What situations do think could be warranted if you think that “never” is not the appropriate reaction?
I have no idea as to how to model the potentially corrosive effects, beyond pointing to some potential consequences in name and imagining they could be quite bad, it would seem like thumbing the no button would just become a perpetual pressing the no until I learned more. Which maybe is fine? But then again, if there are some situations where it is okay, how would you resolve them with any confidence?
I don’t have a fleshed-out model of when it’s OK to break the law due to exigent circumstances or otherwise, but people have written many books on that (e.g., the existence of the much discussed, but never observed “ticking-bomb terrorist”).
I think the corrosive effect is something like cumulative on an individual, organizational, and even epistemic-community level. Thus, the decision on when to risk its corrosive power should probably take both absolute magnitude and relative magnitude of the objective to be gained into consideration. It is probably necessary, but maybe not sufficient, that the situation be extra-ordinary from both perspectives.
For example and limiting the analysis to corrosive effects only, the average person’s threshold for when to break the law due to the importance of their mission can probably be lower than a senior government leader’s threshold. The latter will frequently be on an important mission, and at greater risk of experiencing a heavy cumulative dose of corrosion.
Ah okay that seems like a step towards a more solid metric to me: is what I’m doing (some thing that necessitates breaking the law) truly of potential extraordinary impact?
This of course would need further definition because extraordinary can be relative, but combine this requirement with placing greater weight on avoiding corrosion at a organizational and community level, and it will probably work out where you will effectively never break the law, but doesn’t completely shut the doors.
A further question would be if you think the chance you get caught should factor in? Say this person thinks there is a 0.0001% chance they get caught doing this, is that enough to override the more caution oriented principle above? Do you think its still not worth it because its corrosive effects don’t just come from getting caught but also just undertaking the action at all?
The corrosive effects generally occur when one breaks the law due to the perceived importance of one’s mission. Getting “caught” is not necessary, although more widespread knowledge of the breach may intensify the corrosive effect. You know, and the organization and community may know, that you broke the law because you thought your mission was special enough that it put you above the law. That is a perilous attitude to hold; it may lead to murdering an elderly pawnbroker and other problematic acts.
Note that breaking the law for other reasons—e.g., this dog-leash law makes no sense when my dog is well-trained and there’s no one around for 400 feet—does not necessarily pose a risk of corrosion. It’s acting like you have a special exemption that poses heightened risk.[1]
Civil disobedience can be tricky, but it is often performed publicly and in full knowledge that the person will be submitting to the punishment set by the laws. Moreover, it is often targeted at laws one strongly believes are unjust, and “this is a seriously unjust law” is generally a non-corrosive reason for disobeying it. Thus, civil disobedience generally does not pose the same risks of creating problematic beliefs and patterns of action than silent disobedience of laws that one believes are OK to slightly bad as generally applied.
What situations do think could be warranted if you think that “never” is not the appropriate reaction?
I have no idea as to how to model the potentially corrosive effects, beyond pointing to some potential consequences in name and imagining they could be quite bad, it would seem like thumbing the no button would just become a perpetual pressing the no until I learned more. Which maybe is fine? But then again, if there are some situations where it is okay, how would you resolve them with any confidence?
I don’t have a fleshed-out model of when it’s OK to break the law due to exigent circumstances or otherwise, but people have written many books on that (e.g., the existence of the much discussed, but never observed “ticking-bomb terrorist”).
I think the corrosive effect is something like cumulative on an individual, organizational, and even epistemic-community level. Thus, the decision on when to risk its corrosive power should probably take both absolute magnitude and relative magnitude of the objective to be gained into consideration. It is probably necessary, but maybe not sufficient, that the situation be extra-ordinary from both perspectives.
For example and limiting the analysis to corrosive effects only, the average person’s threshold for when to break the law due to the importance of their mission can probably be lower than a senior government leader’s threshold. The latter will frequently be on an important mission, and at greater risk of experiencing a heavy cumulative dose of corrosion.
Ah okay that seems like a step towards a more solid metric to me: is what I’m doing (some thing that necessitates breaking the law) truly of potential extraordinary impact?
This of course would need further definition because extraordinary can be relative, but combine this requirement with placing greater weight on avoiding corrosion at a organizational and community level, and it will probably work out where you will effectively never break the law, but doesn’t completely shut the doors.
A further question would be if you think the chance you get caught should factor in? Say this person thinks there is a 0.0001% chance they get caught doing this, is that enough to override the more caution oriented principle above? Do you think its still not worth it because its corrosive effects don’t just come from getting caught but also just undertaking the action at all?
The corrosive effects generally occur when one breaks the law due to the perceived importance of one’s mission. Getting “caught” is not necessary, although more widespread knowledge of the breach may intensify the corrosive effect. You know, and the organization and community may know, that you broke the law because you thought your mission was special enough that it put you above the law. That is a perilous attitude to hold; it may lead to murdering an elderly pawnbroker and other problematic acts.
Note that breaking the law for other reasons—e.g., this dog-leash law makes no sense when my dog is well-trained and there’s no one around for 400 feet—does not necessarily pose a risk of corrosion. It’s acting like you have a special exemption that poses heightened risk.[1]
Civil disobedience can be tricky, but it is often performed publicly and in full knowledge that the person will be submitting to the punishment set by the laws. Moreover, it is often targeted at laws one strongly believes are unjust, and “this is a seriously unjust law” is generally a non-corrosive reason for disobeying it. Thus, civil disobedience generally does not pose the same risks of creating problematic beliefs and patterns of action than silent disobedience of laws that one believes are OK to slightly bad as generally applied.