I’m just wondering though, what’s meant by high quality arguments here? Sophistication? Unfortunately I’ve found that someone can make very erudite galaxy-brain arguments and still be wrong about almost everything, like Yarvin. And some simple-minded argument for the opposite side may be in fact right. So argument quality is not a superficial thing, you can’t tell it from the tone.
With regard to the arguments in the OP, I mean yeah, they sound pretty basic. But where they overlap with stuff I actually know, they seem right to me. The Laos thing for example I’ve known about for many years, and the post’s simple-minded condemnation of US actions there is simply right. While the galaxy-brained justifications of these actions (at least the ones I’ve read) are wrong.
Well, let’s look at an example. The first substantive point concerns foreign aid (and PEPFAR in particular). OP says:
Trump has gutted foreign aid. This decision is likely to kill millions of people, many of them children.
…
Thus, the facts are clear: Trump’s foreign aid cuts will cause large numbers of people to die. Depending on exactly when they’re reversed, they are likely to kill millions of people, potentially tens of millions.
For this argument to be “high-quality”, it would have to, as a bare minimum, make some attempt—any attempt at all—to acknowledge (and, if we’re feeling really ambitious, to rebut) the obvious rejoinder to this, which is that doing harm is not the same thing as allowing harm. Many, perhaps most, of the people who oppose PEPFAR, do not believe that terminating PEPFAR kills anyone at all! This is not because they disagree with the OP about physically observable facts[1], but because they do not share his philosophical commitments. So, for anyone with a view like that, the whole section is… basically pointless.
And this isn’t, as you can see, a question of “sophistication” or “galaxy-brain” arguments. It’s just a matter of giving any thought whatsoever to why anyone might have the views that they have.
Please note that this is just one example of one problem with one argument in the OP. Even that one section of the post, about foreign aid, has tendentious, mistaken, misleading, or nonsensical rhetoric and arguments in almost every single paragraph. I could very easily write a comment that’s five times longer than this one, just dissecting the problems with that one section. I only picked the most immediately obvious problem, the one that jumped right out at me on even a casual skim.
And note also that the post is not just a straightforward account of what OP thinks, what convinced him of his views, why he believes as he does. He goes through the motions of addressing the alleged views of hypothetical opponents, of anticipating supposed counterarguments, etc. But because he doesn’t seem to have a very good idea of what any actual proponents of the views he argues against think and value, those motions are almost wholly wasted.
Although they may do that, too, I don’t know. OP’s record certainly does not incline me to trust him to accurately report anything, so if I were more invested in this topic, and cared to rebut the post in detail, I would absolutely want to check every one of his factual claims very carefully.
To me this philosophical counterargument still counts as “galaxy brain”. Doing vs allowing harm is not the issue. It’s much simpler: if one president does a good thing and another one cancels it, then we’re allowed to compare who’s better or worse on this aspect. The only possible way to defeat this is to argue that PEPFAR wasn’t a good thing. If you or datasecretslox folks want to argue that, go ahead!
Well, yes, of course people do argue that PEPFAR wasn’t a good thing. (Searching for “PEPFAR” on DSL should guide you to some relevant discussion topics.) I agree that this is a very straightforward point to address (and I will add that the OP does not do well on this point, either).
But I think you dismiss the “doing vs. allowing harm” point much too readily. The key point here[1] is that the U.S. federal government (a.k.a. “USG”) is not, or at least should not be, a machine for vacuuming up taxpayer money and turning it into arbitrary, generic “good things”. If something that USG does is, in some sense, “a good thing”, that’s just not enough to justify doing it. There are many, many things which USG could do which are “good things” in some sense. It is neither feasible nor sensible to try to do them all.
On the other hand, USG should avoid doing bad things. This is quite straightforward: doing bad things is bad, etc.
And, indeed, the argument in the OP is not simply that PEPFAR was “a good thing”, and that it shouldn’t’ve been canceled, on the grounds that less good things is worse than more good things. On the contrary, the claim is made that canceling PEPFAR will “kill millions of people” (“many of them children”, “potentially tens of millions”, etc.). That’s very different from “less good things is worse than more good things”, “we’re allowed to compare who’s better or worse”, etc.! That is saying that Trump did a very bad thing.
And the “doing vs. allowing harm” objection is thus a direct rebuttal to that point, which says “nope, no bad thing was done here; the number of people who will be killed by foreign aid cuts is zero”. This completely eliminates most of the moral force of the OP’s argument in the second sesion.
Please note that I am here summarizing the views of others more so than I am expressing my own views, though I am obviously putting my own gloss on things.
DSL search isn’t accessible without login, and the site seems to disallow Google search as well. I patiently Ctrl+F’d through the very long Trump Shuts Down USAID thread, but didn’t find any good arguments why PEPFAR wasn’t good. If you know such arguments, maybe you can summarize?
the second of the two topics linked above (which boils down to “this program was ineffective given its stated goals, compared to other programs which would achieve the same goals more effectively and efficiently, and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money, which is bad”)
I’m just wondering though, what’s meant by high quality arguments here? Sophistication? Unfortunately I’ve found that someone can make very erudite galaxy-brain arguments and still be wrong about almost everything, like Yarvin. And some simple-minded argument for the opposite side may be in fact right. So argument quality is not a superficial thing, you can’t tell it from the tone.
With regard to the arguments in the OP, I mean yeah, they sound pretty basic. But where they overlap with stuff I actually know, they seem right to me. The Laos thing for example I’ve known about for many years, and the post’s simple-minded condemnation of US actions there is simply right. While the galaxy-brained justifications of these actions (at least the ones I’ve read) are wrong.
Well, let’s look at an example. The first substantive point concerns foreign aid (and PEPFAR in particular). OP says:
For this argument to be “high-quality”, it would have to, as a bare minimum, make some attempt—any attempt at all—to acknowledge (and, if we’re feeling really ambitious, to rebut) the obvious rejoinder to this, which is that doing harm is not the same thing as allowing harm. Many, perhaps most, of the people who oppose PEPFAR, do not believe that terminating PEPFAR kills anyone at all! This is not because they disagree with the OP about physically observable facts[1], but because they do not share his philosophical commitments. So, for anyone with a view like that, the whole section is… basically pointless.
And this isn’t, as you can see, a question of “sophistication” or “galaxy-brain” arguments. It’s just a matter of giving any thought whatsoever to why anyone might have the views that they have.
Please note that this is just one example of one problem with one argument in the OP. Even that one section of the post, about foreign aid, has tendentious, mistaken, misleading, or nonsensical rhetoric and arguments in almost every single paragraph. I could very easily write a comment that’s five times longer than this one, just dissecting the problems with that one section. I only picked the most immediately obvious problem, the one that jumped right out at me on even a casual skim.
And note also that the post is not just a straightforward account of what OP thinks, what convinced him of his views, why he believes as he does. He goes through the motions of addressing the alleged views of hypothetical opponents, of anticipating supposed counterarguments, etc. But because he doesn’t seem to have a very good idea of what any actual proponents of the views he argues against think and value, those motions are almost wholly wasted.
Although they may do that, too, I don’t know. OP’s record certainly does not incline me to trust him to accurately report anything, so if I were more invested in this topic, and cared to rebut the post in detail, I would absolutely want to check every one of his factual claims very carefully.
To me this philosophical counterargument still counts as “galaxy brain”. Doing vs allowing harm is not the issue. It’s much simpler: if one president does a good thing and another one cancels it, then we’re allowed to compare who’s better or worse on this aspect. The only possible way to defeat this is to argue that PEPFAR wasn’t a good thing. If you or datasecretslox folks want to argue that, go ahead!
Well, yes, of course people do argue that PEPFAR wasn’t a good thing. (Searching for “PEPFAR” on DSL should guide you to some relevant discussion topics.) I agree that this is a very straightforward point to address (and I will add that the OP does not do well on this point, either).
But I think you dismiss the “doing vs. allowing harm” point much too readily. The key point here[1] is that the U.S. federal government (a.k.a. “USG”) is not, or at least should not be, a machine for vacuuming up taxpayer money and turning it into arbitrary, generic “good things”. If something that USG does is, in some sense, “a good thing”, that’s just not enough to justify doing it. There are many, many things which USG could do which are “good things” in some sense. It is neither feasible nor sensible to try to do them all.
On the other hand, USG should avoid doing bad things. This is quite straightforward: doing bad things is bad, etc.
And, indeed, the argument in the OP is not simply that PEPFAR was “a good thing”, and that it shouldn’t’ve been canceled, on the grounds that less good things is worse than more good things. On the contrary, the claim is made that canceling PEPFAR will “kill millions of people” (“many of them children”, “potentially tens of millions”, etc.). That’s very different from “less good things is worse than more good things”, “we’re allowed to compare who’s better or worse”, etc.! That is saying that Trump did a very bad thing.
And the “doing vs. allowing harm” objection is thus a direct rebuttal to that point, which says “nope, no bad thing was done here; the number of people who will be killed by foreign aid cuts is zero”. This completely eliminates most of the moral force of the OP’s argument in the second sesion.
Please note that I am here summarizing the views of others more so than I am expressing my own views, though I am obviously putting my own gloss on things.
DSL search isn’t accessible without login, and the site seems to disallow Google search as well. I patiently Ctrl+F’d through the very long Trump Shuts Down USAID thread, but didn’t find any good arguments why PEPFAR wasn’t good. If you know such arguments, maybe you can summarize?
Ah, right you are—very sorry! Ok, let’s see then… relevant discussions include:
discussion topic for ACX post “Money Saved By Canceling Programs Does Not Immediately Flow To The Best Possible Alternative”
“US HIV Policy”
In particular, the following posts are relevant to the “was PEPFAR actually good in any sense or any way” question:
https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,13085.msg628670.html#msg628670 (which boils down to “spending this money on foreigners instead of Americans is wrong, given the relative value thereof to me, an American”)
https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,13085.msg628677.html#msg628677 (which boils down to “collecting tax money under the pretense of spending it on Americans, but then actually spending it on charity to other countries, is fraud and deception, and therefore wrong”)
the second of the two topics linked above (which boils down to “this program was ineffective given its stated goals, compared to other programs which would achieve the same goals more effectively and efficiently, and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money, which is bad”)