Uncategorized 27 Aug 2007 11:26 am
The calculus of slack
In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, a happy and seemingly ideal society depends on the misery and terror of one child imprisoned in a dark closet, and it appears to be quietly heroic and honest to choose not to take advantage of happiness that depends on that. But I was reading this morning about a deranged woman who goes around downtown yelling at and smacking random pedestrians, and I wondered. Step away from the fantastical a bit; instead of a child who has been imprisoned, substitute an adult who has an intractable mental illness and an unfortunate coping mechanism. Imagine that her happiness depends on being able to assault people. (And how does this change if her coping mechanism is purely verbal? Does it?) Posit that the happiness of the general populace depends in part on not being assaulted. Like Omelas, our happiness depends on her unhappiness. Imagine that she could be prevented from using this coping mechanism; would that be right? And what if it matters more to her than it does to us?
I could say that I’ve already partly found my own answer to that in my life history: a person with a pattern of abusive behavior does not generally get a pass with me because he or she is emotionally ill. Nor, generally, do they get a pass because I judge that I’m strong enough to stand the abuse. I can’t honestly say I much care how desperately unhappy it makes someone that he or she is restricted from abusing me; even if the calculus of happiness tips that way, evidence indicates that I’m not about to submit to abuse. It’s a matter of personal integrity: I am in my own charge. I acknowledge that such a principle may be tricky to defend, and I know that other people choose differently, with different principles of integrity that are at least as firmly held as mine.
Now, I can do some fancy footwork around that coping mechanism — hitting people is bad for her even if it’s a temporary relief, and it may even be that stopping up that coping mechanism would encourage the creation of more benign mechanisms. But forget that for a moment — what if the result of that restriction is plain misery for her, pure and simple? I find this question uncomfortable.
on 27 Aug 2007 at 8:30 pm 1.catenoid said …
I am thinking of the “hierarchy of needs” and the “stages of moral development”. If you are starving, it is not fair to expect applications of universal ethical principles.
Add to this the needs of the many vs the needs of the few and I think you have all the parameters you need.
You have no good way to quantify any of them so you’re stuck.
This is nowhere near my department and the relevant disclaimers for that apply.
on 27 Aug 2007 at 8:46 pm 2.catenoid said …
When I pontificate on the rightness of the actions of others I usually go legalistic - the woman hitting my is violating my contract with society so she can go to hell quickly.
So that’s Kohlberg stage 4. I tend not to apply the higher stages to other individuals because I don’t believe it helps practically. For group policy it may be relevant.
on 28 Aug 2007 at 1:57 pm 3.Cam Sculpin said …
Man, I can think about positive and negative rights (or whatever you’d like to call them) with perfect equanimity and even boredom, but when I consider them in this context, I sure get itchy.