Pathological Altruism

[Kharakov]

Is the living wage war fair for all, when some demand a piece of peace as the price for peace?

 

[laughing dog]

Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.

The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...

Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.

All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative meme

 

[KeepTalking]

It's same old same old conservatism and has been vocalised ad nauseam.


Why not get into specific examples? The only one here (so far) is the minimum wage, about which proponents endlessly cite evidence and opponents endlessly cite abstract principles.

...??

Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Yet Affirmative Action actually did good as well by forcing those academic institutions to take measures to avoid institutional racism. So, even in hindsight, it is not a clear cut case of reasonably forseeable consequences.

The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...

Did those policies do nothing but harm? Was it the policy decisions, and thus pathological altruism, that caused the crisis, or self-serving corporations and individuals, and thus pathological greed, that actually caused the crises? You missed the mark again, here.

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development.

So no aid to Africa has ever done any good? Good luck proving that one. Once again, pathological greed on the part of they dictators and cronies has more to do with these failures than any form of altruism.

All of these examples are bad examples of what the paper you cite was getting at. Why don't you use actual examples from the paper, from those who know about the subject they were researching, instead of using this to prop up your personal hobby horse?

 

[Emily Lake]

If having no job guarantees that you have no home and no food, and represents certain death, then I would argue that indentured servitude which provides for shelter and sustenance is unquestionably better than the alternative. .

even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.

Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...

 

[Emily Lake]

even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.

This is where I was going with the question. The op is basically a false dichotomy ie no job vs sub-living wage. If basic needs aren't being met the entire system is up for readjustment using any means.

Darn. And here I thought the OP was about the general topic of altruistic intentions that blind people to the likelihood of negative outcomes... and used as an example the topic of living wage - a highly debatable topic representative of an altruistic motivation where the potential negative outcomes are often ignored or dismissed outright.

I was rather hoping to discuss the bigger picture of altruistic motivations that occasionally blind people to the consequences of those actions.

 

[Trausti]

Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.

The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...

Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.

All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative meme

Lowered standards for affirmative action: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-medical-school-acceptance-rates-from.html

Government participation in housing crisis: https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/White.pdf

On September 30, 1999, a New York Times reporter, Steven Holmes published a piece
titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending”. The crux of the story was that Fannie
Mae was lowering its credit standards, which in turn would increase home ownership. Franklin
Raines, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae, is quoted in the article:
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose
credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated
to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Harm of aid to Africa: http://www.dambisamoyo.com/books-and-publications/book/dead-aid and Moyo's paper: http://www2.fiu.edu/~ganapati/6838/02_15_10_Moyo.pdf

 

[prideandfall]

Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...

i wasn't suggesting it was your position, hence why i said "even that" - my whole reply was stating that a tongue-in-cheek mockery of an extreme position didn't go far enough in its ridiculousness.

and yes, i used that as an excuse to go off on a bender on a thought tangent i'd already mentioned, but i wasn't pinning it on you personally.

 

[Emily Lake]

Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...

i wasn't suggesting it was your position, hence why i said "even that" - my whole reply was stating that a tongue-in-cheek mockery of an extreme position didn't go far enough in its ridiculousness.

and yes, i used that as an excuse to go off on a bender on a thought tangent i'd already mentioned, but i wasn't pinning it on you personally.

Okay, then I apologize for mistakenly inferring such. Please proceed with your not-targeted-at-me bender!

 

[laughing dog]

Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.
Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.

All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative meme

Lowered standards for affirmative action: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-medical-school-acceptance-rates-from.html

There is no need to persist in giving more examples of the pathological conservative meme. Affirmative action does not mandate nor require the lowering of standards. The fact some places did so is not the fault of aa nor of its goals.

Government participation in housing crisis: https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/White.pdf

On September 30, 1999, a New York Times reporter, Steven Holmes published a piece
titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending”. The crux of the story was that Fannie
Mae was lowering its credit standards, which in turn would increase home ownership. Franklin
Raines, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae, is quoted in the article:
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose
credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated
to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Reducing down payment requirements was not the problem in the housing crisis. No gov't program forced or even induced lenders to lend to people they knew could not repay their mortgages.

Harm of aid to Africa: http://www.dambisamoyo.com/books-and-publications/book/dead-aid and Moyo's paper: http://www2.fiu.edu/~ganapati/6838/02_15_10_Moyo.pdf

This might be the only example that even comes close to "pathological altruism".

 

[arkirk]

Wanting the world of man to operate fairly and with justice, even economic justice, is not altruism.

It is self interest.

I started to read the interminable attachment with the OP. It could have been a peer reviewed paper but all of the reviewers must have accepted the notion that there are a lot of people who are totally misinformed all the time. Some people seem to feel that if they can just label an action or suggestion "altruistic" it must be considered "pathological" because mankind is bad.

The last thing I see going on in this world is a pathological level of altruism. Altruism, regardless how well informed it is, is always a gamble. Everything in life is like that. What is called "altruism" is actually just being good natured and equitable. We have seen comparisons here between involuntary servitude and starvation and I still have to see any correlation of either of these things to altruism.

Altruism is not a pathology. It is a preference. Those whose preferences are a lot more aggressive, think of altruism and altruists as something in the way of their aggressive designs. Obviously the writer of the paper mistakes erroneous actions taken over too long a time by people he deems indulging in pathological altruism to be the fault of good intentions. We must always guard against good intentions.

That might just be what is wrong with the world and holds it in a form of paralysis based not just on mistrust of others but also mistrust of our own intentions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

The problem is that when you mandate a "living wage" job you get some people with living wages and others with zero.

(Never mind that the real problem is hours, not the hourly rate anyway.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a company says, we can only stay in business if we are allowed to dump X thousands of gallons of toxic sludge into the river, expel X tons of coal ash into the air, kill X amount of patients who take our medicine, are the people opposed to those businesses being allowed to do those things pathological?

You're making a hidden assumption that there are other jobs available.

The fact that people are taking the low-wage jobs shows there aren't high wage jobs available.

Thus they aren't dumping X thousand gallons of toxic sludge, they are intercepting a naturally occurring stream of toxic sludge and removing half of it.

- - - Updated - - -

I still say we hsould have a guaranteed basic income for all supplied through the tax system, and let employers and employees agree to whatever wages above that that they want to pay. Take the threat of starvation away from the table and let the two bargain a fair price. The government should not be forcing any particular price, and the employer should not be funding welfare by paying employees more than their work is worth.

The economy isn't big enough to support this yet. Eventually I think it's the right answer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

The problem is that when you mandate a "living wage" job you get some people with living wages and others with zero.

(Never mind that the real problem is hours, not the hourly rate anyway.)

The strawman lives! Fools to think you can kill it!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The economy isn't big enough to support this yet. Eventually I think it's the right answer.

 

[KeepTalking]

A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.

The problem is that when you mandate a "living wage" job you get some people with living wages and others with zero.

So, basically the status quo would be unchanged by mandating a living wage, as we already have some people with living wages and others with zero. Where's the problem?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.

Here's a NYT article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04angier.html?pagewanted=all

So basically anything to do with black people.

The more you know.

The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You're making a hidden assumption that there are other jobs available.

Actually I have made no such assumption, hidden or otherwise. I asked a question about the pathology of people who oppose certain things. And you have not answered the question and it appears you have no intentions of doing so.

The fact that people are taking the low-wage jobs shows there aren't high wage jobs available.

And?

Thus they aren't dumping X thousand gallons of toxic sludge, they are intercepting a naturally occurring stream of toxic sludge and removing half of it.

- - - Updated - - -

I still say we hsould have a guaranteed basic income for all supplied through the tax system, and let employers and employees agree to whatever wages above that that they want to pay. Take the threat of starvation away from the table and let the two bargain a fair price. The government should not be forcing any particular price, and the employer should not be funding welfare by paying employees more than their work is worth.

The economy isn't big enough to support this yet. Eventually I think it's the right answer.

 

[KeepTalking]

So basically anything to do with black people.

The more you know.

The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.

This is the kind of reasoning Capt. Kirk would use to destroy a malevolent AI.

 

[Canard DuJour]

So basically anything to do with black people.

The more you know.

The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.

​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Yet Affirmative Action actually did good as well by forcing those academic institutions to take measures to avoid institutional racism. So, even in hindsight, it is not a clear cut case of reasonably forseeable consequences.

The current problems are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of continuing the programs long past the point where the problem they were addressing became a minor issue.

]

The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...

Did those policies do nothing but harm? Was it the policy decisions, and thus pathological altruism, that caused the crisis, or self-serving corporations and individuals, and thus pathological greed, that actually caused the crises? You missed the mark again, here.

Where's the evidence of good from them?

Locally at least the actual "problem" seems to have been that the underwriters were looking at the expected appreciation of the house. They were more willing to write a shaky loan if they expected the house value to go up substantially.

Unfortunately, the regulators were only looking at the big picture and didn't see what was really going on: There were a couple of zip codes that didn't participate in the housing boom and the bankers generally wouldn't write a low-down-payment mortgage in those areas. Racism? If so, why would they be just as willing to write to a black person not in those two zip codes?

Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development.

So no aid to Africa has ever done any good? Good luck proving that one. Once again, pathological greed on the part of they dictators and cronies has more to do with these failures than any form of altruism.

All of these examples are bad examples of what the paper you cite was getting at. Why don't you use actual examples from the paper, from those who know about the subject they were researching, instead of using this to prop up your personal hobby horse?

Financial aid to Africa has probably done a lot more harm than good. The only aid that actually works is going in and making something useful--but those two-bit dictators generally would not accept that kind of aid because they couldn't pocket it.

(And this has nothing to do with being black. It has to do with corrupt two-bit dictators. It's just that most of them are in Africa.)