It's a very dangerous path to take when discussing statistics. Will it become moral to lie and extract taxation from people if there were 5000000 terrorists? At which amount of terrorists morality of gov lying and spying switches from "bad" to "good"? Or, if morality is not black and white, how can one lie and spy at the half the speed?
Seems like a fairly straight forward comparison at face value:
What negative value do you ascribe to 5000 people being killed by terrorists compared to 5 million people? Obviously, 5 million deaths would have a far greater effect on every day life and the ability of society to function.
On the other side, what value do you ascribe to freedom from government lies and spying? This is tougher, but it is generally assumed that the government performing such acts will lead to inefficient use of resources and services - resources that could have been used to prevent deaths in car accidents or raise the standard of society as a whole.
So at face level, the OPs comparison using statistics is fairly sound, and the changeover point is where the number of deaths or potential deaths switches over from one side of the argument to the other.
The OP is arguing that 5000 deaths is nowhere near the costs that the spying program has on society. This seems fair.
The arguments against the OP are that removing the spying program would increase the 5000 figure by orders of magnitude, or that the spying program has no negative effects. I disagree with both these arguments, so I think that the OP is probably right.
It's a very dangerous path to take when discussing statistics.
Statistics let you evaluate many things, including if the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
In this case, terrorism has killed 5,000 people in 148 years. The "war on terror" has killed 4,486 Americans in Iraq and 2,259 Americans in Afghanistan alone. Source: http://icasualties.org/
That's at least 6,745 Americans killed in a little over a decade to fight something that has killed 5,000 Americans in 148 years.
I'm purposely only mentioning American deaths to show how starkly idiotic what we're doing is.
So is it okay to take 5 good organs from a single man to save 5 lives? For me, morality comes first, then you use statistics to choose what's good for you, not me. I will decide on my own.
300bps pointed out that means justify ends. If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes. (If it wouldn't, he would not defend his stats-based argument.)
I point out that with right statistics one can justify anything. E.g. giving up one man's life for 5 lives is measurable and sounds solid. Why don't we do that? Because we all have this gut feeling that some things are plain wrong.
I think what you meant to accuse me of is "ends justify means" but you're obviously a non-native English speaker so it's understandable. However, you are incorrect that I was saying "ends justify means". Instead I'm saying, "some ends justify some means". There's no legitimate point in attempting to ascribe a black and white philosophy to me.
If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes.
Not even close. You have to admit that you completely made that up and ascribed it to me when I had never said it. However, I will say that if 310 million Americans per year were dying of terrorism I would think NSA activity might be justified.
You completely misread. Pretend you're looking at a theoretical 'wrong cure' for a problem. The first thing you should do is check if such a cure even works at all. Then you need to decide if it works well enough that you are willing to do something wrong.
300bps never said that you should automatically accept any wrong cure that works. Working is only one requirement.
HN has a nesting limit for comments (for probably good reasons), so replying here. Yes, I get your point.
> If there were more terrorists caught than people dying in car accidents, that would justify NSA activity in his eyes.
Ok, then our interpretations simply disagree, and that's OK. (edit here I mean that I do not believe that citing stats implies that were they reversed, NSA activity would be justified. I do not believe such a set of beliefs/etc. leads to inconsistency.)
I simply think that stats can be used to illustrate absurdity etc., but not necessarily to justify something. It is a slippery slope, but I believe it's a rather long slope ;) Indeed,
> E.g. giving up one man's life for 5 lives is measurable and sounds solid. Why don't we do that?
Here you are ignoring the slope entirely. What you're saying sounds like act utilitarianism. There are many types of utilitarianism and, more generally, "using the ends to [partly] justify the means" falls more broadly into consequentialism (utilitarianism being a subset of consequentialism.)
If we e.g. take rule utilitarianism, then your given example/situation computes differently. Indeed, this very example you cited is used to illustrate the difference [1].
All I'm saying is, there are many shades of gray. :) Just because you use stats to illustrate a point doesn't mean you're then bound by consistency to kill all lonely people to harvest their organs.
If terrorism killed millions it would be easier to accept the loss of liberty associated with the current war on terrorism.
But loosing ALL Internet and phone privacy, basic human rights such as the right not to be tortured and to some degree loosing the checks and balances of a normal democracy in the fight against a ghost is hard to swallow.
I don't see how it's "dangerous". If terrorism were a leading cause of death, I'd advocate for fighting it with many resources. However, it's an insignificant cause of death, so I advocate for dedicating very few resources to it.
My attitude toward the NSA leaks is, "they should not be doing this." If terrorism killed millions, it would be, "they should be doing a better job of this." Numbers matter.
So if terrorism was killing some people, you'd justify someone forcing me to pay taxes to fund NSA? Or you'd prefer some non-violent, voluntary way to organise protection against terrorism? Would you kick ass of your neighbour if he disagrees on your terrorist-fighting methods, or would you try to argue with him peacefully and let him live his life if he still disagrees with you? Would you like to be able to peacefully disagree with people, or are you okay if someone is forcing you to comply?
Yes, I would justify someone forcing you to pay taxes to fund the NSA in that case, just like I currently justify someone forcing you, and me, to pay taxes to build roads, pay teachers and policemen and firefighters, fund the military, etc. I strongly disapprove of some activities of government, but not of the concept overall.
So you should justify putting Snowden in prison because that's what government wants to do with him for failing his obligations. And since you justify violence when it comes from government, there is a contradiction if you disapprove of it. Are you okay with government coming to your datacenter and forcing you to give them your customers' data or you are not? If government-issued violence is justified, then you cannot be disappointed, no?
You appear to be saying that if I approve of government violence in some cases, I must approve of government violence in all cases. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Ok. So what's the source of your knowledge about morality? You cannot refer to laws because you may disagree with some of them. Which principle do you use to find out when government is doing right and when it is doing wrong?
Also: why would you turn in police some people, but not your friends and family? It sounds to me that your morality is not universal at all, but just a whim. E.g. "I'm okay to kick people I dislike and not okay kicking people I like".
The ultimate basis of my morality is the idea that maximizing overall human pleasure and minimizing discomfort is good, and the opposite is bad. I don't think this has an objective basis. It appears self-evident to me, and as best I can tell most people agree, but I won't pretend it's any sort of law of the universe.
Once you have that basis, game theory lets you extrapolate. Theft is bad it most cases, for example, because it lowers the overall human good, even if it improves my own particular good.
Governments are useful because they're a way to overcome collective action problems like free riders or tragedies of the commons. Because of this, they can be a force for good.
I have no idea where you got this "turn in police some people, but not your friends and family" from. Please try to limit your commentary to things I have actually said, not things you have imagined.
So lets say we have different ideas on how to maximize "overall human pleasure" (I also don't see how'd you measure it). Who should give up his idea? Should I force you to follow my recipe? Or should you force me to follow yours? Or could we just agree peacefully on some line in the sand and we try our ideas separately without insulting or threatening each other?
Example: if we develop a software and have different ideas on how to do it, should we fight till one of us gives up, or we can simply walk away to our computers and work with some other people, if we cannot work together?
I asked you explicitly in Twitter "@mikeash two questions: 1) will you give your friends/family to the police if they don't file taxes? 2) did I threaten you for your beliefs?"
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/362954987661295616
You answered: "No, I wouldn't turn them in, but I believe such enforcement is necessary and overall good."
Before, in this thread I asked if you will turn me in, you answered:
"Yes, I would justify someone forcing you to pay taxes to fund the NSA in that case."
So my question was (quoting from above):
"why would you turn in police some people, but not your friends and family? It sounds to me that your morality is not universal at all, but just a whim."
How am I being dishonest here? Please answer what's the moral difference between turning me into police and not your family?
