From: Andrew L Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 10:35:58 MDT
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, matus wrote:
>
> > > Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity..
> >
> > Hmmm. Sometimes I think all too much real malice if forgiven by
> > assuming stupdity.
> >
> > - s
> >
>
> > That may be, but how much more malice is generated through honest
> > mistakes? Its natural to think that if someone does something
> > that harms us that harm must have been their intent (and I'm sure
> > Eliezer can give a better description than me as to why), but
> > in the complex world we live in its hard to judge the impact of
> > our actions on everyone they effect, even if we do try. When
> > someone stupidly argues for/against the war with Iraq, or
> > immigration your opponent is probably not out to destroy America,
> > and it pays to remember this.
>
> This is the primary reason why I think people should be judged on the
> consequences of their actions, instead of their motivations. Since we
> can never truly know someone's motivations, but we can much more
> objectively determine the consequences of their actions. Besides, it is
> entirely unclear whether (good intentions) + (ignorance) has caused more
> harm in the world or (evil intentions) + (intelligence) has. Those who
> commit ills with their good intentions + ignorance are never encumbered
> by such nuisances as a guilty conscience. Witness the banning of DDT,
> done with entirely good intentions, has now lead to the death of more
> than 20 million people, mostly children in Africa, which otherwise would
> not have died. At the height of DDT spraying deaths from malaria
> numbered in the single to low double digits every year. Now they number
> in the millions.
>
> Michael Dickey
>
>
I agree that stupidity has probably cause far, far more human suffering
than malevolence, especially since its so much more common. However, the
best methods of responding to stupidity is very differnet from the best
method of responding to malevolence.
If the DDT opponents had caused the spraying to stop with the express
purpose of causing all those deaths, we could punish them in some way so
as to deter other people from acting in such a horrible way. On the other
hand, knowing that they would be punished for the wrong decision wouldn't
have affected the actions of a DDT opponent who sincerely beleived that
they were doing the right thing.
On the other hand, a malicious person with a sufficient threat hanging
over their head can be persuaded to act well, but a stupid person won't
improve in this way. This makes it important to recognize which your
dealing with, and given that the normal human bias is to attribute actions
to bad will, thus my signature (which isn't stored on this particular
computer, unfortunatly.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 10:45:11 MDT