Hacker News Reader

Comment by nirmel | Hacker News Reader

I'm one of those people who say that almost all people in America have it really good, and everyone should stop complaining. I'm trying to understand why I'm wrong about the following:

- Most people in America are struggling

- Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans.

- Therefore, people in America should acknowledge they have it really good and stop complaining.

View on HN

I haven't seen your logic nailed specifically as a logical fallacy [1][2], but there's something similar to a logical fallacy involved in the type of argument you're making. Namely, that having it relatively good globally should prevent someone from "complaining" (or seeking to improve their situation) locally.

[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProb... [2] http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=641605

Appreciate your citing this fallacy. We certainly can complain about problems that exist, regardless of their severity, perhaps because they affect us or people we care about.

But I think there is a real problem when worrying about one problem comes at the expense of caring about another more severe problem.

Contrived thought experiment: You have the magical power of either curing your own toothache, or curing the world of AIDS. You choose to cure your toothache because it affects you. I would argue you should have considered the alternative.

The problem is not that you can't care about problems that are less severe than others, but given finite availability of "care" in your own mind and in the world, it is better to direct our "care" to where it can have the biggest impact.

You have much better information and much better leverage to attack problems in your own life than those in, say, Sub-Saharan Africa. Plus, there's all the ways that you're a more effective altruist if you aren't distracted by a toothache, or aren't malnourished because you donated your entire food budget.

I see where you're going, but "magical powers" take this so far into the realm of hypothetical that I don't think we can use it as a basis for argument.

But let me allow it, and move it to the real of practicality. Based on the skills and resources I now have, the contribution I can now make with my skills and resources (the "magical powers" at my disposal) would only fractionally help cure AIDS. At best, I might be able to supply a certain number of people with life-extending HIV meds by contributing all my assets and future income.

And why AIDS versus a hundred other maladies where my entire wealth and income improves and extends lives? Or does balancing the ability to build capital effectively come into play? Would we be better off with the issues the Gates Foundation is tackling if Bill Gates had decided to spend all his time from 1975 forward working with an NGO trying to eradicate malaria and polio? Or getting in a position where he focused on first world problems so that he could address some global issues?

I appreciate your concern--but "care" isn't necessarily a point in time measurement or a zero sum game--it's possible to care about multiple things at once, and it's possible to care proportionately more as means allow. (And in many cases, it might be more efficient to do so.)

I think if you are able to generate a lot of capital you should focus on doing that, as Gates did, and then donate it all to where you believe it will do the most before or when you die. That's at least what I'm trying to do.

> Contrived thought experiment: You have the magical power of either curing your own toothache, or curing the world of AIDS. You choose to cure your toothache because it affects you. I would argue you should have considered the alternative.

You then die when a tooth infection kills you.

Would it have not been more practical to safeguard such a vital national resource as the world's first wizard? Had you lived longer, what other ails of the world beyond just AIDS could you have cured as your powers recharged?

> The problem is not that you can't care about problems that are less severe than others, but given finite availability of "care" in your own mind and in the world, it is better to direct our "care" to where it can have the biggest impact.

Care is finite, but this is not a zero sum game. Caring properly for oneself is an investment - increasing your ability to care for others (by having a longer, healthier life), and gives you direct experience in what care may or may not be effective using yourself as a guinea pig.

"Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans."

You cannot possibly know the level of anyone's suffering except yourself. How do you know how much people are struggling in or out of America? How do you know people outside America suffer more? How do you compare suffering? You don't. You can't. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. You're comparing problems as if they were numbers. They're not. They're not comparable. What hurts one person a lot may not hurt another very much and vice-versa. Postulating a thing you cannot possibly know is where you're wrong. Not to mention belittling the problems of millions of Americans by subjecting them to your random judgement.

Cutting someone's head off is not necessarily worse for their friends and family than insulting them?

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

No, but I probably misread yours if you didn't understand my question. I thought you said different kinds of suffering are incomparable, and so I asked about not being able to compare two specific kinds of suffering, murder and insults. (Or rather, acts that can induce suffering and the suffering that results.)

No, I said you can't compare people's suffering because you can't measure it, regardless of what's causing that suffering.

yes you can, a beaten wife is suffering more than a person who gets insulted. Both are suffering, but the wife is in the worst situation.

All I'm doing is trying to examine your claim at the extremes. At the other end, are we able to tell the difference between zero suffering and some suffering?

People in America should stop complaining ... and then what?

You acknowledge that Americans have actual, real problems. What is your plan for after Americans stop complaining about their problems? What does that achieve? What happens next? Why is that a desirable future state that you want to encourage?

You use the word "therefore" as if you had presented a syllogism, but for an actual solid argument you need to explain how the conclusion follows from the premises. Presumably you are making use of a principle that implies that the existence of people suffering more than you means that your suffering is lessened. That can be disputed, but you haven't even argued for it yet.

The reasoning you present here is exactly equivalent to:

- You have a broken arm

- Somewhere else in the world, someone has stage IV pancreatic cancer

- Therefore your broken arm should be of no concern even to you

The flaw should be intuitively obvious, especially to anyone who's ever had a broken arm. But hey, you actually concede you're a robot in your HN profile, your hyperalloy combat chassis is no doubt proof against such mishaps, and why should anyone expect you to understand or care what humans feel?

Comparatively good does not mean actually good.

I think some of this can be summed up in the phrase paycheck to paycheck. People in that situation have to keep running or they fall down. The other is while the US is wealthier than a lot of other places the interpersonal support networks are generally threadbare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com