Comments on: Consequences not Motives http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:18:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Ravikiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-279 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-279 We capitalists are especially vulnerable to type M attacks. Our policies benefit the rich, ergo we are on the side of the rich and want to screw the poor. Leftists on the other hand can claim the purest of motives, hence 7 murders forgiven. (i.e saat khoon maaf) We capitalists are especially vulnerable to type M attacks. Our policies benefit the rich, ergo we are on the side of the rich and want to screw the poor. Leftists on the other hand can claim the purest of motives, hence 7 murders forgiven. (i.e saat khoon maaf)

]]> by: Gautam http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-280 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-280 Our policies don't benefit the rich as much as they benefit those who want to become rich. :-). Which ofcourse is an unforgivable transgression considering that we are all equal, and we must remain equal in poverty. Our policies don’t benefit the rich as much as they benefit those who want to become rich. :-). Which ofcourse is an unforgivable transgression considering that we are all equal, and we must remain equal in poverty.

]]> by: Gautam http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-281 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-281 Yazad, i have been thinking about the Typification of arguments a little bit, and here is what struck me. Often when constructing a good argument about the consequences of a particular policy or suggestion you must call into question the motives of the individual who is proposing it. Ofcourse the motives are only speculatively attributed, if they are not personalised they may be quite helpful in analysis. As Hugh Akston teaches in Atlas Shrugged "check your premises". You got to check the assumptions upon which consequences maybe evaluated. Else what might seem to be negative consequences based on imputed objectives may really be positive when considering the real objectives of the policy/suggestion makers. What saith ye? Yazad, i have been thinking about the Typification of arguments a little bit, and here is what struck me. Often when constructing a good argument about the consequences of a particular policy or suggestion you must call into question the motives of the individual who is proposing it. Ofcourse the motives are only speculatively attributed, if they are not personalised they may be quite helpful in analysis. As Hugh Akston teaches in Atlas Shrugged “check your premises”. You got to check the assumptions upon which consequences maybe evaluated. Else what might seem to be negative consequences based on imputed objectives may really be positive when considering the real objectives of the policy/suggestion makers. What saith ye?

]]> by: Ravikiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-282 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-282 I think this example will clarify things a bit: 1) American leftists oppose shifting of jobs from the US to India 2) This opposition makes no sense, because by their opposition, they are hurting the same poor third-world countries they claim to care about 3) In reality they are not concerned about the poor at all. They are only speaking for the labour unions that have a vested interest in stopping the shift 3) is a Type M argument, and by itself won't prove anything. As far as logical reasoning goes, it should end at step 2, as it is sufficient to prove that the said opposition is wrong. Problematic arguments come about because people tend to skip step 2 and make replace it by step 3. Step 3 *is* useful, but only as a way to understand the motives of the person, and not to make an objective case. I think this example will clarify things a bit:
1) American leftists oppose shifting of jobs from the US to India
2) This opposition makes no sense, because by their opposition, they are hurting the same poor third-world countries they claim to care about
3) In reality they are not concerned about the poor at all. They are only speaking for the labour unions that have a vested interest in stopping the shift

3) is a Type M argument, and by itself won’t prove anything. As far as logical reasoning goes, it should end at step 2, as it is sufficient to prove that the said opposition is wrong. Problematic arguments come about because people tend to skip step 2 and make replace it by step 3.
Step 3 *is* useful, but only as a way to understand the motives of the person, and not to make an objective case.

]]> by: Ravikiran http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-283 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-283 Another place where looking at motives is useful is when we have to judge how credible a person is, but we do not have sufficient knowledge to judge his content. For example, we'd be right to be suspicious about a piece of research that claims that cigarettes are good for health, if we know that the study was funded heavily by ITC. But then again, it does not mean that the study should be automatically assumed to be wrong, only that we should look at it it more critically than if it were conducted by a neutral body. Ultimately, there is no substitute for actually looking at the study. Another place where looking at motives is useful is when we have to judge how credible a person is, but we do not have sufficient knowledge to judge his content.
For example, we’d be right to be suspicious about a piece of research that claims that cigarettes are good for health, if we know that the study was funded heavily by ITC.
But then again, it does not mean that the study should be automatically assumed to be wrong, only that we should look at it it more critically than if it were conducted by a neutral body. Ultimately, there is no substitute for actually looking at the study.

]]> by: gautam http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-284 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/10/17/consequences-not-motives/#comment-284 Hmm, yes i suppose the result of what you are saying ravikiran is that, though Type M arguments are weak on their own they can be used in tandem with Type C to illustrate the fallacious nature of the assumptions that we want to illustrate. About your second post. 'Neutrality' is just imputed, is it not? It may arise from inadequete information. So one of the maxims that LSS throws around "Vigilance is the price of liberty" should be true all the time rather than based on some notion of safety that we might deceive ourselves into. Hmm, yes i suppose the result of what you are saying ravikiran is that, though Type M arguments are weak on their own they can be used in tandem with Type C to illustrate the fallacious nature of the assumptions that we want to illustrate.

About your second post. ‘Neutrality’ is just imputed, is it not? It may arise from inadequete information. So one of the maxims that LSS throws around “Vigilance is the price of liberty” should be true all the time rather than based on some notion of safety that we might deceive ourselves into.

]]>