Why it is Foolish to Treat Good People Badly

Aaron Krowne

It has oft been observed that treating everyone like criminals does not reduce criminality, that treating all students like bad students does not improve discipline, and so forth. Intuition tells us this is wrong, especially when we are the do-gooders being punished for hypothetical bad behavior.

I have suddenly realized, in concrete and specific terms, why it is indeed foolish to treat good people as if they are bad. You may reply that this is obvious, but I am not claiming that it is ``morally wrong'' to do so (though it is), I am claiming that it is foolish, unwise, bad policy, and so forth. It is unlikely to ever actually be in the interest of any authority or individual to do so. I think there is a single mathematical expression of this rule, utilizing the notion of marginal utility.

Allow me to be explicit. Let ``g'' signify acting good, and ``b'' signify acting bad. Then

• $g_c$ is the cost of acting good
• $g_b$ is the benefit of acting good
• $b_c$ is the cost of acting bad
• $b_b$ is the benefit of acting bad

The normal marginal utility of acting good and bad are:

$$u(g) = g_b - g_c$$

$$u(b) = b_b - b_c$$

And the utility of not acting is

$$n = 0$$

As expected, when $g_b > g_c$, the agent acts good, and when $b_b > b_c$, the agent is highly likely to act bad. Note the clean separation of terms. Also, the equations are in ``equilibrium''; they are all theoretically equal to zero, varying only depending on the value of our constants according to real-world situation. Optimally, society is set up so that

$$u(g) > n > u(b)$$

Now, consider the ``perturbed'' utilities of acting good and bad:

$$u_p(g) = g_b - (g_c + b_c)$$

$$u_p(b) = b_b - b_c$$

And the utility of not acting at all is:

$$n_p = - b_c$$

Note that one cannot escape the cost of acting bad, $b_c$: it is inflicted upon all, all the time, no matter what the agent does.

There are a few key things to observe here:

• not acting is actually more costly than acting bad
• acting good inflicts both the cost of acting bad and good
• acting bad purely adds in the benefit of acting bad

Also consider that the benefits of acting good generally take time to manifest, so in the near term, the perturbed utility of acting good is more like:

$$u_p'(g) = - (g_c + b_c)$$

Now we have a situation which is nothing less than catastrophic:

$$u_p(b) > 0 > n_p > u_p'(g)$$

Not only is it best to act bad, but it is impossible to break even: the only alternative to acting bad and coming out ahead is to collect negative returns by acting good or not acting at all.

Considering this mathematics of motivation, why do we still routinely encounter individuals and organizations treating good people as if they are bad, or treating all with the same heavy hand? In the case of organizations, it is generally easier to apply a policy uniformly. When it is difficult to discriminate the bad-behaving from the rest of the crowd, the temptation to apply punishment to all is irresistible. I can see applications here to schools, prisons and criminal law, homeland security, and much more.

In terms of individuals, there are different forces at play; chiefly paranoia and cynicism, I believe. For example, take the case of a significant other treating their partner as if they were acting with infidelity. An honest partner is more likely to consequently act in this way in this situation, because the cost of acting bad is the same: suspicous treatment and ultimately termination of the relationship.

In general, the situation can be quite bad, because emotions play against the authority force which is exerting the punishment for the un-performed bad behavior. Even if the agent knows there is long term utility to acting good, frustration is likely to channel their energies into short-term gratification. However, it is important to realize that this isn't the only force at play, which is a mistake I think most authority figures make (``frustration is no excuse for rebellion''). What has changed profoundly and irrepairably are the underlying economics of action.

Individuals and organizations should think, therefore, about whether others really deserve the punishment they are being meted out. A mistake in this determination can, and often does, lead to the breakdown of relationships or entire social systems.