Wow, yeah, it's messed up that the legal system so thoroughly disincentivizes getting involved. I wonder if people sometimes mistakenly generalize norms of prudence that apply in this legal context ("don't get involved, you might get sued!") to a broader *moral* suspicion of getting involved? Or perhaps it more likely goes the other way,…
Wow, yeah, it's messed up that the legal system so thoroughly disincentivizes getting involved. I wonder if people sometimes mistakenly generalize norms of prudence that apply in this legal context ("don't get involved, you might get sued!") to a broader *moral* suspicion of getting involved? Or perhaps it more likely goes the other way, and the law is the way that it is because legislators implicitly assume that it's most important to deter harmful interventions and don't care enough about the unseen costs of deterring helpful interventions.
Thanks for subscribing - I appreciate the support!
I think it is the former as the tort system has been the wild west for attorneys. It is calmer now as insurance companies have fought back. But I think the lesson has been internalized.
Wow, yeah, it's messed up that the legal system so thoroughly disincentivizes getting involved. I wonder if people sometimes mistakenly generalize norms of prudence that apply in this legal context ("don't get involved, you might get sued!") to a broader *moral* suspicion of getting involved? Or perhaps it more likely goes the other way, and the law is the way that it is because legislators implicitly assume that it's most important to deter harmful interventions and don't care enough about the unseen costs of deterring helpful interventions.
Thanks for subscribing - I appreciate the support!
I think it is the former as the tort system has been the wild west for attorneys. It is calmer now as insurance companies have fought back. But I think the lesson has been internalized.
You may be interested in Eyal Zamir's book
Law, Psychology, and Morality: The role of loss aversion. 2015 Oxford University Press.