Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:01 pm

Carleas wrote:I think you are extending the game metaphor too far.


I don't think I am... It's the perfect metaphor.
There is a purpose to a game's design, the same way there is a purpose to our moral code.
Neither morality nor games exist in nature... we invent them.

We may discover things about ourselves and our nature that permits us to get better at designing the rules we play and live by to better accomplish our objectives.
And just like with games... it may turn out to be quite difficult, if not impossible, to design something that works equally well for everyone.

I'd define preserving and enhancing our collective well being, as the sole objective of morality.
By that measure we can make judgements as to which set of rules gives us the best results.
This is how I'd argue slavery was not the best agreement our ancestors could have reached.

But slavery was the agreement our ancestors DID reach and they can at least say it was better than nothing... which is where they started.
You and I, on the other hand, have no such excuse when advancing any change like your take on reparations.

So it falls on you to suggest why such a thing would be beneficial or an improvement on what we have...
In principle, it seems wholly unfair to change the rules retroactively. Even if you play by the rules agreed to, the rules could be changed and then you or your kids, forced to return your gains.
In practice it's likewise ill-considered... as you might well take money from someone who needs it and give it to someone who does not, doing more harm than good.

I fail to see in what way this principle is a moral good, much less an obligation...

You have only addressed this criticism by appealing to the utility of an idealistic take on morality.
Where we pretend our rules are constants written into the fabric of the universe, as true yesterday as they are today, to instill a false confidence in their reliability.
The absurdity of which I've already pointed out to you.

I wonder if you would make a distinctions between this kind of retroactive change where it happens within a single lifetime, as opposed to where it happens over generations in the case of slavery.
If so, how do you make that distinction?


The unintentional part is a very important distinction...
But I don't think our ancestors accidentally enslaved people... I very much believe it was intentional.

For example, if we legalize drugs tomorrow... I don't think we should pay reparations to anyone who was convicted and imprisoned for illegal drug trade.
Or if we made the sale of alcohol illegal that we should then ask for our money back or worse imprison anyone who profited from it's sale when it was legal.
If however, we discover we imprisoned a person for a crime they did not commit... then it makes sense to make amends.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Mad Man P » Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:40 pm

....
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Carleas » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:39 am

Mad Man P wrote:....


Sorry for the delay. I would blame the times, but that would really be to blame my failure to adapt to the times. And I should also credit the quality of your thought; I've rewritten the below a few times as trying to formulate a reply has helped me to better understand your points.

Mad Man P wrote:I don't think I am... It's the perfect metaphor.

I acknowledge that there are similarities, but there are also differences. I'll try to incorporate the metaphor where I agree it works, and point out clearly where I think the metaphor is misleading.

I actually think an interesting and workable moral system could be built starting from the premise that life's a game and defining morality in relation to the greater purpose of games, with some small caveat for identifying the purpose. But "make it sporting for everyone" is pretty close to a number of consequentialist moral systems.

Mad Man P wrote:There is a purpose to a game's design, the same way there is a purpose to our moral code.
Neither morality nor games exist in nature... we invent them.

Well, both do exist in nature, because humans are part of nature. But I'm not sure how much that matters.

One way the game metaphor works is that my conclusion is required by the rules of the game. Your replies to this argument have been solid: much of slavery was legal at the time, and even those parts that weren't are probably time-barred. In some sense this is an empirical claims: the claim is that the law as it already exists would support payment of damages, and we can test it by filing a lawsuit. As an empirical claim, its probably wrong. But it may not be: lots of practices around slavery were illegal on paper, and some kinds of claims don't expire with time. But, legal truths aren't neat like that; some legal truths are undecided until they're tested and settled, and even then they can become unsettled if the next generation decides to reverse them or limit them or otherwise throw them back into doubt. So, we're reasoning from existing rules in an area that isn't (known to us to be) legally settled. If we're treating this as a game with rules, we should appeal to the rules themselves to examine that argument. And that's what I've done in pointing to stolen paintings, inherited spoils, etc. (Relatedly, you claim that "slavery was the agreement our ancestors DID reach", but it's worth noting who "our" refers to, and whose ancestors clearly didn't agree to the rules they were held to. If they didn't agree, then following the rules doesn't really matter, they weren't a party to the contract.)

So one question is, do the rules of this game -- the laws and their prior versions and change history, the principles that they're based on, and the principles of how they are applied and how those applications change -- do those rules dictate compensation for wrongs incident to slavery for the living descendants of slaves from the living descendants of slavers, and I think the answer is plausibly yes, for the reasons I've given.

But another question is what morality now requires that we do about actions in the past, and here I think the game metaphor doesn't work.

One difference between games and morality that matters is how the rules relate to the purpose. Chess doesn't exist in order to satisfy the need of putting the king in checkmate, it exists to entertain, and it does that by defining a goal and rules on how it can be achieved. The "purpose" is different from what the rules tell you to do. And so the rules change in relation to a purpose that is orthogonal to the goals defined in the rules. You noted that if we changed the rules after a tournament we wouldn't ask that the prize money be returned. But changing the rules of the game doesn't mean that the previous participants failed or were wrong. They may well have been achieving the purpose of the game, but need a rule change now to continue to achieve it (for example if an innovative strategy broke the game by exploiting a loop-hole). Similarly on the other side, achieving the purpose of chess isn't the same as playing chess. I'm not winning at chess when I play xbox, just because xbox is entertaining. So for games, following the rules doesn't entail satisfying the purpose, and satisfying the purpose doesn't entail playing the game. Morality isn't like that. The rules of morality and the purpose of morality are deeply connected.

I'm going to stick with the 'sustain an uneasy truce' function of morality, but I don't think this point depends on taking that position, it's just easier to talk about in concrete terms. If the rules of the past led to a civil war, they were actually wrong, because civil war is an objective failure of the uneasy truce. We can reject idealism, and treat morality as contingent -- whatever keeps the uneasy truce -- and still we can make the extra-temporal claim that those rules were wrong because society didn't function under them. We changed them because they were wrong, and we changed them so that the rules create a game whose goal is the purpose.

Moreover, if we find some other set of rules that is a complete contradiction of the rules but provably achieves the purpose, we have a strong argument that those rules are actually morality. And that argument applies when a breakdown of the uneasy truce is expected just as well as it applies after it's occurred. The rules were wrong at the time, because the goal and the purpose were the same goal and purpose that we have now and we know that they didn't work.

And while we could say that hindsight bias is 20-20, and so not too-strongly condemn those behaviors to the extent that they were based upon a mistake of fact, we still have reason to think that the people who made that mistake should not reap a windfall, and where that windfall is provable, where the mistake that led to it is provable, where the victims are provable, where the path of the windfall can be traced from unclean hands to clean hands, we should consider it as ill-gotten gains and owing to the victims.

Finally, there's the question of whether such a move would make a good uneasy truce now. I think the existence of global riots suggests that the "it was legal at the time" argument doesn't work in support of an uneasy truce, so it seems pretty plausible that a limited remedy that only applied in certain circumstances and requires victims to meet a substantial burden is better than the alternative of doing nothing. "Help everyone" doesn't work when a substantial minority of the population doesn't trust the majority to follow through (or, more accurately, to include them in the "everyone" that gets help).

Mad Man P wrote:if we legalize drugs tomorrow ...
if we made the sale of alcohol illegal ...
If however, we discover we imprisoned a person for a crime they did not commit...

I think this intuition is mostly right, but not exactly how things go in practice. Again, to be US-centric, we paid reparations to interned Japanese, even though there was no obligation to do that. Was that wrong?

And again I question how settled the law is here. It seems like there was a slow shift from "this individual, who happens to come from Africa, is a slave" to "all Africans, no matter how they got here, are slaves", and there are substantial legal grey areas along the way. If we change the laws to seize a warehouse of booze and later changed it back, should we give the booze back to the person we took it from, or should the government (and its well-connected hangers on) get to keep the booze and sell it for their own benefit?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:03 am

I think summoralilly, the distinction between purposes and goals would serve clarity in direct proportion of the value of declarative settlement, if ever that sort of quantification became a demanded exact figure. As that configuration would duplicate more to the qualification of membership in the supposed claim.

Can such distinction be adjusted summarily, and prescriptivaly, given the political nature of the context in which particular cases may be judged?

Or, van such distinctions become too trivial in the course of overall settlements made over time?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7060
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Destiny » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:58 pm

What about if you inherit a sick cat?

Especially if you already have your own cats.

Go ahead and explain to me exactly what I was supposed to do.
what if you hate you
User avatar
Destiny
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: "San Fransisco"

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:20 pm

Carleas wrote:Sorry for the delay. I would blame the times, but that would really be to blame my failure to adapt to the times. And I should also credit the quality of your thought; I've rewritten the below a few times as trying to formulate a reply has helped me to better understand your points.


No worries, dude... hope you're doing well over on your side of the pond... I hear things are a bit grim these days.
I've been thinking about my approach and maybe I've been playing it a little coy...
I'm going to try and clearly articulate my stance in a way that hopefully lightens the burden on you to unpack my thinking.

We can reject idealism, and treat morality as contingent -- whatever keeps the uneasy truce -- and still we can make the extra-temporal claim that those rules were wrong because society didn't function under them. We changed them because they were wrong, and we changed them so that the rules create a game whose goal is the purpose.


Your take on this is going back to idealism, the only concession you've made is admitting ignorance of those ideals thus forcing us to search them out by trial and error.
The problem is once you abandon idealism, then there is no moral code outside our agreements... meaning there are no right or wrong answers... only results.
What works today might not give us the same results tomorrow... As circumstances change, we might need to adapt, evolve, renegotiate... over and over and over again.
The actual agreements we reach are not themselves good or bad.. they are tools and they are to be judged by the results they yield and they need not be universal tools to be good for a given task or time.
There may be no ideal baked into the fabric of the universe, no universal set of rules that work in all circumstances.

Sometimes I get the sense that the white people who feel oh so guilty out of pity are the biggest racists of all...
They can't imagine ever being fucked over by any such "lesser" race and will carelessly decry taking an advantage or even the refusal to accept a handicap in a competitive game.

Slavery was often an end to conflict... it got two tribes to peace at the price of one tribes freedom, rather than their lives.
What was a threat in having "the other" as an enemy or competitor could be converted to positive value, as a slave.
Over time, given the continual peace, those tribes might then learn to see a different path forward that did not depend on killing, chains or control...
That there might be an even greater value to "the other" as a friend and neighbor...

Slavery gave us that peace, at a heavy price, but still lower than the alternative.
If we are not to be friends, but instead competitors in the game of life... then I don't have much incentive to devise a fair set of rules to play by with you.
I want to win that game and that means I want you to lose... why on earth would I give up an advantage to help you?
My ancestors dicked over your ancestors precisely because they wanted their kids to be ahead in that game!

The only way around that... the only solution to that problem that I know, is solidarity.
It hinges on reciprocity and involves playing on the same team.. only THEN does it makes sense that I'd want to help you become better, stronger and win.
I would want you to be the best damn person you can be, so you can go cure cancer or some shit and help us all.
Or more locally so that if I'm ever in trouble I have a strong friend in you to lean on.
What I absolutely do not want is a strong enemy.

Finally, there's the question of whether such a move would make a good uneasy truce now. I think the existence of global riots suggests that the "it was legal at the time" argument doesn't work in support of an uneasy truce, so it seems pretty plausible that a limited remedy that only applied in certain circumstances and requires victims to meet a substantial burden is better than the alternative of doing nothing. "Help everyone" doesn't work when a substantial minority of the population doesn't trust the majority to follow through (or, more accurately, to include them in the "everyone" that gets help).


You know what else could really prove that you can be trusted?
Actually carrying through with the help... and not exclude anyone.

I look at it this way:
If you make everyone equal members of your society with the same rights and privileges as the rest of you,
Then the fact that they start out at the bottom of the economic ladder is no more tragic than when anyone else does.
Whatever history resulted in your birth into that predicament is irrelevant... since YOU are an innocent victim of that history and equally fucked, regardless.

If society has decided to ignore people in that position... well...
That society is practicing an egalitarian, equal opportunity, disregard and neglect of it's poor...

Now, perhaps you're arguing that because of someone's ancestry or skin pigmentation, we ought to care more about their well-being.
That would be a pretty tribal perspective and exactly one of those things we've tried before, that didn't end too well...
I'd rather unify as one tribe and disregard the old tribal divisions, but it's not really up to me alone... and if the consensus is we play a tribal game by race, then you've selected my team for me.
So go team whites! We should have programs that exclusively help white people!

No?
Were you hoping I'd vote against my self-interest?

Now don't get me wrong... while I think this is a foolish project, I'm not advocating neglect either.
I think we neglect members of our tribe at our own peril.
If the rules we're playing by are not doing them any favors and in fact keeping them in perpetual poverty or misery we're actively removing their incentive to play by the rules.
We absolutely need to take care of our own if we expect to be taken care of by our own.

We are not aided, however, by constant reference to past divisions...
This nonsense talk of reparations, appealing to racial guilt to get people to place one racial group ahead of others, with no concern for individual need...
I mean if that's the game we're playing expect other racial advocacy groups to pop up and get vocal.

Somewhere in that mess we're gonna discover that we lost the plot... the point was to erase past tribal lines and barriers and make ourselves a unified whole
One tribe, made up of individuals... all of us invested in each other's well being.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Inheriting Ill-Gotten Gains

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:16 pm

Just a mere aside:


Games befuddled the idea of whether they are predicated on basis toward objectively measurable criteria, since a deducted revision of the formal-ideal games children play, ultimately are supposed to augment the complexity that life's challenges signify.
Moral codes are supposedly supposed as some or all basis for holding a measure of continuity from such morally idealistic levels' as Jesus's love for them, all the way to a less configurated obviously non intuitive level that a beautiful mind may envision.

Such connections may be less appealing, and more a defacto adaptive process, to be configured with AI's innovation per some underlyingly more credibly built architecture, a newer manifest firm of inherited , intuition, vis , based on typical topology, as Polanyi, through von-Neuman suggested.

Apart from such innovations, the issue may never have had a chance to surface.

A systemic slavery claim is a lot harder to justify as a class action move, similar to the chess move example.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7060
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users