You’re clearly putting a lot of effort into your responses and are being respectful. I don’t think I’ve given you the same respect so far so I’ll try my best.
I agree with the nuances you brought up. I understand you feel it’s better to intervene and be safe than sorry. I see the appeal of that.
I take the opposite stance. I know that the welfare of the child is closely tied to the stress and trauma they endure. In most families that at least nominally love their children that’s related to the stress of the parents. Stressed out parents are bad parents (all else being equal). Taking a child from their parents is a big stressor, that alone will make the child’s life worse.
To me, that’s enough motivation to say that on average the damage you cause through intervention has to be less than the life improvement you gain from intervention.
That’s a hard balance to strike. It can be appealing to say that damage to 100 families is worth it to save one child from irreparable harm.
My personal ethics say that you’re only responsible for your actions. If you don’t act and something bad happens then that’s on the people who did the bad things. On the other hand, if you do act then it’s important to validate that your actions match your intentions to improve the world, using the data you have access to, as best as you can.
I know other people have a value system that compels them to act because not acting can be as much a choice as acting. This type of value system would definitely lead you to intervening more often. I have a hard time internalizing these types of value systems because they’re very problematic at large scale and at edge cases.
I can live in a world with interventionists. But it doesn’t mean I don’t feelthe damage unnecessary interventions cause such as the one in this article.
You’re clearly putting a lot of effort into your responses and are being respectful. I don’t think I’ve given you the same respect so far so I’ll try my best.
I agree with the nuances you brought up. I understand you feel it’s better to intervene and be safe than sorry. I see the appeal of that.
I take the opposite stance. I know that the welfare of the child is closely tied to the stress and trauma they endure. In most families that at least nominally love their children that’s related to the stress of the parents. Stressed out parents are bad parents (all else being equal). Taking a child from their parents is a big stressor, that alone will make the child’s life worse.
To me, that’s enough motivation to say that on average the damage you cause through intervention has to be less than the life improvement you gain from intervention.
That’s a hard balance to strike. It can be appealing to say that damage to 100 families is worth it to save one child from irreparable harm.
My personal ethics say that you’re only responsible for your actions. If you don’t act and something bad happens then that’s on the people who did the bad things. On the other hand, if you do act then it’s important to validate that your actions match your intentions to improve the world, using the data you have access to, as best as you can.
I know other people have a value system that compels them to act because not acting can be as much a choice as acting. This type of value system would definitely lead you to intervening more often. I have a hard time internalizing these types of value systems because they’re very problematic at large scale and at edge cases.
I can live in a world with interventionists. But it doesn’t mean I don’t feelthe damage unnecessary interventions cause such as the one in this article.