If you ignore differences in probability of outcome, you’ll end up conflating arguments of enormously difficult meaningful content. For instance, both of the above also have the same structure as
Aw, you broke your leg? Well, who told you to jump off the roof of a three story building?
That an argument have the same structure need not imply that they be equally valid, if the implications of the premises are different.
Getting raped may be a possible consequence of walking into a room with a friend without a means to defend oneself, but it’s by no means a probable consequence, and we have to weigh risks against the limitations precautions impose on us. If the odds of rape in that circumstance were, say, a predictable eighty percent, then for all that the advice pattern matches to the widely condemned act of “victim shaming,” walking into the room without a means of self defense was a bad idea (disregarding for the sake of an argument of course everything that led to that risk arising in the first place.)
It is true that a woman in such a situation would be well advised to arm herself. However, a complaint about being raped—personal emotional traumas aside—would be a complaint about the necessity of doing so as much as anything else. The response that she should’a armed herself then doesn’t address the real meat of the issue; what sort of society we live in, how we want to relate to one another; whether we’re to respond with compassion or dismissive brutalism (or at what point on that scale.)
There are things that are the result of natural laws—you jump off a building with no precautions, then you’re probably gonna go splat. It makes limited sense to interpret those as complaints about the laws of physics. So, the balance in those cases swings more towards preventative advice in a way that’s rarely the case with issues that are the result of human action.
There’s certainly a concern, very pressing in the case of the rape example, that if the risk is too high then there’s a responsibility upon society to mitigate it. In the case of the jumping off the roof example, building codes could mandate that the building be made impossible to jump off of or the surroundings be cushioned, but in this case most people would probably agree that the costs on society are too high to be justified in light of the minimal and easily avoidable risk. The case of the minimum wage worker falls somewhere in the middle ground between these, where the consequences are highly predictable, and the actions that would cause them avoidable, but with a significant cost of avoidance, like being unable to trust one’s acquaintances, and unlike being unable to jump off a roof. And of course, as in both the other examples, limiting that risk comes with an associated cost.
Whether society should be structured to allow people to raise families while working on minimum wage is a question of cost/benefit analysis, which in this case is likely to be quite difficult, so it doesn’t help to declare the question structurally similar to other, easier questions of cost/benefit analysis.
I don’t disagree with you on any particular point there. However, the quote I was responding to wasn’t, as I see it, attempting to explore the cost/benefit of raising minimum wage or subsidising the future of children. It was stating that they just shouldn’t have kids—and in that much represented an effective blank cheque. That seems the opposite of your, much more nuanced, approach; bound by implications of fact and reason that are going to be specific to particular issues and cases and thus can’t be generalised in the same way.
If you ignore differences in probability of outcome, you’ll end up conflating arguments of enormously difficult meaningful content. For instance, both of the above also have the same structure as
That an argument have the same structure need not imply that they be equally valid, if the implications of the premises are different.
Getting raped may be a possible consequence of walking into a room with a friend without a means to defend oneself, but it’s by no means a probable consequence, and we have to weigh risks against the limitations precautions impose on us. If the odds of rape in that circumstance were, say, a predictable eighty percent, then for all that the advice pattern matches to the widely condemned act of “victim shaming,” walking into the room without a means of self defense was a bad idea (disregarding for the sake of an argument of course everything that led to that risk arising in the first place.)
Upvoted.
It is true that a woman in such a situation would be well advised to arm herself. However, a complaint about being raped—personal emotional traumas aside—would be a complaint about the necessity of doing so as much as anything else. The response that she should’a armed herself then doesn’t address the real meat of the issue; what sort of society we live in, how we want to relate to one another; whether we’re to respond with compassion or dismissive brutalism (or at what point on that scale.)
There are things that are the result of natural laws—you jump off a building with no precautions, then you’re probably gonna go splat. It makes limited sense to interpret those as complaints about the laws of physics. So, the balance in those cases swings more towards preventative advice in a way that’s rarely the case with issues that are the result of human action.
There’s certainly a concern, very pressing in the case of the rape example, that if the risk is too high then there’s a responsibility upon society to mitigate it. In the case of the jumping off the roof example, building codes could mandate that the building be made impossible to jump off of or the surroundings be cushioned, but in this case most people would probably agree that the costs on society are too high to be justified in light of the minimal and easily avoidable risk. The case of the minimum wage worker falls somewhere in the middle ground between these, where the consequences are highly predictable, and the actions that would cause them avoidable, but with a significant cost of avoidance, like being unable to trust one’s acquaintances, and unlike being unable to jump off a roof. And of course, as in both the other examples, limiting that risk comes with an associated cost.
Whether society should be structured to allow people to raise families while working on minimum wage is a question of cost/benefit analysis, which in this case is likely to be quite difficult, so it doesn’t help to declare the question structurally similar to other, easier questions of cost/benefit analysis.
I don’t disagree with you on any particular point there. However, the quote I was responding to wasn’t, as I see it, attempting to explore the cost/benefit of raising minimum wage or subsidising the future of children. It was stating that they just shouldn’t have kids—and in that much represented an effective blank cheque. That seems the opposite of your, much more nuanced, approach; bound by implications of fact and reason that are going to be specific to particular issues and cases and thus can’t be generalised in the same way.
Well, I’m not particularly in agreement with the original quote either, I just don’t endorse treating it as a Boo Light, against which any sort of argument is praiseworthy.