Most people retroactively judge government policies on the basis of utilitarianism

Author: Savant

Posts

Total: 14
Topic's author
#1
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
If you ask most people whether they support having a universal DNA database, they will say “no,” even though such a system is likely to reduce crime. People rarely judge hypothetical government policies on the basis of utilitarianism, and they often have a strong bias toward the status quo. Yet I think that if a universal DNA database were to be implemented, it would eventually gain broad support. We accept all sorts of government programs that violate greater freedoms for lesser results. Any attempts to repeal this program would likely be met with scorn.

Now, why do I think this? Well, if you'd asked people ten years ago if people should be forced to wear masks or social distance in the event of a global pandemic with a relatively low death rate, I think that almost everyone would say no. Similarly, if you'd asked most people 400 years ago if the US government should implement the amount of taxation we have today, most of them would oppose it. When asked about a hypothetical government policy, almost everyone seems to think that the ends don't justify the means.

Take the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example. If such a decision were being considered today, it would be extremely controversial, even if it was guaranteed to prevent a greater loss of life later on. People would be horrified at the prospect of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yet when these actions are judged retroactively, I've never heard anyone on either side advocate for a moral framework other than utilitarianism. Even those opposed to the bombings argue that they were unnecessary, not that killing some people to save a greater number is unjustified. Everyone seems to agree that if the bombings of these two cities was necessary to prevent a greater loss of life, then they were justified. Similarly, a draft order today would be very controversial, but no one seems to oppose the Civil War conscription order or any draft order that was historically successful in helping achieve some desirable outcome.

You've probably heard the phrase “Nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program.” Once high taxes and social distancing policies were implemented, no one was willing to accept the costs of removing these programs. It would likely be the same with any other sort of program that achieved a net benefit, so long as the benefits were very easy to observe.

So which standard should we use? Do the ends justify the means? I'm not sure that they always do or always don't, but I find it interesting that people judge policies retroactively by a different standard than they judge policy proposals.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
Now, why do I think this? Well, if you'd asked people ten years ago if people should be forced to wear masks or social distance in the event of a global pandemic with a relatively low death rate, I think that almost everyone would say no. Similarly, if you'd asked most people 400 years ago if the US government should implement the amount of taxation we have today, most of them would oppose it. When asked about a hypothetical government policy, almost everyone seems to think that the ends don't justify the means.
Some may think you're making an argument for sacrificing more freedom. In my opinion you're making an excellent argument for the inverse. It's gone too far, people are weak when they're afraid; and it's a lot easier to slip into tyranny than to get out because as you said the status quo is calcified by various powerful factors.

Similarly, a draft order today would be very controversial, but no one seems to oppose the Civil War conscription order or any draft order that was historically successful in helping achieve some desirable outcome.
A draft in lieu of a clear and generally agreed upon threat is bound to be viewed differently. It's also impossible to wind back the clock and know precisely all the effects having a moral (liberal) policy might have. If I were to guess though, the good guys would still win.

Some disadvantage in moments of crises due to mass confusion but an enormous advantage in productivity, creativity, and morale.

I find it interesting that people judge policies retroactively by a different standard than they judge policy proposals.
Well there is a fundamental difference in that people tend to assume they know the outcome of an alternative decision in history when they often do not. Uncertainty can have a major impact on moral calculus.

The trolley problem is profoundly different if one track certainly has a person and the other track has a 50% chance of having 5 people.
#3
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Savant
Similarly, a draft order today would be very controversial, but no one seems to oppose the Civil War conscription order or any draft order that was historically successful in helping achieve some desirable outcome.
Not sure what you mean here. There were riots against the draft during the Civil War.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
One cannot judge a policy retroactively if it is a proposal.

This is a truism.


Whereas one will/might judge a policy with consideration to possible outcomes.


I would suggest that you are just stating the obvious.
Topic's author
#5
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Not sure what you mean here. There were riots against the draft during the Civil War.
Few people today argue that it was unjustified, even though many were against it at the time. The difference in how we judge things retroactively is precisely my point.
Topic's author
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Whereas one will/might judge a policy with consideration to possible outcomes.
Judging something based on outcomes is still utilitarianism. Most people judge hypothetical proposals based on principle, even if the outcome is essentially certain.
Topic's author
#7
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Some may think you're making an argument for sacrificing more freedom. In my opinion you're making an excellent argument for the inverse.
I could see this used as an argument for either. Whether the ends do justify the means is a complex question, but it's clear that intuition is inconsistent and not always reliable.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
Nope, I didn't say judging something based upon an outcome. I said judging  policies on possible outcomes. Irrespective of whether a policy might or might not effectively be utilitarian.

Though an hypothesis can certainly be pre-judged by applying principles.

What I was  trying to suggest, was that retroactively judging a proposal is only possible if one knows the outcome. Whereby the proposal has long since to ceased be a proposal, and therefore cannot be judged as such.


#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I am a consequentialist, like the Bible commands me to be.

Also, I prefer life over freedom, so yes I would support universal DNA database.

But you are talking about masses who have an IQ of a cat.
Of course they are going to be inconsistent and have double standards. They dont even have the brain power to process what you said.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
The people that complained had their constitutional rights removed with Habeus Corpus.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For every Authoritarian policy that became accepted over time, I am sure there are many more that were not accepted. Take the recent example of authoritarian Covid policies that we now know were completely wrong and unacceptable. We just tend to censor over time the crappy things the government did to people.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
The difference in how we judge things retroactively is precisely my point.
There's a propaganda factor that goes into that calculation as bad things are often censored and forgotten by the very entity that creates the policies.

Often the policies remain and nobody can explain why they exist.
#13
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
That's why we need to be careful about letting the genie out of the lamp. Any broad policy change now will be accepted as good in the future and it is significantly harder to roll them back then to begin them and test them out 
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
@Savant
[Savant] but it's clear that intuition is inconsistent and not always reliable.
Yes, that's been clear to anyone whose thought about it for more than five minutes at a time since the bronze age. Still though, there are hordes of people who think philosophy is a punch line and "morality" is code-speak for "religion". *sigh*

[Greyparrot] For every Authoritarian policy that became accepted over time, I am sure there are many more that were not accepted. Take the recent example of authoritarian Covid policies that we now know were completely wrong and unacceptable. We just tend to censor over time the crappy things the government did to people.
That's true. We could add prohibition, Japanese internment facilities, post-war censorship in Japan, constantly making territorial treaties with native American tribes and then reneging... and that's just the USA.