
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics - ggreer
http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/
======
OliverJones
Mother Theresa said “Never worry about numbers. Help one person at a time and
always start with the person nearest you.”

I'll have the temerity to add something to her advice. Help that person
anonymously if you can; it's not about you, it's about her or him. The only
reason to break anonymity is if it will help to set a positive example of
generosity for others. Breaking anonymity will always burn up your social
capital by opening you up to public criticism of this "Copenhagen" variety.

The Gates Foundation is a prominent example. They sometimes take heat for the
work they choose to do. Nevertheless, they serve as a fine example of
willingness to help.

You want to do some good and you're busy? Tell your bank to send a monthly
payment to a local feeding program. Be a reliable source of support for them,
and trust them to do the right thing. And don't brag about it.

~~~
shaggyfrog
Mother Theresa was more interested in continuing and exploiting the sick than
she ever was in treating their illness or helping anyone. She ran a death
cult.

The myth that sprung up around her has isolated her from criticism because of
this principle: "Well you've done nothing, but she did something, therefore,
because whatever she did is automatically preferable."

------
ThomPete
You can't look at ethics that way.

The general rule about "improving things a little is better than doing
nothing" would philosophically require you to take a much broader view of the
improvements you think you do and see if they affect other things causally. If
you do that you quickly run into problems and things become much more complex.
Yet thats what you do when you look at ethics.

For instance:

 _" Now instead of having no taxis at all, people can choose between an
expensive taxi or no taxi at all – a marginal improvement. Needless to say,
Uber has been repeatedly lambasted for doing something instead of leaving the
even-worse status quo the way it was."_

From the perspective of those who can afford surge pricing this is an
improvement not for those who cant.

Uber is planning on making cars automated, thats great for the consumer but
not for those driver who suddenly find themselves out of jobs. People who
helped pay for ubers automation of their fleet.

The more correct "interpretation" is to not call it ethical or non-ethical.
It's both correct and not correct.

In other words from an ethical point of view and to stay in the quantum
theoretical jargon — it's not been observed.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think you've correctly identified an _alternate argument_ against surge
pricing - "it's better to randomly distribute a smaller number of taxis than
to allocate a larger number of taxis to people willing to pay more".

I've never actually seen anyone make that argument - instead, they simply make
the Copenhagen critique described in the article. If you know of someone
making it, could you link to them?

~~~
nhaehnle
Matt Bruenig (who I generally recommend to anybody interested in questions of
economic justice because his writing introduces laypeople to brilliant and
refreshing points) has a series on Uber surge pricing where, among other
things, he makes that precise argument.

He's the kind of guy who even includes (hints of) a sample calculation showing
how the random distribution of a smaller number of taxis can lead to an
objectively better outcome - it all depends on what your assumptions about
people's utility functions are and what your objective function is.

He also argues why it is in many people's _self-interest_ to argue against
surge pricing (a point which is, admittedly, much more obvious: many people
prefer a low chance of getting an affordable taxi over a zero chance of
getting a taxi they cannot afford).

Here's a link to the last post in the series:
[http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-
iii...](http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii/)

~~~
SilasX
Late to the party, but...

The problem with argument's like Bruenig's is that they double as fully-
general counterarguments against the entire concept of a price system, and in
favor of strict price controls. You could make his exact points against e.g.
allowing some foods to be priced more than others, with the same points about
"the poor value the food more, it would go to a random population rather than
just the rich", etc.

There is too much wrong with that argument to point to any one thing, but
suffice to say, even the most pro-poor nations reject it.

That's why every sane nutrition policy is more like "tax people, give the poor
money to buy food" rather than "all food [appropriately quantified and
defined] should be cheap enough for the poor to subsist on, and if you want to
sell any food at all, you must sell it at that rate".

~~~
nhaehnle
It's kind of amusing, because you are somewhat in line with what Bruenig
writes, apparently without realizing it.

If you think that Bruenig is arguing for price controls without any
qualifiers, you read the article wrong. He is arguing for equality, _because
equality is a necessary precondition if you actually want to get the full
benefits of a price system_ (among other reasons). I have yet to see a
convincing counterargument to that point.

You may have been misled by the part about the theory of the second best
(which is a common point in economics): since the _best_ solution (eliminating
inequality) is off the table for political reasons, you have to turn to
second-best solutions. Under certain circumstances, that can mean price
controls.

But yes, the _best_ solution is to eliminate (or at least reduce, as a first
step) inequality. For example, taxing the rich and giving to the poor, as you
point out yourself (which is where we're back at you agreeing with Bruenig
;-)).

~~~
SilasX
His article didn't distinguish what conditions would justify price controls
instead of subsidies, which is kind of critical, and they still "prove" that
the poor would be better off if we just price-controlled all food, "since
there's inequality, which makes them value a chance at the allocation a lot
more".

And I never said (nor was given reason to think that) the best solution is to
eliminate inequality, so I don't see how I'm agreeing with that. And I take
that seriously because I mine every article for information that would force
me to switch to a worldmodel with more explanatory power; this one (like most
clumsy attempts to prove the pointlessness of prices) fails at that.

Taxing the rich for foodstamps is not eliminating inequality, and is not
rightly regarded as a "first step" towards a policy that does; only a tiny
fraction of foodstamp advocates want anything like the radical equality
required for his model of this problem to apply.

------
yummyfajitas
As an example of the harm that this ethical theory causes, consider the YC
startup Markhor. They employ shoe makers in Pakistan and treat them
significantly better than other employment options - reasonable hours, higher
pay, safe work places, etc.

Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to
"exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours
for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10057973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10057973)

I doubt the founders of Markhor are unaware of this, they are just
coldheartedly appealing to the Copenhagen ethical theories of their customers.

~~~
dang
I think it's unfair of you to take specific people and put an uncharitable
spin on an internet thread to impugn them. There isn't nearly enough
information there to justify a categorical statement like "when a woman
becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her".

If you want to debate abstract ethics, fine, but if you bring up factual
people you should have some factual evidence. Those comments aren't evidence
of firing anybody for being pregnant—they're evidence of how easy it is to get
embroiled in the gotcha thread du jour on an internet message board. I seem to
recall that you like the Principle of Charity; it's pretty straightforward to
come up with a more charitable interpretation of what happened there.

(Edit: lest anyone wonders, I don't know the Markhor founders and yes I would
defend anyone the same way if they were being treated unfairly on HN.)

~~~
yummyfajitas
My reading of the thread was that pregnant women are not allowed to work for
Markhor.

I interpreted "I personally would love...Unfortunately..." and "Perhaps at
some point...we would be able to...see if it needs to be changed for some
women" as implying the policy is that pregnant women can't work for them right
now, but maybe in the future this could change.

To be clear why I'm confused, myself and others interpreted her statements as
meaning pregnant women can't work there and explicitly asked about this. I
didn't read anyplace where she said "no, pregnant women actually can work for
us, techcrunch is wrong and your shoe might be made by a pregnant woman" in
response.

I'll take your word that I'm brainfarting and pregnant women are actually
allowed to work for Markhor after all. I'm still not seeing how that follows
from the comment thread, but if that is the case I offer my apologies.

~~~
pen2l
I think in general Markhor's model of operation is commendable. This
transformation of business -- this lifting of the veil, getting to know the
backstory of how our products are made, it's great, this transparency, this
kind of personalization will make way for better working standards for workers
abroad, since we humans tend to be more moved when the intimate and visible
details are put in front of our eyes. If I see that the guy making my shoes is
making a dignified living, that he's not stuck in a circle of indentured
servitude, that's awesome.

Also, I wouldn't read into the pregnant woman comment too much. Pakistan is a
very different world -- and there is a legitimate concern of pregnant women
doing this kind of work. Most "mochies" (folks who work on shoes) do this
stuff sitting down on the floor (despite the pic of a guy working on a table
on techcrunch article), I cannot think in any way that that is good for a
pregnant woman. The Markhor dude messed up in explaining what he was getting
at, I think his motives are good, it's probably a language/culture barrier at
fault here. That said, the other thing is that there are basically no women
mochies in Pakistan. That's just a matter of fact, so uh, women getting fired
are not even a concern to begin with. :)

tldr: this ain't the company to get your pitchforks ready for -- facebook et
al. are a better bet.

------
mercurial
Oh, good grief. The article is a list of cases where the "improvement"
provided by a given group is most often characterized as "taking advantage of
someone else when they are in a difficult situation".

~~~
tomjen3
Thats their point: it is most often (incorrectly) characterised as "taking
advantage of some else when they are in a difficult situation". In all cases
the people involved could simply choose not to take the offer, and be no worse
of. They didn't, so presumably they would be better of taking the offer,
regardless of what we think.

~~~
kybernetikos
Slavery also falls under this category. People in desperate enough straits
might choose it, since it guarantees them food and lodgings, yet most people
have a problem with the concept.

Offering jobs at less than the minimum wage is also exactly this too - people
accepting those jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't
available, yet many modern free societies have minimum wages.

Selling drugs to addicts falls under this category too, since if they didn't
have the drugs easily available, they might do something worse to get them,
and clearly they're chosing to buy them so they must be better off having
them.

~~~
nine_k
Consider joining an army. By that, you're offered food, lodging, and training.
You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go, somewhat you can
talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey orders, even if the
orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death.

Should this be banned, too?

~~~
coldtea
> _Consider joining an army. By that, you 're offered food, lodging, and
> training. You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go,
> somewhat you can talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey
> orders, even if the orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death.
> Should this be banned, too?_

It should obviously be.

In fact the army has a long-ass history of setting up recruiting offices and
exploting the most poor and desperate with false promises and BS to go do the
fighting.

From Alabama and Mississipi down to Los Angeles, those recruiting offices are
choke full of blacks, latinos and "white trash" sent to die (and kill) while
privileged white folks enjoy their "patriotism".

~~~
nine_k
No, I mean a professional army that people join entirely voluntarily. They
still voluntarily agree to limit some of their fundamental rights, be ordered
around and even be killed.

~~~
coldtea
"Voluntarily" doesn't mean the same for the trust-fund kid and the poor guy
with no outlet in some backwater town.

------
cousin_it
I actually subscribe to this "Copenhagen interpretation". If you profit by
making lopsided deals with people who have no other options, you still have an
ethical obligation to offer more fair deals. The definition of fairness
shouldn't be left up to the market, that would be a case of the is-ought
fallacy (assuming that the output of some external process is ethical by
definition).

~~~
SilasX
Are you sure you're not equating:

A) "It would be [more] ethical to offer a better deal."

with

B) "The person offering this deal is ethically worse than those who never
interacted at all."

You can endorse A) without endorsing B), and it's B that the author is
criticizing (as the CIE).

~~~
cousin_it
If the deal is bad enough, I do endorse B.

------
coldtea
For me it's the difference between this:

1st person: These people are starving. I will treat them as I would a non-
starving person, say pay them $xx/hour which I calculated is enough to build a
profitable business.

2nd person: These people are starving. I will pay them the least I can get
away with it, after all it's not like they have many options. Sure, I could
make a profit even if I paid them 10 times that, but why go there? Fuck them,
they should be grateful that they get anything instead of nothing at all.

For me, the 2nd person is a jerk. I wouldn't want them anywhere near my
society. Scum of the earth.

And the whole "Copehangen" theory BS wants us to believe that it's either (2)
or nothing -- that paying people in need the lower you can (near substinence)
is the only thing possible.

There are several shades between (1) and (2), but most proponents of such
ideas go for the full-on (2), and then pretend they are some kind of
benefactors too.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think you're wrong here. The article is not about (1) and (2). Consider (4)
(because (3) is taken by another comment):

4th person: These people are starving. I could help them by doing as much as I
can afford. Hovewer, most people seem to unconsciously subscribe to CIE, and
they will see that as too little help, therefore I'll become an object of hate
in the media. It may ruin my business. I'll be pointed at on the street as a
bad person. Therefore, I shall ignore the starving people. We have all those
social programs that help them, I pay taxes, so it's all cool, right?

~~~
coldtea
I was gonna be sarcastic, but I'll just say it out: this (4) thing, the image
of the supposedly do-gooder who is dettered by people subscribing to CIE, is
not realistic at all.

If people's thought process was as you portray it, people wouldn't get
involved at all or very few would. But the fact that we have so many
businesses merely paying these people as LESS as they can (2), proves that the
concern of (4) is doesn't exist, or, at least, doesn't deter them.

They do go into business in those areas and they do pay as little as they can
get away with -- people's criticism and "hate in the media" be damned.

Besides, if the people portrayed in (4) REALLY wanted to "help them by doing
as much as they could afford", then they would be (1).

------
shaggyfrog
This article really stuck in my craw. Making homeless people into wireless
hotspots is such a bad example. It's patronizing at best and dehumanizing at
worst. So just because someone gave them $20 doesn't mean it's automatically
better than doing nothing.

------
gjm11
For another excellent ethics/physics analogy, see:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/17/newtonian-
ethics/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/17/newtonian-ethics/)

------
ggreer
In hindsight, I regret submitting this link. The article itself was
interesting, but the discussion here was abysmal.

Next to the comment box on Jai's blog, there is a gentle reminder: "Is it
true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?" I'm sure the quality of HN comments could
be improved by adding the same message.

------
powera
My (not-so-charitable) interpretation of their position: Sometimes being a
jerk and helping a little is the best way to help people. Therefore, you can
always be a jerk and only help people a little.

I'm obviously committing a logical fallacy, but I think they are as well.
Sometimes when you do something, there are negative consequences as well as
positive ones. And if you aggressively count the positive ones and ignore the
negative ones, you really aren't helping.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think your interpretation here is missing the same point most of critical
comments here are - the article is not advocating generalizing doing a little
as a global moral axiom. Instead, the article is concerned about the problem
people (unconsciously) subscribing to Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics
cause - by criticizing everyone who does a little (thus inteacting with the
problem) instead of not doing anything at all, they're creating an atmosphere
where someone who wants to help will be afraid their help will not be enough
and will trigger criticism, so it's more likely they'll choose to ignore the
opportunity to do good. It's not "doing little" vs. "doing a lot", but "doing
as much as we can" vs. "not doing anything, because 'as much as we can' won't
be enough to avoid the hate".

------
MIKarlsen
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or
interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very
least, you are to blame for not doing more."

One-way street to an even more individualized society where even more
teenagers and students can get stressed out.

~~~
monochromatic
I don't follow.

~~~
MIKarlsen
I'm a student, and I've been unfortunate enough to experience stress first
hand. Not just "Ohh, I'm so busy"-stress, but real stress. The essence of the
quote is that if something is not right, it's because you did something wrong.
At least that's how I read it. Most of the time during my period with stress,
those were the thoughts that ruined me the most. I felt lost in my education
and as a result, I blamed myself for not doing "more". I think it's a
dangerous mindset to live by, as there are so many things in the world you
have absolutely no control over. Not everything is fair, and if you blame
yourself for your own or others failures and mistakes all the time, you will
most likely run yourself down very fast. Unfortunately, I see this mindset a
lot. As a student, you're the only one to blame for your failures - or so it
seems in the public debate (at least where I am from). Attempting to help is
noble, but in no way would I recommend anyone to try to take the problems of
the world they live in on their own shoulders.

TL;DR: You can't control everything. Forcing yourself into a mindset where you
think you do will be your ruin.

