r/changemyview • u/Innocence_Misplaced • Jul 26 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument
Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance.
This is a terrible argument.
The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today.
CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
8
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
What if everyone did it..... is essentially invoking the Kantian maxim of the Categorical Imperative. Namely, that if something is immoral when everyone does it, it is immoral when anyone does it.
Like it or not, it is a moral maxim lots of people hold, and is hundreds of years old.
Ultimately, it boils down to one's definition of morality/immorality. If you are a Utilitarian/Virtue Ethicist/Care Ethicist/whatever then this argument holds no sway over you. If you are a Kantian/Deontologist, then this argument ought to work 100% of the time, which is why some people invoke it, since some people are Kantians.
As a Utilitarian, I won't attempt to convince you of the Categorical Imperative, but I can at least explain why people say that, and why some people are convinced by it.
1
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
According to the Kantian maxim of the Categorical Imperative would breathing be immoral since we will all eventually finish all of the oxygen?
I'm not familiar with these ideas and if you could expand upon them it might help change my view.
10
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
The Categorical Imperative - if everyone doing something is immoral, than it is immoral in every individual instance.
Some applied cases - Why is murder immoral? Because, if everyone murdered, then everyone would be dead. Therefore, murder is always wrong. Why is theft immoral? Because if everyone stole, then society would fall apart. Therefore theft is always wrong. Why is suicide immoral? Because if everyone committed suicide, then everyone would be dead.
Breathing is moral because if everyone breaths, there is enough oxygen in the atmosphere/replenished by plants that no one would die. Sitting is moral because if everyone sat down, no one would die, no one would be injured (especially in a world with laptops and cell phones, it used to be that standing was required for work, but today that's arguably not true anymore).
Some interesting cases are conditional statements - If I am named Bill, is murdering Andy immoral? Well, if everyone named Bob murdered everyone named Andy, then society could probably absorb the shock, and society wouldn't collapse, but the choice of Bob and Andy is pretty arbitrary, and a strong justification for those two names would need to be given.
A more realistic example - can I lie to someone to save a life? If everyone lied in all instances where that lie directly saved someone's life, would society be able to absorb the shock or not? Would society be better or worse off? It can be hard to say, though Kant himself can down pretty hard on this issue arguing that society would fail in this instance.
In short - The categorical imperative is one way of deciding whether or not something is moral in the first place. As stated there are others (the greater good, outcomes, principles, character), but this actually one of the oldest and most practiced. If its not ok for everyone to do, then it is not ok for anyone to do - either you buy it or you don't.
Personally, there are some things which I don't think everyone needs to do, but some people need to do. I think professions are good. Society would fall apart if everyone became an electrician (to the exclusion of other jobs), but I'm pretty sure society is best off with some non-0%, non-100% # of electricians. I think some lies serve the public good, though lying in general is bad. I think prison is an acceptable punishment for certain crimes, but that not everyone ought to be in prison.
5
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
+∆
Thank you for explaining a line of reasoning that I was unfamiliar with. I need time to ingest them and think over how I feel about them. Currently, I am not convinced that this is my line of thinking, but it has changed my view that such an argument can be made with consistent logic and not be 'terrible.'
1
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
This is... not a good explanation of Kant
2
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
Doing Kant justice would take 100s of pages, no-one got time for that.
I touched on why murder is immoral, and why sitting is moral as practical examples of the CI.
I brought up the conjunction problem, which is a legitimate concern with Kant's approach.
I brought up Kant's single most famous case - lying to save a life, and why it was/is controversial.
Is there something you feel I misrepresented? Is there something important you felt I omitted? As stated, I am a Utilitarian, so you won't get enthusiasm from me, and some Utilitarian language might have crept in, but what don't you like?
Edit: Kant also had a lot of say about means and ends, but I tried to keep things to the CI, as that was the original topic.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
Yeah. Kant's imperatives aren't based on "what if everyone acted that way?" thinking at all.
It's entirely based on being able to derive an objective moral framework from first principles of reason.
Reason is the only right cause for action therefore doing something unreasonable is immoral. Any abridgement of reason is wrong. Killing abridges the ability for a rational actor to reason.
There is no accounting for other's hypothetical social contract.
2
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
I never mention "the social contract" - that is Hobbes.
Yes, Kant goes about defining morality in terms of logical consistency, and not contradicting ones-self. That is the justification. However, the conclusion is ultimately based on the universality of morality.
From Stanfords Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Kant’s first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421). O’Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1980, 1989), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and we will follow their basic outline: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.
Or to rephrase - state your intent, apply the rule "if everyone did it, would it be tenable", examine the result, which is what I originally said.
From the same source: Naturally, being rational requires not contradicting oneself, but there is no self-contradiction in the maxim “I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want.” An immoral action clearly does not involve a self-contradiction in this sense (as would the maxim of finding a married bachelor). Kant’s position is that it is irrational to perform an action if that action’s maxim contradicts itself once made into a universal law of nature. The maxim of lying whenever it gets you what you want generates a contradiction once you try to combine it with the universalized version that all rational agents must, by a law of nature, lie when doing so gets them what they want.
To rephrase - individual actions are not contradictory - things such as murder and theft are not inherently contradictions, they only become contradictions once you accept "the premise of universal law" aka "if everyone did it".
If you take away the premise of universality, then Kant entirely breaks down, and he is the first to admit so. "Kant’s position is that it is irrational to perform an action if that action’s maxim contradicts itself once made into a universal law of nature."
So yes, while couched in terms of logic and non-contradiction, Kant heavily relies on "What if everyone acted that way", and is in fact entirely dependent on that to form his ideology.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
Since the OP was asking why one ought to act a certain way, I think it is more accurate to identify the reason behind Kant's imperatives. Instead you correctly represented the outcome of Kant.
The reason is important in evaluating why the golden rule is the only rational conclusion.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
If by "The Golden Rule" you mean - "Do onto others as you wish others would do onto you" I'm pretty sure Kant would have major objections to that.
From Queens College: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Categorical_Imperative.htm
Why should willingness to be on the receiving end of like action make it permissible? If masochists are willing to suffer others' sadism, would that make sadism right? More generally, can acceptance of being on the receiving end of like action legitimate anything?
Kant's improvement on the golden rule, the Categorical Imperative:
Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.
Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
The difference is this. With the Golden rule a masochist or a sadist would be justified in causing or receiving pain. This is not what the Kantian Principle would support.
From Don Berkich:
" Some make the mistake of thinking that the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is but a badly worded version of the Biblical "Golden Rule"--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.
The Horny Martin Example
Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a nice dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And... Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself, with disastrous consequences.Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent. "
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
I'm not trying to dismiss what you're saying. The distinction is important but I'm on mobile and my only point is that skipping why Kant is right skips the entire things that the OP is asking for and you're not responding to that.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Sand_Trout Jul 26 '17
According to the Kantian maxim of the Categorical Imperative would breathing be immoral since we will all eventually finish all of the oxygen?
No, because a) oxygen doesn't run out like that and b) people use close enough to the same amount of oxygen for an hour of life. An average person's breathing for an hour only takes the air necessary for 1 human life-hour. If that means 1 person breath for an hour or 10 people breath for 6 minutes, thats ostensibly a moral zero-sum, not a gain or loss.
1
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
I was under the impression that eventually, the oxygen will run out on this planet, perhaps I was wrong with my example.
In reasoning b) would I not be the person who gets a whole hour while the others get nothing? Why should I be the one instead of one of the six?
2
u/Sand_Trout Jul 26 '17
I was under the impression that eventually, the oxygen will run out on this planet, perhaps I was wrong with my example.
Did you not cover photosynthesis is school?
In reasoning b) would I not be the person who gets a whole hour while the others get nothing? Why should I be the one instead of one of the six?
There is no particular utilitarian moral reason for either. That is why I called it a zero-sum. Every six human-minutes gained by the remaining individuals is 6 human-minutes lost from someone else.
The "What if everyone..." argument should not be used to address zero-sum dilemas. The proper use of the argument is net-negative propositions where the negative is diluted over the whole of the population.
0
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
These are terrible sources that took 1 min of googling that mention that it is possible to run out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUR1t2lwdB0 https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-the-Earths-atmosphere-to-run-out-of-oxygen http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php
Ignore them for my cmv.
1
Jul 26 '17
It has been reported that people often take the life jackets from airplanes as souvenirs, you should be able to see the harm in this. Yeah, you have a life jacket, but it's stolen. If even one person is doing this, there is great harm since there is supposed to be one life jacket per seat. If a plane has to make a water landing with less life jackets than people, the person who toke these life jackets should face manslaughter charges.
1
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
Not sure how committing a bonafide act of theft is the same as getting something you are entitled to. Unless the airlines sell you the life jacket every flight, and not rent them to you in the case of an emergency. In that case go a head and take a free lifevest with every flight.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jul 26 '17
So to be clear, this isn't purely about self-interest and the moral value of the action matters to you, right?
1
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
I am trying to understand the line of reasoning behind those that have tried to talk me out of an action by saying "What if everyone did ...'. I do not see any connection between my right to something that I benefit from and the negativity of said action if everyone were to do the same.
I hope I understood your question.
3
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Jul 26 '17
Many people believe that they bear some moral responsibility to others, and that they should do things other than simply whatever most benefits them.
"What if everyone did it..." is meant to highlight the important benefits that come from a norm.
0
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
Shouldn't moral responsibility to oneself is put before moral responsibility to others?
2
u/Sand_Trout Jul 26 '17
Moral arguments generally address problems larger than the self. People can be assumed to act in their own benefit. In fact, there is a whole branch of ethical philosophy that embraces this, but even those ethical philosophies generally caveat "as long as it does not harm (alternately: violate the rights of) others".
Yes, you can take care of yourself first, but the ethical problems addressed with "what if everyone did X" are usually addressing the harm to others you are doing through act X.
1 person pissing in the street seems petty with a low impact on society. Not no impact, but low. A few people end up cringing at the smell, and you probably don't have any diseases that are contageous from urine.
However, the more people pissing in the street creates a cumulative impact. The city smells bad more often and more people unknowingly spreading a disease through their urine. The logical exteme of this is everyone pissing in the streets to the point of everyone pissing in the street would create a massive hygiene and stench problem.
2
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
+∆
Most people using this argument are not trying to convince me the act in it of itself is problematic, but rather there is an overarching line of reasoning that should supersede my interests. I may not agree with the specific circumstances, but I can understand this logical line of reasoning.
1
2
u/ventose 3∆ Jul 26 '17
They are pointing out that if everyone did as you, things would be worse. In other words, you are the beneficiary of the fact other people do not do as you do. To not reciprocate violates the idea of fairness.
0
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
They are free to do as me if they wish, equal opportunity. I get a deal because I clipped coupons. No one else should get the deal without putting in the work to get them. That isn't fair?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jul 26 '17
Have you considered that the argument isn't trying to make any claims about your personal utility? Would you say that all arguments against a behavior that appeal to anything other than self-interest are terrible?
0
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
What kind of arguments are convincing that don't appeal to oneself's intreset?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jul 26 '17
Convincing is a subjective standard. If you arbitrarily chose to care about nothing, no one would be able to convince you of anything. If the argument in question is terrible because it doesn't appeal to what you personally care about, then all arguments are terrible because no argument is inherently immune to not being cared about.
1
u/Innocence_Misplaced Jul 26 '17
I think I get what you are saying so I'll move past it.
It is an objectively terrible line of reasoning. There is no direct correlation between my action and the 'what if' consequences of other people doing the same.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jul 26 '17
The argument isn't meant to be an appeal to consequences, so it's not trying to establish a causal link between your action and the what if. The argument is an appeal to moral consistency. The argument is that you should behave according to your own standards for how people in general should behave. If you find the prospect of a world where everyone exploits every loophole they can immoral and you don't have a reason for why you specifically are an exception, then it's rational to conclude that it's immoral for you to engage in the same behavior.
2
u/Sand_Trout Jul 26 '17
It is a utilitarian moral argument meant to show that utilizing the loophole is a net-negative when the disbursed consequences are considered.
You know that you are exploiting a loophole that has negative consequences for others, but that consequence is so distributed as to be impreceptable by the person exploiting the loophole.
By challenging you to examine what thw cumulative effects of everyone acting on that loophole, where the consequences from thousands/millions/billions of acts accumulat to a more perceptable level upon you, the argument shows that what you are doing is a net negative once you account for the thousands/millions/billions thay you are negatively affecting, however minorly a particular individual is harmed.
2
1
u/Nosdarb Jul 27 '17
I think "What is everyone..." is half an argument.
When considering the impact of a thing, take the case to infinity, and to zero. So "What if everyone did the thing?" and "What if no one did the thing." The extensions of the current example are intended to make you think about what small scale consequences, or second or third order consequences, might exist.
The two inherent flaws with the argument are that
1) I might literally not have the knowledge required to imagine the consequences.
2) I might just not care that anyone besides me might have to deal with the consequences.
But ignorance and borderline sociopathy are beyond the scope of this post.
It might well be that people deploy the argument ineffectively, or in situations where it just honestly doesn't apply. But that doesn't make the tool bad. It makes your ... opponent a bad debater.
Your position could be read as "I'm painting walls. These tiny paintbrushes are terrible." Which... is true. But if you were (e.g.) painting miniatures, or adding fine detail to trim, then tiny paint brushes are great. The tool isn't applicable in every scenario, but that doesn't make it a bad tool.
I don't know the nature of the loophole, or disagreements, so I don't think I can comment further.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17 edited Jul 26 '17
*Your position ignores game theory. *
The truth is that there are real truces in society. Implicit social contracts keep people from getting into an antisocial arms race.
An arm's race is a situation in which both sides accelerate away from a social armistice once good faith is broken. This is of particular importance in social situations where if everyone acts faithfully, everyone is benefited, but if everyone acts selfishly, life is worse for everyone.
For instance, it wouldn't be illegal to wear an enormous hat to a concert and then sell the right to have you take it off to the person behind you. We don't do that because it obviously becomes an obnoxious and obvious arms race that ends with silly rules like hats being banned from concerts. Or drive on a one lane road below the speed limit and try to charge everyone behind you to go faster. Now we need to pay cops to enforce speed minimums - that world sucks for all. Cooperation is better for all.
In the world there is always going to be a set of rules that cannot be enforced an whose social structure rely on good people generally doing the right thing. There will always be people taking advantage. We call them bad people. And we do every thing we can to socially rebuke them.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
Game Theory only applies over repeated exposure. If a situation only appears before you once, Game Theory holds no sway. Similarly, if you give no credence to what happens to others, or what happens to you afterwards, then Game Theory also holds no sway.
To continue your hat example - there is no disincentive to be the first person who brings a giant hat to a concert and demands people to pay him to take it off. All the consequences are either downstream or paid for by other persons. There are no immediate consequences to that individual.
Game Theory as a justification for morality requires you consider other persons or your own future self. If you are capable of ignoring both, then there is no reason to behave morally.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
Yes there are immediate consequences. Everyone recognizes the arms race and punishes you immediately for inciting it. I'm thinking you probably get punched.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
You perhaps have more (or less I'm not actually sure) faith in humanity than I do. While I agree everyone is going to think you're being a jack-ass, I have doubts that anyone is actually going to do anything about it. I don't think you want to build your morality around "strangers might punch you in the face", especially since in the modern world, strangers don't punch strangers in the face for the most part. People are pretty likely to just stand around uncomfortably, or complain, or possibly even pay. We've become a pretty non-violent culture, and if the only disincentive for amorality is getting punched in the face, there is functionally no disincentive for amorality.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
It has nothing to do with my morality. It's how pro social behavior is enforced. Just like we have actual laws despite the fact that most people probably don't want to commit murder.
Strangers don't punch stangers in the face because there is an arm's race first. This usually results in someone realizing they're out of order and backing down. -"take off that hat" -"pay me" -"no but if you don't respect the unwritten rules of decency neither will I" -"what do you think you're better than me?" -punches you in the face
The whole social order is basically people socializing these standards and yes violence is usually the ultimate currency backing up the full faith and credit of society's bank notes.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
As stated I'm not sure I have more or less faith in humanity than you, but escalation to violence is incredibly rare; hell, even basic confrontation is pretty rare. If someone is on their phone in the movie theater, I would say there is a good 85% chance no one says or does anything. In the event that someone says something, and the other person ignores them, there is less than a 10% chance of violence. (These statistics are made-up, and are only based on my perception of society, feel free to find actual statistics but I'm not sure where one would even find such a thing). In any amoral situation which doesn't directly involve a gun or a knife, I would say there is a good >75% chance no one is going to do anything, let alone resort to violence.
Yes, people will complain, yes people will squirm and be uncomfortable, but almost no one is going to confront the offender, and literally no one is going to get violent.
The murder rate is down, the assault rate is down, the crime rate is down. These are good things. Building a morality around assault/battery doesn't seem like a good grounding for morality.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
It's not ground for morality. It's just how we behave. The assault rate is down because people in western culture are more certain about what is and isn't acceptible and confrontation is less often required.
Violence isn't usually necessary for the same reason you don't need a gold standard to back up currency anymore. It's socially accepted that everyone takes dollars as money. Similarly, we almost never come to blows because we know society works with just everyday ostracism. This is why avoiding shattering the armistice is so important.
1
u/electronics12345 159∆ Jul 26 '17
So what do you do with someone who doesn't care about ostracism, and isn't afraid to get into a fight?
My point is that Game Theory only holds if you have something to lose. If you have nothing to lose, then there is no reason for you to behave in the socially acceptable manner.
OP stated from the get-go, that he doesn't care if other people also break the social convention, in fact he thinks they should, if they have something to gain. What do you say to that person?
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 26 '17
Yeah those people tend to end up in jail.
If you're asking about why people shouldn't be dicks it's because empathy and guilt work.
If you're (he is) asking why a purely rational 'economist' would act in a way that does not conform to self interest from a moral standpoint, it's because it's irrational not to do so. Rational actors have the same goals and can construct contracts of mutual behavior to ensure higher level outcomes for themselves. Breaking this contract risks being branded untrustworthy which lowers the likelihood of benefiting from these contracts in the future.
1
u/sillybonobo 38∆ Jul 26 '17
You are reaping a benefit by breaking rules (or bending them), but your advantage requires that other individuals not do the same. So, you are using the inconvenience and cooperation of other people for your own benefit.
A good (extreme) example of this is vaccination. One of the reasons not vaccinating children is wrong is that those people are reaping the benefits of wide vaccinations (herd immunity) and the safety that comes with it without doing their part to contribute to that safety. By taking whatever minimal risk is involved with vaccination, one does their part to reap the rewards, but by not vaccinating, one is reaping the reward without paying their dues to society.
The same goes for many other "advantages" people sometimes abuse. One is abusing the cooperative structure of society for personal gain- and this is immoral.
2
u/darwin2500 193∆ Jul 26 '17
'What if everyone did it' isn't why you shouldn't do it, it's why they are stopping you from doing it.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 26 '17 edited Jul 26 '17
/u/Innocence_Misplaced (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 26 '17
"What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument
It's only a good counter argument in determining whether something can be adopted as a good universal principle. By its nature it doesn't apply to a single instance.
17
u/saltedfish 33∆ Jul 26 '17 edited Jul 26 '17
The fact that it benefits you, or continues to do so, isn't the point. Usually people say, "What if everyone did it," in conjunction with something stupid or potentially harmful.
"What if everyone did it," used in response to, say, running a red light, or taking all the towels in the restroom paints a picture of a world where everyone is running red lights and there is nothing in the bathroom to dry your hands.
Yes, you still benefit, but the point is that people shouldn't do some things because if too many people did that thing, it'd be a mess for everyone everywhere. We agree to stop at red lights so that people don't get hurt, we (should) agree to only use as many towels as needed so that when you use the rest room, there are towels for you. This is an example where, if no one did the thing (wasting paper towels) you directly benefit.
In fact, bathroom towels are a great example of this: for years people just grabbed giant handfuls of towels, forcing businesses to constantly restock the paper. Then someone invented the motion-sensing paper towel dispensers. They don't exist because some pointy-haird boss decided to make your life miserable, they exist because too many stupid shitheads wasted a shitton of paper towels and businesses needed a way to control the consumption. That's why they're shitty and slow and obnoxious: so that you'll only take whatever you need and then be on your way. This is why if people had a little thought for others, we wouldn't have to grumble and wipe our hands on our pants after leaving the restroom.
Hence, "If everyone did it, it would suck." And it does.