Contingencies and appalling behavior

Slate recently ran a piece that reported on some interesting behavior by some drivers in China. It seems that there have been a number of incidents where drivers have struck a pedestrian, stopped, and then reversed their car to strike them again. In some cases, this exercise may have been repeated several times, ensuring the death of the pedestrian.

Your reaction when reading the Slate article.

This strikes us as horrible. As it should. But to be horrible is not to mean senseless - there must be an explanation for this behavior. Even the worst behavior happens for a reason.

First, let us make an assumption. For the purposes of this exercise, let's assume that this behavior is not as common the world over as it is in China. For what it's worth, this story strikes me as rather alien. That is not to say that this kind of behavior doesn't happen in the United States, but let's assume it does not. If new data come about that show this to be as common elsewhere as in China, then we can worry about it later.

We have something to explain. Some commenters merely throw their hands up in the air in utter confusion. One user writes:

"What kind of monster is capable of casually and deliberately using their vehicle to slaughter someone with as  much regard as one would give to stepping on an ant? How do these murderers sleep at night??  What is wrong with this society? "

Others wander off into topics as far-reaching as abortion rights, Usain Bolt, communism, and the 2016 Republican platform - and that's just within the first thirty comments out of more than 1200. Oof. Never, ever, ever read the comments. Ever.

The true explanation for this behavior is found within the contingencies between it and the consequences that follow. It is truly not that difficult to understand, despite the feeling of horror we might have, that making sure that a victim is dead may be the best course of action for a driver. All it takes for that to be true are certain kinds of effects to come after the behavior. Behold.

Most people agree that the hit-to-kill phenomenon stems at least in part from perverse laws on victim compensation. In China the compensation for killing a victim in a traffic accident is relatively small - amounts typically range from $30,000 to $50,000 - and once payment is made, the matter is over. By contrast, paying for lifetime care for a disabled survivor can run into the millions. The Chinese press recently described how one disabled man received about $400,000 for the first 23 years of his care. Drivers who decide to hit-and-kill do so because killing is far more economical. (emphasis added)

As it happens, this explanation is almost perfect. The only thing I would ask of the author is this: Where is there a decision here? The contingencies explain the behavior adequately. No doubt, if the contingencies were changed, the behavior would change as well. Let's say that the courts started cracking down harder on vehicular manslaughter - this would reduce the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon. Imagine that the Chinese government began offering cash prizes for those who hit and kill pedestrians - this would increase the number of dead pedestrians, assuming, of course, that people would be as likely to walk under such circumstances as they are now (which they wouldn't, of course).

In a slightly different world, all the bicyclists would soon be dead.

If people think that they are moral because they possess some wonderful, innate quality that prevent them from doing bad things in the world, they are deluded. Your morality, and the morality of everyone you know, is a direct reflection of the interaction between the environment and the behavior in question. There are no decisions.

___________
Small edits to the original post were made to correct a grammatical mistake and to use different photographs.