I suspect by “what works” the OP means what works in the short term for solving this particular problem. By “what’s right” one would also take into account long term effects of things like perverse incentives and related TDT/UDT-type issues.
You mean perverse incentives like: If you like to litter, just do it consistently ignoring all the costs, because sooner or later someone will propose the “give up” policy?
In this case, asking “What is right?” entails thinking about long-term solutions—specifically, how to foster civic-mindedness; asking “What works?” allows you to be more pragmatic and focus on on solving the problem of maintaining clean streets without tackling the much bigger and trickier issue of teaching good manners.
For certain values of “right” and “work”, approximations (e.g. Newtonian physics when everything you’re talking about is much slower than light and much larger than an atom) are not “right” but they do “work”.
In this analogy (which IIRC has been made before, including by myself), “pure” consequentialism corresponds to whatever the correct unification of QFT and GR is (it is what’s ultimately right, but it’s unfeasible for humans to directly use it on a daily basis), whereas something consequentialism plus a bunch of quasi-deontological rules corresponds to Newtonian physics (it is not exactly right, but it does work for most practical purposes).
Consider Saudi Arabia which even today implements the Sharia policy of cutting offthe hands of those who steal, especially those who steal during prayer times. I have heard anecdotal stories, that even jewelry shops in Dubai are left unlocked during prayer times. The fear of punishment is so high that no one dares steal.
Does this policy work? Yes. Is it right? Debatable. I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small. Of course, there is another implicit benefit, that of being consistent with other Sharia values which I think outweighs all the other points here.
There are a lot of costs to disproportionate punishments.
There is the cost due to the inherent uncertainty in determining guilt. There is the cost to the power this gives to those who would lie, whether as citizens or as part of the state apparatus. There is the natural friction when segments of the society disagree on whether the action is criminal, or disagree on the severity of the penalty, which escalates grievance, retribution, vendetta, and the desire and need to control the state apparatus.
Disproportionate punishment escalates violence and the fight for domination.
I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small.
The costs you mentioned are also small. If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off. Furthermore I would argue fear if being punished for theft (which presumably mostly applied to thieves) isn’t a significant cost to society. Furthermore, I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
My reply is an answer to “Is there a difference between what’s right and what works?” I’m not trying to open the can of worms labelled “Are draconian deterrents justified?”, merely trying to show through example that what works may fall in moral grey areas. To briefly answer your comments--
If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off
The effectiveness of strong deterrents is questionable#Effectiveness). Considering the links mentioned above, some cases do spring up despite the deterrent, in this particular situation. Speculatively, someone who is unable to make enough money to feed his family otherwise may take this risk.
I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
There are definitely reasons that the system continues to exist. The “trust” induced by harsh laws is one of them.
What’s the difference?
I suspect by “what works” the OP means what works in the short term for solving this particular problem. By “what’s right” one would also take into account long term effects of things like perverse incentives and related TDT/UDT-type issues.
This is correct. Thanks for explaining it more succinctly than I could.
You mean perverse incentives like: If you like to litter, just do it consistently ignoring all the costs, because sooner or later someone will propose the “give up” policy?
Do CDT or EDT not have ways of referencing perverse incentives or knock-on effects?
That depends on how you define things—but for most people, asking “What’s right?” leads to different ways of thinking than asking “What works?”. Don’t underestimate the effect that the wording of a question can have on people’s answers.
How does it make their thinking differ exactly? Why should we only ask “what works” with small vices?
In this case, asking “What is right?” entails thinking about long-term solutions—specifically, how to foster civic-mindedness; asking “What works?” allows you to be more pragmatic and focus on on solving the problem of maintaining clean streets without tackling the much bigger and trickier issue of teaching good manners.
For certain values of “right” and “work”, approximations (e.g. Newtonian physics when everything you’re talking about is much slower than light and much larger than an atom) are not “right” but they do “work”.
So, when dealing with big vices, we should use quantum physics or general relativity?
In this analogy (which IIRC has been made before, including by myself), “pure” consequentialism corresponds to whatever the correct unification of QFT and GR is (it is what’s ultimately right, but it’s unfeasible for humans to directly use it on a daily basis), whereas something consequentialism plus a bunch of quasi-deontological rules corresponds to Newtonian physics (it is not exactly right, but it does work for most practical purposes).
Consider Saudi Arabia which even today implements the Sharia policy of cutting off the hands of those who steal, especially those who steal during prayer times. I have heard anecdotal stories, that even jewelry shops in Dubai are left unlocked during prayer times. The fear of punishment is so high that no one dares steal.
Does this policy work? Yes. Is it right? Debatable. I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small. Of course, there is another implicit benefit, that of being consistent with other Sharia values which I think outweighs all the other points here.
There are a lot of costs to disproportionate punishments.
There is the cost due to the inherent uncertainty in determining guilt. There is the cost to the power this gives to those who would lie, whether as citizens or as part of the state apparatus. There is the natural friction when segments of the society disagree on whether the action is criminal, or disagree on the severity of the penalty, which escalates grievance, retribution, vendetta, and the desire and need to control the state apparatus.
Disproportionate punishment escalates violence and the fight for domination.
So, for small vices it’s okay to have disproportionate retribution?
I don’t think that’s what the OP meant.
The costs you mentioned are also small. If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off. Furthermore I would argue fear if being punished for theft (which presumably mostly applied to thieves) isn’t a significant cost to society. Furthermore, I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
My reply is an answer to “Is there a difference between what’s right and what works?” I’m not trying to open the can of worms labelled “Are draconian deterrents justified?”, merely trying to show through example that what works may fall in moral grey areas. To briefly answer your comments--
The effectiveness of strong deterrents is questionable#Effectiveness). Considering the links mentioned above, some cases do spring up despite the deterrent, in this particular situation. Speculatively, someone who is unable to make enough money to feed his family otherwise may take this risk.
There are definitely reasons that the system continues to exist. The “trust” induced by harsh laws is one of them.