Is “which is more effective” even a useful question to ask?
Suppose it was found that the most effective way to deal with people’s fears of terrorism is to ban Islam. Should we then ban Islam?
(Also, if you will do X when doing X is most effective, that creates incentives for people who want X to respond unusually strongly to doing X. You end up creating utility monsters.)
It is definitely a necessary question to ask. You need to have a prediction of how effective your solutions will be. You also need predictions of how practical they are, and it may be that something very effective is not practical—e.g. banning Islam. You could make a list of things you should ask: how efficient, effective, sustainable, scalable, etc. But effective certainly has a place on the list.
Banning religions in general is no effective move if you have a different goal than radicalising people.
Christianity grew in the Roman empire at a time where being a Christian was punishable by death.
Beware survivorship bias. If some religion was suppressed effectively, it’s less likely that you’d have heard of it and even if you have, less likely that it would come to mind.
At any rate, my point wasn’t just about effectiveness. It was that we have ideas about rights and we don’t decide to suppress something just because it is effective, if doing the suppression violates someone’s rights.
Beware survivorship bias. If some religion was suppressed effectively, it’s less likely that you’d have heard of it and even if you have, less likely that it would come to mind.
Neither Russia nor China moved to forbid Islam even through both have homegrown Muslim terrorists. I don’t think their concern was mainly about rights.
That was a hypothetical. The hypothetical was chosen to be something that embodies the same principles but to which most people would find the answer fairly clear. The hypothetical was not chosen to actually be true.
Is “which is more effective” even a useful question to ask?
Suppose it was found that the most effective way to deal with people’s fears of terrorism is to ban Islam. Should we then ban Islam?
(Also, if you will do X when doing X is most effective, that creates incentives for people who want X to respond unusually strongly to doing X. You end up creating utility monsters.)
It is definitely a necessary question to ask. You need to have a prediction of how effective your solutions will be. You also need predictions of how practical they are, and it may be that something very effective is not practical—e.g. banning Islam. You could make a list of things you should ask: how efficient, effective, sustainable, scalable, etc. But effective certainly has a place on the list.
Banning religions in general is no effective move if you have a different goal than radicalising people. Christianity grew in the Roman empire at a time where being a Christian was punishable by death.
I don’t see any Arians around.
Beware survivorship bias. If some religion was suppressed effectively, it’s less likely that you’d have heard of it and even if you have, less likely that it would come to mind.
At any rate, my point wasn’t just about effectiveness. It was that we have ideas about rights and we don’t decide to suppress something just because it is effective, if doing the suppression violates someone’s rights.
Neither Russia nor China moved to forbid Islam even through both have homegrown Muslim terrorists. I don’t think their concern was mainly about rights.
That was a hypothetical. The hypothetical was chosen to be something that embodies the same principles but to which most people would find the answer fairly clear. The hypothetical was not chosen to actually be true.