Against over-indulging the fear of treating people better than they deserve
The fear of treating people better than they deserve seems to screw up people's thinking in a variety of contexts. For instance, some conservatives oppose welfare (either altogether, or "too generous" welfare) on the grounds that *some* recipients are shitty and undeserving.
In response, some liberals seem to dodge the question of desert and focus on the public good (maybe they're utilitarians who think desert is fake, or maybe they're Rossian pluralists who think desert is one value among others), or else argue that all or nearly all welfare recipients *are* deserving. Whatever the merits of these two liberal approaches, I want to broaden the range of responses. For instance, I note the following:
Due to the world's complexity and our own *immense* ignorance (about other people's situations, about the consequences of our policies and actions, etc.), we are often faced with the dual risks of (A) treating people *worse* than they deserve vs. (B) treating people *better* than they deserve.
Maybe both are bad. But I think it is often much worse to treat someone *worse* than they deserve, than to treat someone *better* than they deserve.
Often, we can easily take steps that would avert many risks-- indeed, avert occasional *guarantees*-- of treating people better than they deserve. But these steps are often absurd and clearly wrongful. I will give an example.
Suppose it is good to treat ordinary people with basic civility-- give them the time of day when they ask, and hold the door for them.
But also suppose it is bad to treat (say) a wife-beater with basic civility. You *shouldn't* give him the time of day when he asks, and you *should* let the door close in his face if you're leaving the store at the same time as him.
But we usually don't know who the wife-beaters are. Every time you hold the door open for a stranger, you *risk* holding the door open for a wife-beater. If you hold open the door for strangers regularly, then you nearly *guarantee* that you'll occasionally hold the door open for a wife-beater. That's bad.
Now, there is only one reliable way to eliminate our risk of holding the door open for a wife-beater: NEVER hold the door open for anyone.
But that's absurd. Obviously it is good to show basic civility to strangers, even though this creates risks-- and cumulatively creates guarantees-- that we will thereby treat some people better than they deserve.
There are probably a great many cases where we ought to risk treating people better than they deserve, in order to avert the risk of treating people worse than they deserve. This may not always be the case. But I think it raises a lot of questions for *when* we should risk treating someone better or worse than they deserve, and what this implies for public policy such as welfare, prison reform, and more.
Perhaps some people deserve to be in prison for a long time. Many people resist prison and sentencing reform, for fear that it treats many horrible people better than they deserve. That may be true. But I think the evidence is clear that vast numbers of prisoners are treated vastly worse than they deserve. Some people are sentenced for too long. Some prisoners are beaten or sexually assaulted. Some people are wrongly imprisoned, or imprisoned for actions that shouldn't be crimes. Etc.
The asymmetries of desert might mean we should reform prisons and lighten sentences, in order to reduce how many people are treated worse than they deserve-- *even* if doing so will also ensure that many horrible people are treated much better than they deserve.
2087
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
snowghoul
yousharknotpass
vaporwave
origamiaround
turnnoffyourmind
