A Solicitation of Opinion

[FearlessJuggernaut]

Foreword ​

​

I am gathering information to evaluate a hypothesis. This hypothesis was verbalized by Dr. Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential campaign. This statement was made with respect to proliferation of welfare and food stamps fraud.​

​

Hypothesis: "...when you subsidize bad behavior, you get more of it [the bad behavior]..."​

​

What do you think, Skial community?​

Situation​

So here we go...

Someone is told while they are young that they should clean their room of any clutter so that spiders don't have any place to hide. The individual chose to ignore this piece of advice and let the room get messier.

Years pass by...

That same someone is then told that cobwebs are becoming more visible, indicators that arachnid pests are hanging out in their room. They that are told if something isn't done, the likelihood of being bitten by a spider will increase dramatically. Again, this individual ignores the advice and decides to continue avoiding the situation.

More years pass by...

One day he wakes up with an itchy bug bite. He begins feeling more tired and run down as the wound begins changing colors. Later that day flesh is falling from the open wound and he is feeling ill. He is rushed to the emergency room. He is now battling the harsh venom of the brown recluse spider. Meanwhile his nerve cells are dying and necrosis begins to set in.​

​

The individual makes a plea for help. He is miserable because the costs of getting the medical care he needs is now out of his reach. He is also upset because he knows that his own behavior facilitated the invitation of this consequence.​

​

​

Solicitation of Opinion​

​

Does the transfer of resources and explicit pity from bystanders to the individual send the message that in spite of laziness and avoidance of necessary responsibility, "society" will/should subsidize one's consequences for potentially unwise behavior?​

​

Note: This situation can apply to global foreign affairs, individual spending habits, parenting techniques, etc. Though this example is very generalized and greatly simplified, I hope this is an appropriate level of discussion for evaluating a situation involving perpetual voluntary neglect and wilful avoidance.​

​

Edit: The last option of the poll should be "...reinforces and rewards irresponsible..."
Edit2: I guess this could all be summed up by asking, "Can we see parallels between the amount of bad behavior we observe as a society and the enabling of proliferation of those bad behaviors?"

 

[Lord Killington]

I want to vote somewhere between 2 and 3

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

I want to vote somewhere between 2 and 3

Very interesting. I thought about that position also, but unfortunately if we apply that model to a methamphetime addict who is asking for help because they have heart problems directly linked to the tooth decay caused by "meth mouth," I'm not so sure I could vote between 2 and 3.The second situation could also be analogous.

 

[mortified_penguin]

Personally, I think it's a bad metaphor. The metaphor should go more like this:

A young man is told to clean his room so spiders can't be jockin' his swag. Well the young man refuses, and so every day, the young man's mom cleans it for him. Suddenly, the mom dies, and the young man has no idea how to produce anything for himself. Alone and confused, his room spirals into chaos, and he eventually dies, because he has no idea how to take care of himself.

Personally, that more closely resembles out state of affairs. So I vote 4.

 

[DaivdBaekr]

I don't like the idea of drawing parallels between private charity and government assistance if that's where this is going.

Also, is the case that he's been treated and in debt from hospital bills from this? If so, 4.

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

I don't like the idea of drawing parallels between private charity and government assistance if that's where this is going.

Also, is the case that he's been treated and in debt from hospital bills from this? If so, 4.

I understand your position. However, we are not examining private charity and welfare benefits. We are examining behavior and the environmental factors (reinforcers or detractors) that affect behavior of others in the future (hence, the examination of the philosophical message this sends to viewers in the future looking at this situation bare bones).

Dr. Paul was making a statement that if you have someone who does not want to work and is given benefits with very few hoops to jump through, then there is little incentive (other than personal pride) to change one's behavior. (This is NOT a principle that applies to EVERY person on government assistance; but it is applicable in the sense that we are observing behavioral considerations.) It is my preference that any other political or religious connotation is not to be considered in this analysis.

 

[mohawkg2]

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

I don't like the idea of drawing parallels between private charity and government assistance if that's where this is going.

Also, is the case that he's been treated and in debt from hospital bills from this? If so, 4.

The straight up purpose for this is to see if our society facilitates bad behavior by engaging in "enabling". That's all. Please refer to 'Edit2' in the original post. Thank you for drawing this to my attention.

 

[Maddo]

The final consequences were not made clear, so the subject wasn't aware that there was a possibility of being bitten by a spider, just that spiders would be around.
If they were told "you will definitely be bitten by a spider" then my answer would be 4

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

The final consequences were not made clear, so the subject wasn't aware that there was a possibility of being bitten by a spider, just that spiders would be around.
If they were told "you will definitely be bitten by a spider" then my answer would be 4

Maddo, that is patently false. If you are told you are facilitating an environment for spiders repeatedly and even ignore obvious signs that suggest there is a growing spider population in the room, then you have to obviously know there is a possibility of being bitten. Sorry bud, but that logic doesn't really hold up.

Edit 2: So if you're told that waiting too long to get an oil change may cause unnecessary wear and tear to the vehicle, and you let it go multiple times and ignore warning signs like a leaky oil filter, then you're willing to suggest that the individual doesn't know that the there is a potential to ruin the motor? Come on, man, we're smarter than that.

 

[Lord Killington]

in this country there aren't any dangerous spiders, so it's a little bit hard to grasp I think

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

in this country there aren't any dangerous spiders, so it's a little bit hard to grasp I think

Brown recluse spider was the one chosen in this example.

 

[joemaster725]

even thoug they ignore signs of trouble (in this case the spiderwebs, and ultimately the deadly bite) doesnt mean that they shoud give up their right for help. Of course the consequence of their action is going to be hard to overcome (in this case death from not being able to afford treatment from the bite.). We should still help this guy, but only after the people who were unfortunate enough to accidentally have the same thing happen receive help (in this case people who did clean up their rooms and still got bit by spiders). He made a mistake, and therefore should have to wait longer to receive the funding for his mistake. this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be left out of luck, and left to die.

just my confusing opinion on it

 

[Maddo]

Maddo, that is patently false. If you are told you are facilitating an environment for spiders repeatedly and even ignore obvious signs that suggest there is a growing spider population in the room, then you have to obviously know there is a possibility of being bitten. Sorry bud, but that logic doesn't really hold up.

Edit 2: So if you're told that waiting too long to get an oil change may cause unnecessary wear and tear to the vehicle, and you let it go multiple times and ignore warning signs like a leaky oil filter, then you're willing to suggest that the individual doesn't know that the there is a potential to ruin the motor? Come on, man, we're smarter than that.

Like you said, its probably a much to simplified scenario, it has to many but's and if's to answer confidently.
to Edit 2: someone who has no idea about engines would ignore the warning signs, I mean how would anyone know the engine would die on them unless they had been told that would be the end result, and it is only through this happening to other people and the knowledge of what will happen being passed on, that make people know to get a regular service. Plus you have the fact that a lot of people think that 'It will never happen to them'

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

even thoug they ignore signs of trouble (in this case the spiderwebs, and ultimately the deadly bite) doesnt mean that they shoud give up their right for help. Of course the consequence of their action is going to be hard to overcome (in this case death from not being able to afford treatment from the bite.). We should still help this guy, but only after the people who were unfortunate enough to accidentally have the same thing happen receive help (in this case people who did clean up their rooms and still got bit by spiders). He made a mistake, and therefore should have to wait longer to receive the funding for his mistake. this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be left out of luck, and left to die.

just my confusing opinion on it

Does helping a person in this situation reinforce the neglect of maintenance responsibility?

Like you said, its probably a much to simplified scenario, it has to many but's and if's to answer confidently.
to Edit 2: someone who has no idea about engines would ignore the warning signs, I mean how would anyone know the engine would die on them unless they had been told that would be the end result, and it is only through this happening to other people and the knowledge of what will happen being passed on, that make people know to get a regular service. Plus you have the fact that a lot of people think that 'It will never happen to them'

So I COMPLETELY DISREGARD all warnings to change my oil regularly and I REALLY EXPECT not to damage the motor? If a person operates a car and doesn't understand this: They shouldn't be driving. If a person repeatedly facilitates a situation that could have negative consequences despite advice to the contrary, then the society bails them out of a problem...then that makes society a bunch of enablers in this case. [INCREDIBLY SIMPLIFIED]

The big banks that helped facilitate the 2008 economic shock wave begged for help after their risky behaviors led to massive increase in numbers of foreclosure, loss of retirement savings, college funds, etc. Many of these banks were bailed out. Who would suggest to me that these banks won't ask for another bail out when they are already back at engaging in the same behaviors that caused us economic grief to begin with?

 

[Maddo]

I think your survey seems to suggest that if the person had funds to pay for treatment, there would not be an issue, suggesting that shirking on responsibilities might be ok as long as you can afford the treatment.

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

I think your survey seems to suggest that if the person had funds to pay for treatment, there would not be an issue, suggesting that shirking on responsibilities might be ok as long as you can afford the treatment.

The question isn't simply about finances. If a girl pretends she is sick to get sympathy or pity from someone else...then someone else actually gives them sympathy or pity, does this not suggest that the girl will continue pretending to be ill so long as it fulfills her need for attention?

 

[Maddo]

The question isn't simply about finances. If a girl pretends she is sick to get sympathy or pity from someone else...then someone else actually gives them sympathy or pity, does this not suggest that the girl will continue pretending to be ill so long as it fulfills her need for attention?

I agree, but this is done intentionaly for gain, the person didn't get bit on purpose to get a hand out for medical treatment, and I should imagine that whatever the choice made from the questionare, it would lead to him not doing it again. Therefore my opinion must be to choose no2, but if they get bitten again, they should have known better, same as the banks, after all the banks are just businesses, with so many small businesses failing, why should they be rewarded for some bad investments.. if my little enterprise goes tits up, i can be pretty sure the only help i'll get from the goverment is a red headed letter showing me how much in contributions I still owe.
Side note: the Bank of England has just pledged 10billion to the major banks here on teh agreement that they will loan it to small businesses, but with directors still paying themselves ~1 million in bonuses, i cant see that happening.

 

[joemaster725]

Does helping a person in this situation reinforce the neglect of maintenance responsibility?

Not necesarrily. we as society should help out those in need no matter what. Even if we do help just a little, it still helps out people recover from that neglect. Think of it this way, if someone had helped that person clean up his room, this would not have happened in the first place!

 

[FearlessJuggernaut]

Not necesarrily. we as society should help out those in need no matter what. Even if we do help just a little, it still helps out people recover from that neglect. Think of it this way, if someone had helped that person clean up his room, this would not have happened in the first place!

I think the most appropriate help was the person reminding them multiple times that it would be in their interest to clean the room. So from that perspective, if he had taken the initial form of help, he would also not be in the situation.