tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post5647762183550930187..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Demandingness and Opt-in vs Opt-out sacrificesRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-63207432557743161462015-08-18T12:50:16.376-04:002015-08-18T12:50:16.376-04:00Look into Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely in ...Look into Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely in which he raises the case of organ donation. <br /><br />In short, the US and many other countries have an opt-in system: check the box if you want to donate your organs after you die. The result is 10-25% participation, a waiting list for organs, people dying from the wait, expensive and only moderately effective advertising to try and convince people, as well as research into ethically questionable alternatives i.e. genetic engineering. Alternatively, some European countries have an opt-out question and there is 85-95% participation, no waiting list, and very few people dying for want of an organ. <br /><br />Which question is ethical: "After death, do you want to give an organ to another?" or "After death, do you not want to give an organ to another?" And which question is a moral dilemma?<br /><br />There are 100,000+ people in the U.S. on the waiting list and the majority of them will die. If 85% of Americans participated then the probability that your body would be used to give someone life is rare and if done then you have saved somebody despite being dead yourself. <br /><br />The slight difference in wording creates a profound difference in effect and in the assumptions of society. What is our social contract? In both cases the individual has the option to give or not give, yet the burden of willpower is reversed and what is seemingly a difficult and arduous moral question becomes a simple ethical response: why would I not want to help another? In the opt-out situation we are neither coerced nor incentivized to help another, the difference is the question assumes you are a good person and you will do the right thing: nothing. It makes the right choice the easy choice.MJKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643286091138686302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-10608681114386134832015-08-17T18:07:34.117-04:002015-08-17T18:07:34.117-04:00The situation is... messed up.
I think a better o...The situation is... messed up.<br /><br />I think a better option is the Amazon referral program. If you like, you can opt in to Amazon Smile and give a tiny bit of all your purchases to a charity that you choose. You can not opt-in, and nobody gets your referral dollars. <br /><br />Opting in takes proactive effort and work. You have to sign in and fill out some virtual paperwork to get it all set up. <br /><br />I think you could build a more productive example with this as the backbone. People are going to object to being robbed, which is we call it when someone takes your money without your permission, regardless of what they want to do with it. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071615992321274089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-15205810951581864892015-08-17T06:09:11.843-04:002015-08-17T06:09:11.843-04:00Yeah, something along those lines would be simpler...Yeah, something along those lines would be simpler. (A minor complication is that the "dislike" factor is itself a minor hedonic cost, so would need to be compensated down the line to keep the cases equal in terms of their welfare effects. But that should be possible, I think.) Thanks for the suggestions!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-66652628809049879512015-08-14T12:27:41.632-04:002015-08-14T12:27:41.632-04:00Sounds good. The accountant case seems a bit fanci...Sounds good. The accountant case seems a bit fanciful, perhaps--what about donating blood when you are/aren't afraid of needles? Making phone calls for an effective charity when you do/don't like talking to strangers on the telephone? (The latter being something that strikes home for me on political campaigns.) Matt Weinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731711604182232484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-85115382113385357392015-08-13T16:20:35.681-04:002015-08-13T16:20:35.681-04:00Yeah, it's difficult to get a good pair of cas...Yeah, it's difficult to get a good pair of cases. Perhaps the better move is that suggested in the concluding parenthetical, i.e. hold fixed the situation but vary the psychology of the agent and see how that alters our judgments of demandingness?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-53458083429910142332015-08-13T15:47:31.032-04:002015-08-13T15:47:31.032-04:00This seems to me like a situation where the hypoth...This seems to me like a situation where the hypothetical is so far distant from the way things actually work that the results of the thought experiment don't tell us much. Even before we get to having to stipulate a fear of paperwork, credit unions just don't do the "opt out" sort of thing (and at least in the US I expect that it'd be highly illegal).<br /><br />Anyway, my sense is that I'd be more likely to make the donations in the "opt in" case than the "opt out" case--the "opt out" case seems coercive enough that I think it'd be worth resisting on principle. I think it's OK for financial institutions to distribute charitable donation forms, but that they shouldn't be in the business of seizing their members' accounts, even for a good cause and even with an opt-out. <br /><br />I do think that the mental burden model sounds promising! I just don't think that this hypothetical is a good way to get there.Matt Weinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731711604182232484noreply@blogger.com