Hacker News Reader

Comment by moosey | Hacker News Reader

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."

It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.

A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.

View on HN

You may be interested in George Price. There are a few documentaries that cover his life and work. He was very interested in altruism and his efforts to figure that out are believed to be why he killed himself. Basically, it drove him insane to think about altruism and if it was actually possible to be altruistic.

Here is a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right.

I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.

If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.

> There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."

But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.

You might be surprised about that.

To use a blunted instrument as a descriptor, you cause an accident and it results in complete stoppage of traffic.

However, much smaller things can actually impact the flow of traffic in a significant manner. Brake late and hard and you can watch the ripple effect for many cars behind you. It can actually cause a ripple that goes back for miles and has effects lasting for much longer than you might think - on the order of minutes to as long as a half hour in extreme situations.

All that from just braking late and hard under the right circumstances...

If you want to improve the flow of traffic, as a single individual, leave space between you and the car in front of you, allow people to merge, and strive to maintain a constant speed. You may actually reach your destination faster, though it isn't intuitive.

Edited to add: I modeled traffic. That is what my business did. I started with vehicular traffic and would later expand to model pedestrian traffic. Traffic is a fascinating subject that is chaotic in nature.

A slightly different wording of that last one would make it compassionate, IMO. "Because I can't be happy if I have merely 'won' the soc-ec game, while so many around me have 'lost' and are suffering."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com