going to act recklessly and irresponsibly anyway. he will find a way. drugs are illegal but there are still junkies.
Yes, but the junkies will be more if the drugs become legal because "finding the way" will become much easier. Plus legal drugs = cheaper drugs so obtaining them will no longer be cost-prohibitive for some people. And finally - junkies are potentially as dangerous as every other insane person that needs to be hospitalized and kept in isolation to prevent harm to others (and himself but apparently hurting oneself isn't an issue in such a topic  ) - so the junkies will also have to be isolated and hostpitalized following the very same logic. Why would you make legal something that will bring you a massive headache? If you're lucky.
Quote:
lol. we can thank the state for not being all fat, lazy, disguting smokers. or it might be the fact that most people are just clever enough to not lead such a life?
Yeah, we don't thank the state that we are not all serial killers who resolve their immediate problems by killing other people, but believe it or not, the threat from the punishment prevents more crimes than the actual punishment. Clever? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but the junkies will be more if the drugs become legal because "finding the way" will become much easier. Plus legal drugs = cheaper drugs so obtaining them will no longer be cost-prohibitive for some people.
they won't have to get it from drug cartels at least. and if you are a junky, that's a good news if it's less expensive. you may not have to steal money, and maybe enough will remain for food (chronic alcoholics usually manage to stay in life, so I guess they must buy some food and not blow absolutely all their money in alcohol. probably a junky would do the same)
Quote:
And finally - junkies are potentially as dangerous as every other insane person that needs to be hospitalized and kept in isolation to prevent harm to others (and himself but apparently hurting oneself isn't an issue in such a topic ) - so the junkies will also have to be isolated and hostpitalized following the very same logic.
we already do that, no reason to stop it. it's the same for alcoholics and alcohol is still legal.
Quote:
Yeah, we don't thank the state that we are not all serial killers who resolve their immediate problems by killing other people, but believe it or not, the threat from the punishment prevents more crimes than the actual punishment. Clever? Don't make me laugh.
you don't have much faith in people?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 07:01 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:03, 01 Dec 2012.
|
Quote:
they won't have to get it from drug cartels at least. and if you are a junky, that's a good news if it's less expensive. you may not have to steal money, and maybe enough will remain for food (chronic alcoholics usually manage to stay in life, so I guess they must buy some food and not blow absolutely all their money in alcohol. probably a junky would do the same)
The small difference is that the drugs - at least certain types of drugs - are much more addictive than the alcohol. How much money remain for food is irrelevant - the junkies are not dangerous because they have nothing to eat (or at least that's hardly the only reason).
Quote:
we already do that, no reason to stop it. it's the same for alcoholics and alcohol is still legal.
There's zero common sense in such an approach. The state - i.e. you, via the taxes - pays for the accomodation of these people so they can't threat anyone (including themselves) and eventually be integrated back into the society as productive members. What you suggest is basically to spend more of your money for the reintegration of people who have become unproductive and potentially dangerous just because they have been legally allowed to become unproductive and dangerous at will. If you have so much money in excess, can I give you my bank account?
Quote:
you don't have much faith in people?
That's not a Hollywood movie, sir.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's zero common sense in such an approach. The state - i.e. you, via the taxes - pays for the accomodation of these people so they can't threat anyone (including themselves) and eventually be integrated back into the society as productive members. What you suggest is basically to spend more of your money for the reintegration of people who have become unproductive and potentially dangerous just because they have been legally allowed to become unproductive and dangerous at will. If you have so much money in excess, can I give you my bank account?
But see, we are spending a good deal more on trying to ban the drug entirely than we would on legalizing, taxing and regulating it. Right now illegal drugs are only a deficit, there is no money coming back from our investments to stop them from being used. Soooooo, I don't see how this argument holds water. The legalization, regulation and taxation of the drugs is better economically than continuing the unwinnable war against them.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 07:16 PM |
|
|
Preferences appear way after the arguments.
What does that mean?
It means the arguments come from rules that exist before you build your preferences.
Preferences come from your experiense,your family,your life and when you construct them,you follow logic rules,society rules and other rules,which existed before your preferences.
As there are thousands of rules you can build your preferences on,they may differ a lot from the people around you.
But if you remember where your preferences came from,you can change them,which is easier than changing the rules around you.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:27, 01 Dec 2012.
|
Quote:
But see, we are spending a good deal more on trying to ban the drug entirely than we would on legalizing, taxing and regulating it. Right now illegal drugs are only a deficit, there is no money coming back from our investments to stop them from being used. Soooooo, I don't see how this argument holds water. The legalization, regulation and taxation of the drugs is better economically than continuing the unwinnable war against them.
You know, we have a similar discussion ongoing for a few years now - whether the capitals accumulated via racketeering, blackmailing, corruption and so on nice approaches during the first years after the fall of the socialist regime should be legalized. An amnesty of sorts - the criminals become ex-criminals so their assets - the ones that they took from other people via intimidation, fraud, murders, etc. a decade back - can be taxed and regulated in accordance with the state legislation, not the underworld one. I can't deny that this makes some sense economically, especially provided that most of these (still not ex-) criminals have their own representatives in the official state institutions and these representatives make sure that the (still not ex-) criminals have little to worry about their shady business. If it only was that simple though.
Decriminalising something which is a genuine and proven threat to the integrity of a society and at least the majority of its individual members (preferably all of them but that's too big an abstraction) essentially means that the state admits its inability to handle a problem which is recognized not only by the people in the government but also - and that's the really important part - by the members of the society. You can't just drop every issue that you can't deal with, especially when other people count on you. Legalising the drugs does not resolve the problem with the addicts, does not make them less dangerous, does not protect anyone who is not a drug user or a drug supplier - it only transfers the responsibility from the state to individuals to decide who can buy/sell drugs, essentially destroying this responsibility as such. The logic that you are paying too much for fighting a particular problem and you're better off taxing this problem instead is a dead end for reasons mentioned above. Weapon smuggling, the respective black market and the preventive measures about it also don't come cheap for you - so how about everyone having a machine gun at home so he can pay taxes for it? Ultimately you're not resolving anything, just creating a bigger mess. Besides, as far as I know no country has fully legalized the use and thus the marketing of drugs to know what the expenses will be for combating the side effects as opposed to maintaining the current status quo - so you're just crafting theories. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 10:47 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:52, 01 Dec 2012.
|
Zenofex, I think it's wrong to compare weapons with drugs. The only person a drug addict physically hurts is him- or herself.
A gun shot can hurt a whole lot more people than the gunman who fired it.
There are both moral/ideological and practical reasons for decriminalising drugs. The practical reason being that more people, who are on their way to serious addiction, would look for help if authorities didn't view and treat them as criminals. Morally speaking, I really can't see the sense in placing rapists and drug addicts under the same label. Addicts need treatment, not iron bars.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 12:56 AM |
|
|
This topic wasn't meant to be about drug legalization, but whatever.
Zeno:
Do you think the government knows people's preferences better than they themselves do? If so, how? If not, why should it tell them how to act if their actions don't harm others?
You say it harms productivity - but the end goal of all production is consumption. If people work enough to be satisfied to the point at which they don't want to work more - what's wrong with that? If they're happier with less stuff, why should they work harder? If their behavior gets them sick, that's their personal responsibility, and they should pay for treatment themselves (or have health insurance). In any case, if you believe people have a duty to work, would you stand over them with a whip? Other people are not your property, and if they want to work less and have less stuff, that's no one's business but their own.
Doing things that harm other people is already illegal. If a junkie kills someone, he will be punished, same as a non-junkie. If they're doing something that doesn't harm anyone else, why prevent it?
Legalizing drugs protects drug users and drug suppliers who aren't harming anybody. Sending someone to prison for selling marijuana doesn't make anyone safer, and exposes the dealer to hardened criminals, making recidivism more likely - so if anything, drug criminalization makes people (both users and non-users) less safe.
Corribus:
In the Dennis Ritchie topic, you said that some people get value from buying more expensive versions of products when cheaper versions are equally functional. That may be true, but it's implausible that everyone who buys the more expensive version does it because they value, say, showing off. Some of them may simply lack information and think the more expensive product is functionally better when it really isn't.
master_learn:
How do you propose changing one's preferences at will?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 01:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In the Dennis Ritchie topic, you said that some people get value from buying more expensive versions of products when cheaper versions are equally functional. That may be true, but it's implausible that everyone who buys the more expensive version does it because they value, say, showing off. Some of them may simply lack information and think the more expensive product is functionally better when it really isn't.
I'm not sure how you leapt from that to the opening sentence of this thread, and can't be without reading the original context.
Thing is that people don't make decisions based on actual risks and rewards. They make decisions based on perceived risks and rewards, and those perceptions are often based on heuristics other than empirical data or rational thought.
But that's in line with what you're saying, so I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to disagree with here.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 05:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Right now illegal drugs are only a deficit, there is no money coming back from our investments to stop them from being used. Soooooo, I don't see how this argument holds water. The legalization, regulation and taxation of the drugs is better economically than continuing the unwinnable war against them.
Here is the thing: The same could be said of railroads and speculative science as well as most of the humanitarian sciences. Next thing somebody will accuse you of claiming that a government must be ran like a private entity, before they deliberately misquote Adam Smith to further prove it.
____________
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 06:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Right now illegal drugs are only a deficit, there is no money coming back from our investments to stop them from being used. Soooooo, I don't see how this argument holds water. The legalization, regulation and taxation of the drugs is better economically than continuing the unwinnable war against them.
Here is the thing: The same could be said of railroads and speculative science as well as most of the humanitarian sciences. Next thing somebody will accuse you of claiming that a government must be ran like a private entity, before they deliberately misquote Adam Smith to further prove it.
I'm... I'm very confused... what? Can you clarify what you mean, or is this a silly post?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 08:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
master_learn:
How do you propose changing one's preferences at will?
Every person who is aware of the fact,that he did a process of creating them(inteligent person),can make the same process again,this time in other direction.
For example,if his order of preferences was to drink coffee every morning before breakfast,he at the present moment tries to have tea before breakfast and see that this choice brings him as much taste as the previous choice,and he may change it.
He may as well change his order of preferences because he fears it would bring him certain harm in the future.
Fear can be a solid argument also for changing a preference to something safer.
A free man would change a preference with his free will,when he sees he would benefit from the change.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 02, 2012 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Right now illegal drugs are only a deficit, there is no money coming back from our investments to stop them from being used. Soooooo, I don't see how this argument holds water. The legalization, regulation and taxation of the drugs is better economically than continuing the unwinnable war against them.
Here is the thing: The same could be said of railroads and speculative science as well as most of the humanitarian sciences. Next thing somebody will accuse you of claiming that a government must be ran like a private entity, before they deliberately misquote Adam Smith to further prove it.
I'm... I'm very confused... what? Can you clarify what you mean, or is this a silly post?
Its a silly post for lampshading.
Basically: You where Wrong because of this set of logic.
Then: Claiming inconsistency over things you have said/implied/have not implied/have not said.
End Result: A actual person disagreeing with you on a forum would most likely use more clever wording, but its still the same.
____________
|
| |
|
|
