One problem is that ‘direct’ or ‘first-order’ is ultimately nebulous. There is no unique direct effect or first-order consequence to anything, i.e. it depends crucially on context, scale, scope, etc..
Indeed, and I think this is worth emphasizing.
One effect of drugs is making people feel good, but a more immediate effect is, say, molecules of THC diffusing into the bloodstream or whatever.
We could say that we don’t care about that in context but we do care about people feeling good, but… in some contexts “it makes people feel good” probably should be considered below the threshold of what we care about? At any rate it’s not obvious to me that it should never be.
Similarly, “money makes people better off” isn’t a direct effect of giving them money—it’s mediated by the fact that people can use that money to buy things. And another effect of giving someone money is (usually) that some other account somewhere now has less money, that seems equally as direct as the person in question having more money.
I do think this post is getting at something important. Like, I agree that “people too often ignore that drugs make people feel good” is likely true, and it seems plausibly relevant that it’s a now immediate effect than some others. But I also worry that “this is the immediate effect” is trying to justify them on grounds that don’t work?
Similarly, “money makes people better off” isn’t a direct effect of giving them money—it’s mediated by the fact that people can use that money to buy things.
And even that’s not quite completely true. I’m pretty sure people are generally happier immediately after you give them money, even before they spend it! (They correctly anticipate being able to use that money as you describe, i.e. buying or paying for things.)
But I also worry that “this is the immediate effect” is trying to justify them on grounds that don’t work?
Yes, that’s my ‘concern’ as well. Even when ‘direct’ effects aren’t explicitly stated, it doesn’t seem like that’s always, or even mostly, because those effects are being ignored as much as that (implicitly) they shouldn’t be the dominant consideration. That’s a harder thing to disentangle generally.
Indeed, and I think this is worth emphasizing.
One effect of drugs is making people feel good, but a more immediate effect is, say, molecules of THC diffusing into the bloodstream or whatever.
We could say that we don’t care about that in context but we do care about people feeling good, but… in some contexts “it makes people feel good” probably should be considered below the threshold of what we care about? At any rate it’s not obvious to me that it should never be.
Similarly, “money makes people better off” isn’t a direct effect of giving them money—it’s mediated by the fact that people can use that money to buy things. And another effect of giving someone money is (usually) that some other account somewhere now has less money, that seems equally as direct as the person in question having more money.
I do think this post is getting at something important. Like, I agree that “people too often ignore that drugs make people feel good” is likely true, and it seems plausibly relevant that it’s a now immediate effect than some others. But I also worry that “this is the immediate effect” is trying to justify them on grounds that don’t work?
And even that’s not quite completely true. I’m pretty sure people are generally happier immediately after you give them money, even before they spend it! (They correctly anticipate being able to use that money as you describe, i.e. buying or paying for things.)
Yes, that’s my ‘concern’ as well. Even when ‘direct’ effects aren’t explicitly stated, it doesn’t seem like that’s always, or even mostly, because those effects are being ignored as much as that (implicitly) they shouldn’t be the dominant consideration. That’s a harder thing to disentangle generally.