Technically, Chesterton fence means that if something exists for no good reason, you are never allowed to remove it.
Because, before you even propose the removal, you must demonstrate your understanding of a good reason why the thing exists. And if there is none...
More precisely, it seems to me there is a motte and bailey version of Chesterton fence: the motte is that everything exists for a reason; the bailey is that everything exists for a good reason. The difference is, when someone challenges you to provide an understanding why a fence was built, whether answers such as “because someone made a mistake” or “because of regulatory capture” or “because a bad person did it to harm someone” are allowed.
On one hand, such explanations feel cheap. A conspiracy theorist could explain literally everything by “because evil outgroup did it to hurt people, duh”. On the other hand, yes, sometimes things happen because people are stupid or selfish; what exactly am I supposed to do if someone calls a Chesterton fence on that?
The difference is, when someone challenges you to provide an understanding why a fence was built, whether answers such as “because someone made a mistake” or “because of regulatory capture” or “because a bad person did it to harm someone” are allowed.
If a fence is build because of regulatory capture, it’s usually the case that the lobbyists who argued for the regulation made a case for the law that isn’t just about their own self-interest.
It takes effort to track down the arguments that were made for the regulation that goes beyond what reasons you come up thinking about the issue yourself.
“Someone made a mistake” or “because a bad person did it to harm someone” are only valid answers if a single person could put up the fence without cooperation from other people. That’s not the case for any larger fence.
When laws and regulations get passed there’s usually a lot of thought going into them being the way they are that isn’t understood by everybody who criticizes them. It might be the case that everybody who was involved in the creation is now dead and they left no documentation for their reasons, but plenty of times it’s just a lack of research effort that results in not having a better explanation then “because of regulatory capture”.
Since when does it say you have to demonstrate your understanding of a good reason? The way I use and understand it, you just have to demonstrate your understanding of the reason it exists, whether it’s good or bad.
But I do think that people tend to miss subtleties with Chesterton’s fence. For example recently someone told me Chesterton’s fence requires justifications for why to remove something not for why it exists—Which is close, but not it. It talks about understanding, not about justification.
At its core, it’s a principle against arguing from ignorance—arguments of the form “x should be removed because i don’t know why it’s there”.
I think people confuse it to be about justification because usually if something exists there’s a justification (else usually someone would have already removed it), and because a justification is a clearer signal of actual understanding, instead of plain antagonism, then a historic explanation.
“X exists because of incentives of the people who established it. They are rewarded for X, and punished for non-X, therefore...”
“That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.”
And, of course, maybe I am uncharitable and motivated. Happens to people all the time, why should I expect myself to be immune?
But at the same time I noticed how the seemingly neutral Chesterton fence can become a stronger rhetorical weapon if you are allowed to specify further criteria the proper answers must pass.
Right. I don’t think “That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.” is a valid response when talking about Chesterton’s fence. You only have to show your understanding of why something exists is complete enough—That’s easier to signal with good reasons for why it exists, but if there aren’t any then historic explanations are sufficient.
Chesterton’s fence might need a few clear Schelling fences so people don’t move the goalposts without understanding why they’re there ;)
Technically, Chesterton fence means that if something exists for no good reason, you are never allowed to remove it.
Because, before you even propose the removal, you must demonstrate your understanding of a good reason why the thing exists. And if there is none...
More precisely, it seems to me there is a motte and bailey version of Chesterton fence: the motte is that everything exists for a reason; the bailey is that everything exists for a good reason. The difference is, when someone challenges you to provide an understanding why a fence was built, whether answers such as “because someone made a mistake” or “because of regulatory capture” or “because a bad person did it to harm someone” are allowed.
On one hand, such explanations feel cheap. A conspiracy theorist could explain literally everything by “because evil outgroup did it to hurt people, duh”. On the other hand, yes, sometimes things happen because people are stupid or selfish; what exactly am I supposed to do if someone calls a Chesterton fence on that?
If a fence is build because of regulatory capture, it’s usually the case that the lobbyists who argued for the regulation made a case for the law that isn’t just about their own self-interest.
It takes effort to track down the arguments that were made for the regulation that goes beyond what reasons you come up thinking about the issue yourself.
“Someone made a mistake” or “because a bad person did it to harm someone” are only valid answers if a single person could put up the fence without cooperation from other people. That’s not the case for any larger fence.
When laws and regulations get passed there’s usually a lot of thought going into them being the way they are that isn’t understood by everybody who criticizes them. It might be the case that everybody who was involved in the creation is now dead and they left no documentation for their reasons, but plenty of times it’s just a lack of research effort that results in not having a better explanation then “because of regulatory capture”.
Since when does it say you have to demonstrate your understanding of a good reason? The way I use and understand it, you just have to demonstrate your understanding of the reason it exists, whether it’s good or bad.
But I do think that people tend to miss subtleties with Chesterton’s fence. For example recently someone told me Chesterton’s fence requires justifications for why to remove something not for why it exists—Which is close, but not it. It talks about understanding, not about justification.
At its core, it’s a principle against arguing from ignorance—arguments of the form “x should be removed because i don’t know why it’s there”.
I think people confuse it to be about justification because usually if something exists there’s a justification (else usually someone would have already removed it), and because a justification is a clearer signal of actual understanding, instead of plain antagonism, then a historic explanation.
My case was somewhat like this:
“X is wrong.”
“Use Chesterton fence. Why does X exist?”
“X exists because of incentives of the people who established it. They are rewarded for X, and punished for non-X, therefore...”
“That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.”
And, of course, maybe I am uncharitable and motivated. Happens to people all the time, why should I expect myself to be immune?
But at the same time I noticed how the seemingly neutral Chesterton fence can become a stronger rhetorical weapon if you are allowed to specify further criteria the proper answers must pass.
Right. I don’t think “That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.” is a valid response when talking about Chesterton’s fence. You only have to show your understanding of why something exists is complete enough—That’s easier to signal with good reasons for why it exists, but if there aren’t any then historic explanations are sufficient.
Chesterton’s fence might need a few clear Schelling fences so people don’t move the goalposts without understanding why they’re there ;)