No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[GePap]

A reasonable point. The response is that systems that never let people suffer harm that could be prevented just end up not working. Sometimes we have to harm to some people to prevent harm to others. Example: prison. Sometimes the cost of preventing harm to everyone is much, much higher than the cost of preventing harm to almost everyone, too.

I didn't say no harm could come to an individual - which is why I specified the level of harm that I would seek to prevent. A system can be rationally constructed so that the person who didn't pay the fee would be made to pay a much higher amount, a lower level of harm but harm nonetheless.

Hell, you could make it so the individual whose house was saved was then forcibly undressed and was forced to stand naked in front of their neighbors in shame. No monetary harm whatsoever, but you can sure bet that the aversion to such humiliation would be very powerful. Is this likely to happen? NO. Why? Because most people have a much greater aversion to humiliating others so blatantly than having them suffer property damage - more evidence I would state to the fact that human beings are inherently illogical.

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you sure you understand what "expected value" means? Why would the expected value be a particular outcome?

I am under the impression that Kuci believes an action is right if it is the utility maximizing alternative of a given set of alternatives... it is essentially a value or a number (defined by God knows what). As we can not predict the future, this value is uncertain and becomes a question of statistical probabilities. Expected value might not be the technically correct term but I think it represents it quite well... a moral decision would be an investment and the correct or ethical choice would be that which provides the highest positive return (maximizes utility).

I think that's how Kuci views things.

[Wiglaf]

And why do we value the life of children so much? Because it's future potential -- we hope for the kid to grow up to be a healthy and productive member of society.

Why do Americans not apply this same logic to public healthcare? Why do you deny access to millions of children to preventive medicine so they can grow up to be healthy and productive members of society?

Children are not worth much. They have no income or education. It's much better from a litigation standpoint to run over a kid than a partner in a law firm, not that you can plan these sort of things.

[GePap]

The empirical basis is KH's (and, I believe, some others' who work in the insurance industry) that the rate they would have to charge would be high enough that too many people would be unable or unwilling to pay, and ultimately it would collapse. That said, I don't know if he's right, and if he isn't then the fire department is probably better off offering that payment as well.

Except that insurance companies lack the ability to impose fees like a government does. The fee is voluntary, but the demand for direct payment for government services after the fact does not have to be - it can carry the force of law.

(And while the functional difference of said system from taxes would be nill, people would still probably accept it more than actual taxes - again, due to the illusion of control because of the existence of a choice)

And, of course, there's the fact that the first-best solution - levying a $75 tax on all homes - has been explicitly rejected by the county multiple times. We all agree it would be better, but it's not the system that they actually have and that the firefighters are actually working in.

This is why I vote for Democrats and not Republicans.

The evidence against this is the rate of nonpayment on ER bills. If hospitals can't get such liens for saving lives, why would the fire department be able to for saving houses?

The reason most individuals would oppose the idea of letting hospitals place liens on the property of individuals whose lives they saved is because most persons have an aversion (yes, an illogical one) to equating lives with property, which is what would come to the minds of most people if such a system were to be proposed. This aversion would not exist in the case of saving property.

[Kuciwalker]

I am under the impression that Kuci believes an action is right if it is the utility maximizing alternative of a given set of alternatives... it is essentially a value or a number (defined by God knows what). As we can not predict the future, this value is uncertain and becomes a question of statistical probabilities. Expected value might not be the technically correct term but I think it represents it quite well... a moral decision would be an investment and the correct or ethical choice would be that which provides the highest positive return (maximizes utility).

I think that's how Kuci views things.

Essentially, yes, but this glosses over the much more difficult issue. To find an expectation you need two things: a utility measure of any given future, and then a measure over the entire set of possible futures (a "measure" is a generalization of the idea of area or volume), which, roughly, determines the relative 'weight' of each individual future. Both of these are difficult to construct.

[Kuciwalker]

Except that insurance companies lack the ability to impose fees like a government does. The fee is voluntary, but the demand for direct payment for government services after the fact does not have to be - it can carry the force of law.

1) Hospitals, not insurance companies

2) The relevant government in this case is in a different jurisdiction. The city of South Fulton don't necessarily have the power to compel residents of neighboring counties to pay money.

The reason most individuals would oppose the idea of letting hospitals place liens on the property of individuals whose lives they saved is because most persons have an aversion (yes, an illogical one) to equating lives with property, which is what would come to the minds of most people if such a system were to be proposed. This aversion would not exist in the case of saving property.

Maybe, though it's still probably not the first-best solution, and it's also not the system currently in place within which these firefighters were working. Basically everyone who's looked at this agrees that a different system would be better; the disagreement is about what the firefighters should have done at the time.

[KrazyHorse]

Essentially, yes, but this glosses over the much more difficult issue. To find an expectation you need two things: a utility measure of any given future, and then a measure over the entire set of possible futures (a "measure" is a generalization of the idea of area or volume), which, roughly, determines the relative 'weight' of each individual future. Both of these are difficult to construct.

A measure in this sense is a mapping from state to probability/probability density.

[KrazyHorse]

1) Hospitals, not insurance companies

2) The relevant government in this case is in a different jurisdiction. The city of South Fulton don't necessarily have the power to compel residents of neighboring counties to pay money.



Maybe, though it's still probably not the first-best solution, and it's also not the system currently in place within which these firefighters were working. Basically everyone who's looked at this agrees that a different system would be better; the disagreement is about what the firefighters should have done at the time.

Actually, I don't necessarily think that there is an alternate system which is better.

[GePap]

1) Hospitals, not insurance companies

2) The relevant government in this case is in a different jurisdiction. The city of South Fulton don't necessarily have the power to compel residents of neighboring counties to pay money.

That is why I said that they could place a lien on the property - it gives the City a claim to that property without actually forcing the individual to pay up until the moment they seek to sell of the asset, which then bring the matter to court.

Maybe, though it's still probably not the first-best solution, and it's also not the system currently in place within which these firefighters were working. Basically everyone who's looked at this agrees that a different system would be better; the disagreement is about what the firefighters should have done at the time.

Well, we know from the news reports that even at this property they had previously taken action to save property even when the fee had gone unpaid. Call it professional pride - after all, firefighters are there to fight fires, no? So why sit around?

[Kuciwalker]

A measure in this sense is a mapping from state to probability/probability density.

Yes, but as an explanation that's almost tautological.

[Al B. Sure!]

Essentially, yes, but this glosses over the much more difficult issue. To find an expectation you need two things: a utility measure of any given future, and then a measure over the entire set of possible futures (a "measure" is a generalization of the idea of area or volume), which, roughly, determines the relative 'weight' of each individual future. Both of these are difficult to construct.

Which is why I question the efficacy of using it as the basis for such important decisions. Granted, there is a lack of viable alternatives so I don't know what else to do.

But back to my original question. Given that we know the outcome of that murder dilemma, I assume you would say that if the net effect on the world is positive (defined however you like) from allowing the scientist to live at the sacrifice of two individuals then that would have been the 'correct' choice in a situation in which the only alternative would have been less beneficial. If, instead, the two individuals would have been more 'valuable' to the community than the scientist, than saving the scientist would have been 'wrong'. I believe that is what you would state.

Granted, I am putting words in your mouth and giving you positions you may not hold, but they appear in keeping with your general philosophy.

There are glaring problems with that analysis, however, that don't jive well with anyone with liberal sensibilities... it would be stating that certain individuals are more valuable than others (so not compatible with egalitarianism) and that this value is determined in relation to society (so men become means; the measure of a man is in what he provides society).

If I am wrong in my expectation of your answer to that question then correct me.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, but as an explanation that's almost tautological.

Perhaps, but most people are not used to thinking of probabilities geometrically, and it's doubtful that a single statement about this will shed any light on it to people like albie and gepap.

[Kuciwalker]

AS: I'm fully aware that, as a practical matter, you can't actually perform this kind of calculation. But we can still get pretty decent results applying it heuristically.

[Al B. Sure!]

AS: I'm fully aware that, as a practical matter, you can't actually perform this kind of calculation. But we can still get pretty decent results applying it heuristically.

That doesn't matter for answering my question. I've stated that the outcomes are known and certain.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, I agree with it, and yes many people would say they disagree when presented with it in those terms, but they constantly make choices that amount to the same thing.