The Four-Square Model

Understanding all of our choices is not always easy.

We'll be developing tools for doing so over the course of this blog, and the Four-Square Model is the very simplest one. It's used often in terms of religion, on the subject of Heaven. To eliminate the problem of determining whether God exists or not, it examines all possibilities and compares them. A lengthy but simple method.

	Heaven does not exist	Heaven does exist
You pray	Consequence: wasted time.	Consequence: ultimate bliss.
You do not pray	Consequence: nothing.	Consequence: ultimate suffering.

After ranking the consequences in terms of importance, it becomes obvious that prayer is the preferable action; wasting your time is preferable to enduring ultimate suffering, after all. 

This does not mean you should adhere to prayer. This method has its own problems, and fails to adequately summarize the real issues at work here. Being a simple tool, it has its flaws. 

It is, however, good enough for our purposes.

Now, we're going to use it to evaluate our premise of morality.

	Your action fosters happiness	Your action does not foster happiness
You take action	Happiness.	Unhappiness.
You do not take action	Nothing.	Nothing.

We can thus call taking action when it fosters happiness "good" and taking action when it does not "evil," though this only applies if you know with some certainty the outcome.

	You believe it's a good action	You believe it's not a good action
You succeed	Happiness.	Unhappiness.
You do not succeed	Nothing.	Nothing.

Fairly simple.
However, it's more complicated than that. The bottom row could be rewritten as "No happiness" and "No unhappiness," respectively. Or, by our moral standard, "evil" and "good." But we know intuitively that not succeeding in a task--if we don't intentionally choose the outcome--is neither good nor evil, despite whatever outcome may result. It's simply lucky. And luck does not an entrance into heaven make.
Thankfully, our moral definition manages to account for this.The more rigorous definition states
"Any action that is begun under the reasonable assumption it will cause more happiness than harm for all beings, including the possibility of its outcome from failure to success..."
The key phrases being "begun" and "possibility of its outcome."
If you begin an immoral action but fail to succeed in it, that is still immoral. This is something that we also know intuitively.

More complicated tests are, of course, on the way. But this is the first tool in our logical arsenal and as such should be a fairly simple one. We'll see other ways it fails to perform, soon.

Worst-Case Scenarios

It's not always easy to imagine the results of a potential decision. 

But since it's human to think in terms of black and white, imagining a dystopian or utopian future isn't that difficult. By taking a decision to its logical extreme, we can get a sense of the potential consequences inherent in that choice--even if all of them don't show up for years, or never do.

This tool only works for very specifically worded questions. Consider the question "should we have a government with more power or less than its people?" By taking the two sides to their logical extremes, we create two scenarios:

1. The people have NO power and the government has ALL power.
2. The people have ALL power and the government has NO power.

Obviously, there are problems with the second situation: foreign powers could take advantage of the power vacuum, representation would be difficult, and the power might rest with the wrong sorts of people. But there's no contest as to which situation would be worse to be in: if the people had no power, 1984 wouldn't just be a compelling book. It would be a reality.

Another caveat with this tool is that it shouldn't be taken as the right course of action. Clearly, a balance of power is best. But humans don't do well with equal balances, so it's necessary to figure out which side is best to err on. We've just shown that it's better for the people to have more power, not that one side should have all.

Let's look at something that's more frequently debated: freedom of speech. Following the same process,

1. There is NO lawfully granted freedom of speech: there are very distinct things you cannot speak about, and there are acceptable and unacceptable positions to take on certain issues.
2. There is COMPLETE lawful freedom of speech: there is nothing you can't say.

Now, it's true that there are some benefits in the first case corresponding with drawbacks in the second. Speech is not always good; people can be hurt, lives can be negatively altered and jobs can be lost. The government may say one thing or another on free speech, but people always have and always will consider some things taboo.

But we're looking at worst case scenarios. So in the first, the Worst Possible Outcome is this:

people can say whatever hateful things they like about whomever they despise. Hate speech is lawfully protected and many minorities or out-groups are subjected to verbal harm.

And in the second:

the government watches to make sure everyone toes the line. Certain topics are "hot:" if someone dares to utter an opinion contrary to the official position, they are prosecuted with the full weight of the law. People have to be wary of what they say to whom; could this person be a government informant?

Another thing this tool can't do is decide for you what the best (or worst) outcome is. Chances are, people will have differing opinions on which logical extreme they'd prefer. But I trust most people fear the latter and merely dislike the former.

So, in our example we can determine that complete freedom of speech is better than none. And from that, we can say that mostly complete is better than almost none. And from that, more is better than less.

That's how the tool works. People may despise freedom of speech for the safety it gives to certain hate crimes, but there's no perfect balance of freedom and safety. Never is.

But when confronted with a choice for more or less freedom of speech, chances are more is better.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Today we're going to discuss something near and dear to our hearts: an axiom.

An axiom, or a foundational truth, is something so self-evident as to be free of criticism. However, the axioms we'll be examining on this blog are in the process of being criticized and reviled right now, in this very day and age. Should they be? Well, that's not for me to decide. But it's our job to look with a critical eye at some of the basest of our assumptions.

Just to catch you up to speed, here's the definition of the idea: presumption of innocence means that the burden is laid upon the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt. Now, it's traditionally used in conjunction with the phrases "probable cause" and "reasonable doubt," but those both come after presumption of innocence moves from the actual to the theoretical. For our understanding, we can define it as so:

The defendant is considered innocent unless proven otherwise.

This is something so basic--so axiomatic--that we hear it and move on. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct process. Let's acknowledge its problems.

1. Poor prosecution may lead to improper acquittals
2. People tend to ignore this axiom under emotional duress
3. Criminals may not be prosecuted or jailed as quickly as they should
4. Lack of evidence may lead to improper acquittals
5. The prosecution may be overzealous in its process
6. Money and time constraints may halt prosecution when it's needed
7. The axiom is confusing; in fact, innocence is only presumed until probable cause is provided.

These are all very real issues with the axiom. If you want to support it, you should be aware of the risks.

Recently, point 2 has come into the public view with increasing regularity. Cases with high emotional content have shown that some are completely willing to decry others--like the recent Bill Cosby rape case--without evidence more compelling than hearsay. These people don't like to hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty," because they perceive it as a challenge to the victims. Some call it "Victim Blaming," which is a can of worms we can't open yet. Most, I expect, don't like the phrase because the people who use it are the kinds of people they find objectionable.

Well, it's fair to look at the alternative. So let's do just that.

The defendant is considered guilty until proven otherwise.

Sounds bad already, right? Well, let's give it a fair try. What problems might we encounter?

1. Poor prosecution may lead to improper convictions
2. People tend to ignore this under emotional duress
3. The innocent may be jailed without warning or due process
4. Lack of evidence may lead to improper convictions
5. The defense may be overzealous
6. Money and time constraints may halt defense when it's needed

Well, we certainly take away the confusing bit. The defendant would be considered guilty every step of the way. One less drawback; that's good, right?

Well, I left a couple out.

What happens when we consider money?

Right now it costs both prosecution and defense a lot of time and money to be involved in a criminal case. It should certainly cost the prosecution money: otherwise fake cases would be easy to undertake. But if the burden of proof is on the defense every step of the way, it's a very real possibility that the defendant could be the only one paying out of pocket. Right now the case process is balanced: the defense has the upper hand until probable cause is established, and then the prosecution has the high ground. Creating an imbalance one way or another is not a good idea.

What happens when we consider weaponized courts?

Right now public officials, famous individuals and large corporations are in danger from anyone looking to make a quick buck. With famous success stories like the McDonalds' hot coffee spill, everyone knows the best way to get rich quick is to exploit liability. However, court processes are long, arduous and expensive. Additionally, no ill effects are (hopefully) seen by the defendant until probable cause is established; otherwise, anyone could be tossed in jail because I made a claim against them.

If I don't like my neighbor down the street, I could make a claim of some sort of criminal abuse, and she would be in jail as soon as you could snap. Due to the "presumed guilty" rule, she'd stay there until bail was paid or the court had its way with her. Maybe she'd prove her innocence, or maybe not. If I wanted to exploit a business opportunity, it might not be such a bad idea to have an opponent jailed until a deal goes through. Even if I have to pay the court costs, it might be worth it.

What happens when we consider censorship?
Comedians often say offensive things to get laughs. It's what they do. Books are often offensive to prove a point, to show a culture, or to shock the reader. Many of the most influential American novels (Huck Finn, Catcher, Cabin, Mockingbird) were once or are even now frequently edited, challenged or banned. Consider how easy it would be to prove emotional distress and get someone who dared to speak up jailed because of it.
We'll talk about censorship later. For now, consider that dystopian idea.

One way to look at the problem is to consider worst cases.

What happens when we consider a worst case scenario, personally?

In the original axiom, the worst case is that I cannot jail a criminal who deserves justice. He may kill again, do violence again, without anyone to stop him.
In the next, the worst case is that I am jailed without due process and without presumption of innocence. I remain in jail until I pay bail (and if I don't have enough money?), then try to hire a defense lawyer (at an exorbitant price to offset their likely loss) and sit through the court proceedings. Afterwards I am either unfairly imprisoned or paid a stipend to offset my losses throughout the case, which likely won't cover my absence from work, the sullying of my name and the court costs.

How am I to defend but to accuse someone who I think might accuse me? I have to strike first.

On second thought, let's keep presumption of innocence. Who wants to see more money in the hands of lawyers?