Foundation for law

[salloch]

The sole purpose of a legal system is to inform people of the rules that will govern their actions, and to administer and enforce those rules.

The alternative to this "rule of law" is "the rule of men" where people are subject to the arbitrary decisions of other people instead of objective rules.

The rules themselves cannot assure any outcome.

Trying to 'design' a legal system is a fools errand, similar to trying to 'manage' and economy, or set prices, or gaurantee certain outcomes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.

One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.

That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).

Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.

This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.

(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

chez

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

The second equation is ALSO your own happiness. Duh. Re-read what you wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.

Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.

The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.

Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation. I think people are reluctant to answer hypotheticals like these because of some underlying assumption that it commits to a more generalized policy.

This reminds me of the old Philosophy 101 dilemna - you're held captive and given the choice between shooting 1 person in a group in front of you, or having your captor shoot them all. I could never understand how anyone could even hesitate over this - you pick someone and shoot. I suppose the only reason is a lack of flexibility, a need to define good ethical behaviour as having an inherent quality within an act, or maybe just cowardice - but the key point is that there is no such thing as inaction, inaction is action and it's choice. You're culpable if you fail to make a choice just as much (if not more) than if you seek one out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.

One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.

That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).

Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.

This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.

(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

Oliver Wendell Holmes summed it up perfectly when he said (and I paraphrase slightly, I think): "Law is made for the bad man." Absolute genius. That is, laws are designed to channel human instinct/motivation to achieve whatever goals you want to reach.

Of course, "good" and "bad" must be defined externally to the law, but once those are determined, laws need should be designed to reach those objectives. "Good" men don't need an external set of rules with associated punishments (laws) to do "good," because they're "good." But the "bad man's" badness must be counteracted with a set of rules which provide incentives/punishments for bad behavior, thereby encouraging him to be good. Law is therefore made for the bad man.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, "good" and "bad" must be defined externally to the law, but once those are determined, laws need should be designed to reach those objectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! I think something is "good" to the extent that it increases happiness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

The second equation is ALSO your own happiness. Duh. Re-read what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]
The second equation is
increase in my happiness = +50 units
decrease in others happiness = -100 units

Net change in happiness over everybody = -50 units

???

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.

One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.

That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).

Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.

This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.

(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

chez

[DrButch]

[ QUOTE ]
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close... but not quite. I claim there are two fundamental and complimentary purposes of laws. First, to avoid harm to others (and therefore promote a peaceful socienty), and second, to protect the rights of individuals (since a group my define "harm" such that it makes impositions on the freedoms of individuals). This is an incredible delicate balance.