(Originally posted by me at the old version of ClawsOrPaws.)
Theories of moral responsibility often include some version of the "ought implies can" claim. It means that if you say that somebody ought to have done something, or ought not to have done something, it was in their power to do what they should have done. This usually applies both to circumstances and capacities. You would, for example, not blame somebody for not saving a drowning person if they would have to walk on thin ice that would break anyway if they tried to reach the one drowning. And you don't blame kittens, who don't understand that they cause pain, for being cruel to the mice they catch and, eventually, kill.
I would say that is fairly uncontroversial. It would be wrong to blame somebody for something they could not help.
But, then there are those that seem to think in the opposite way. "If you can do it, it is right." To them, "can" implies "ought", with a positive value attached to that "ought". I have often been fascinated to see this kind of mentality clearly illustrated in online life. Perhaps it is more clearcut here because people do not perceive things that happen online as really "real", so they do not tend to think morally the same way they do in RL.
You see this kind of thinking now and again in relation to using other people's wireless networks. The reasoning goes like "They should protect themselves, if they are so stupid that they don't, well, then I have the right to leech their bandwidth".
Now, let's assume that people who don't protect their networks don't do it because they don't know much about network security. I think that is a reasonable assumption. What the leecher is basically saying, then, is that the relative weakness of their victim makes it right to take advantage of them. It's like saying, for example, that it is OK for somebody stronger to beat up somebody who is too weak to defend themselves efficiently. And, of course it is a way to try to escape responsibility for your actions - aka "blaming the victim".
Another online variation of this mindset can be seen at some forums, where the staff members seem to think that they have a right to use their extensive control panels to manipulate users, mess with their accounts, apply different rules according to different board members' ranking, etc. Personally, I always stay away from such boards.
Because, basically, I think it may be true that "can implies ought", but not in the sense that having power makes use of that power morally right. I believe it's the other way around. Having power means having responsibilities. More power implies more responsibilities, IMO. Staying within the online examples, I have felt this clearly when changing roles between different boards; on some boards I am a mere member, on others, I am staff. It has happened that I have been annoyed with some user that I was on equal footing with at some board. But, if I meet that user at a board where I am owner, admin or moderator - the annoyance practically disappears precisely because I could actually do things to that user.
Bottom line: Being able to do things is never in itself an excuse for doing those things. Simple as that.
I should add that I foresee a twist to this argument of mine. Namely that I would not agree with those who defend file-sharing in terms of "this is how the net works, the entertainment industries, etc, have to adapt to reality". Morality, by definition, is not about how things are, but about how they should be. If the **AA were right to call file-sharers immoral (and criminals to boot), then the fact that it is easy to share files would be no defence.
So... I would say that file-sharing should be defended in terms of people finally having the power to do something about a situation (the way material has been "owned" and distributed) that was not morally right in the first place. In fact, I think I would say that the industries have abused their power...
Showing posts with label Philosophical Musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophical Musings. Show all posts
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Long Texts and Complex Arguments
(Originally posted by me at the old version of ClawsOrPaws.)
I am often fascinated by the way online people expect contributions to discussions to be kept short, or else they can't be bothered to read them. Often these "can't be bored" people are the same ones that will spend hours learning the intricacies of a new piece of code or software, or the controls of a complex game. They realise that complexity will take time and effort, but only when that complexity is superficially obvious. To say that it may take similar time and effort to properly comprehend questions about society and human existence is sometimes even labelled "elitist". The implicit argument seems to be that since these are questions that concern us all, they should be framed in a format and language that is intelligible to all.
I think that is to disrespect us all. I am certainly not a friend of making things appear more difficult than they are by using difficult terminology and/or convoluted reasoning. But on the other hand, I think it is even worse to over-simplify difficult and complex questions.
I don't know if there are people who really have no capacity for understanding long texts that treat difficult philosophical problems. There may be. But I doubt they are as many as the simplification proponents would have us believe. What I do know is that it takes practice. Actually, I see very little difference between the way you have to keep exercising in order to be physically fit, and the way you have to keep reading (and discussing) complex arguments in order to keep up your intellectual stamina.
So, if you can't grasp a long and complex text at the first go, that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with long and complex texts. You wouldn't expect to be able to complete a long-distance running event without preparing for it, would you? Same thing applies here. It takes practice. You have to be willing to make the effort.
Simple as that!
I am often fascinated by the way online people expect contributions to discussions to be kept short, or else they can't be bothered to read them. Often these "can't be bored" people are the same ones that will spend hours learning the intricacies of a new piece of code or software, or the controls of a complex game. They realise that complexity will take time and effort, but only when that complexity is superficially obvious. To say that it may take similar time and effort to properly comprehend questions about society and human existence is sometimes even labelled "elitist". The implicit argument seems to be that since these are questions that concern us all, they should be framed in a format and language that is intelligible to all.
I think that is to disrespect us all. I am certainly not a friend of making things appear more difficult than they are by using difficult terminology and/or convoluted reasoning. But on the other hand, I think it is even worse to over-simplify difficult and complex questions.
I don't know if there are people who really have no capacity for understanding long texts that treat difficult philosophical problems. There may be. But I doubt they are as many as the simplification proponents would have us believe. What I do know is that it takes practice. Actually, I see very little difference between the way you have to keep exercising in order to be physically fit, and the way you have to keep reading (and discussing) complex arguments in order to keep up your intellectual stamina.
So, if you can't grasp a long and complex text at the first go, that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with long and complex texts. You wouldn't expect to be able to complete a long-distance running event without preparing for it, would you? Same thing applies here. It takes practice. You have to be willing to make the effort.
Simple as that!
Freedom and Respect
(Originally posted by me at the old version of ClawsOrPaws.)
This is a though-provoking article about an important issue. The combination of freedom of speech and respect for others is a tough one.
It is easy to say that freedom of speech should rule absolute, and that we should be humble enough to realise that our ways may not be the only, or the "right" ways. It's the right and "respectful" attitude, sure. I agree, to a degree.
But, once you have sincerely said that, you have nothing to say to those who will not respect others. I think that many different kinds of "ism" have one thing in common: they do emphatically not respect others. Still, proponents of such "isms" are likely to cite freedom of speech in support of their right to express their opinions, and also as a reply to those who would criticise their views.
I am not convinced. I sense that freedom of speech can be abused. In a sense one of the phrases of our site rules deal with the same problem: it says that we will be tolerant, but not tolerant towards intolerance.
Beneath the claim for freedom of speech for intolerant "isms", there is a double standard. They are demanding respect for themselves, while simultaneously disrespecting others. That is inconsistent.
Which goes to show that perhaps "respect for others" and "freedom of speech" are not merely two sides of the same coin. They can be at odds with each other.
So, do I think that disrespectful "isms" should be censored, and not granted the right to free speech? Well, yes, definitely on this board, lol. But if we are seeing the larger picture, a more or less democratic world, I think not. I do not think that "isms" should be censored, and I believe that doing so might even prove dangerous in different ways. I am after the right to criticise disrespect and intolerance, no matter who expresses it, in the face of "political correctivism". And that criticism might well result in the statement "You should not have said that", though not in the statement "You should not be allowed to say that".
In still other words: I do not agree that you can claim immunity from criticism by citing free speech and/or respect for different ways of thinking.
This is a though-provoking article about an important issue. The combination of freedom of speech and respect for others is a tough one.
It is easy to say that freedom of speech should rule absolute, and that we should be humble enough to realise that our ways may not be the only, or the "right" ways. It's the right and "respectful" attitude, sure. I agree, to a degree.
But, once you have sincerely said that, you have nothing to say to those who will not respect others. I think that many different kinds of "ism" have one thing in common: they do emphatically not respect others. Still, proponents of such "isms" are likely to cite freedom of speech in support of their right to express their opinions, and also as a reply to those who would criticise their views.
I am not convinced. I sense that freedom of speech can be abused. In a sense one of the phrases of our site rules deal with the same problem: it says that we will be tolerant, but not tolerant towards intolerance.
Beneath the claim for freedom of speech for intolerant "isms", there is a double standard. They are demanding respect for themselves, while simultaneously disrespecting others. That is inconsistent.
Which goes to show that perhaps "respect for others" and "freedom of speech" are not merely two sides of the same coin. They can be at odds with each other.
So, do I think that disrespectful "isms" should be censored, and not granted the right to free speech? Well, yes, definitely on this board, lol. But if we are seeing the larger picture, a more or less democratic world, I think not. I do not think that "isms" should be censored, and I believe that doing so might even prove dangerous in different ways. I am after the right to criticise disrespect and intolerance, no matter who expresses it, in the face of "political correctivism". And that criticism might well result in the statement "You should not have said that", though not in the statement "You should not be allowed to say that".
In still other words: I do not agree that you can claim immunity from criticism by citing free speech and/or respect for different ways of thinking.
Friendship - probably Part I
(Originally posted by me at the old version of ClawsOrPaws.)
When you become friends with somebody, it's because you like who that person is. Sure, with time you will discover more about him/her, and perhaps about yourself, and maybe you won't like all the things you discover. Still, as somebody said, you accept your friend's warts, too. You can have fights with friends, and make up, and such occasions may actually serve to make the friendship even stronger.
Thinking about it, I think that something very special needs to happen if a friendship is to be made stronger from disagreement. You need to understand and accept each others' points of view. That is, I think, why friendships can be strenghtened by fights: you learn more about your friend, and you both respect the differences in one another.
Then there are "friendships". The quotation marks signal that IMO they are not, after all, real friendships.
Why not?
Because I feel, in such circumstances, that I have been fooled. The person in question was not who s/he appeared to be. The fundaments of our "friendship" were, after all, not mutual liking and respect. I have experienced this in a very mild version, when it turns out that my "friend" does not have time for me if there are more interesting people around. Fine, shit happens - it may hurt my ego a bit, but it is a fairly mild "betrayal".
Then there are those who are only friends when they are feeling good themselves. When they are feeling bad, physically or mentally, they revert into themselves, and either expect me to see everything from their perspective, and cater to their needs with no reciprocation, or simply disappear from view with no notice. I can live with that, too, but the friendship does get weakened IMO if the mutual consideration constantly disappears when my "friend" is feeling bad. And, no, I am not talking about helping each other during rough times, as friends do. I am talking about a pattern where the needs of my "friend" constantly are supposed to take precedence over my needs.
Then there are abusive "friendships". I have been in a few, and typically they start out better than a lot of other friendships. "Better"? Yes, better in the sense that you can talk about all kinds of things, including negative experiences and other bad parts of life. In the beginning, this kind of "friendship" may seem to offer more honesty than usual, an acceptance of dark and bright sides both. Until the first fight happens, sometimes out of the blue as far as I am concerned. Then my "friend" does not only focus only on him/herself. Lol, in fact I think that reverting to seeing only your own side of things is typical for being angry. We all do it. My hurt is behind the things I say when I am mad with somebody. I believe that is one reason why fights can strengthen real friendships - that somebody gets mad about something tells that it is something s/he cares deeply about.
But the abusive "friend" does more than that. S/he typically places the blame for his/her actions on me. I make him/her act the way she does. Sometimes this will also be coupled with devaluation of what I say - s/he is rightfully angry, I am just moaning and bitching.
Afterwards. The apologies, the plea for forgiveness. I usually forgive the first time, in my past I have stupidly forgiven the second and the third time, too...
Stupidly? Yes, because the way you "make up" with an abusive "friend" is always only about him/her, not about a mutual recognition of your respective points of view. The abusive "friend" may apologise for the hurt s/he has caused, but s/he does not really respect your side of the argument, and will never really accept responsibility for his/her actions. After "making up" in this kind of "friendship", things may appear good for a while - until it all repeats itself.
You may feel that you want to stay friends with your "friend", maybe help him/her out of the vicious circle they have got themselves into. You can see their pain, if you have done your part of the bargain, and seen things from your "friend's" perspective. But more and more I feel that forgiveness certainly doesn't do the trick. It just sets a pattern where they feel free to take their temper out on you. The only thing that can change them is that they start taking responsibility for their own actions. With some luck, they will have some people left to support them if and when they do. I must admit, though, that I do not see it as a moral obligation to stick around such "friends".
The way I see it, it is not a question of abandoning a friend. You weren't friends in the first place. It is a question of realising that the person you thought you made friends with was never who you thought s/he was.
When you become friends with somebody, it's because you like who that person is. Sure, with time you will discover more about him/her, and perhaps about yourself, and maybe you won't like all the things you discover. Still, as somebody said, you accept your friend's warts, too. You can have fights with friends, and make up, and such occasions may actually serve to make the friendship even stronger.
Thinking about it, I think that something very special needs to happen if a friendship is to be made stronger from disagreement. You need to understand and accept each others' points of view. That is, I think, why friendships can be strenghtened by fights: you learn more about your friend, and you both respect the differences in one another.
Then there are "friendships". The quotation marks signal that IMO they are not, after all, real friendships.
Why not?
Because I feel, in such circumstances, that I have been fooled. The person in question was not who s/he appeared to be. The fundaments of our "friendship" were, after all, not mutual liking and respect. I have experienced this in a very mild version, when it turns out that my "friend" does not have time for me if there are more interesting people around. Fine, shit happens - it may hurt my ego a bit, but it is a fairly mild "betrayal".
Then there are those who are only friends when they are feeling good themselves. When they are feeling bad, physically or mentally, they revert into themselves, and either expect me to see everything from their perspective, and cater to their needs with no reciprocation, or simply disappear from view with no notice. I can live with that, too, but the friendship does get weakened IMO if the mutual consideration constantly disappears when my "friend" is feeling bad. And, no, I am not talking about helping each other during rough times, as friends do. I am talking about a pattern where the needs of my "friend" constantly are supposed to take precedence over my needs.
Then there are abusive "friendships". I have been in a few, and typically they start out better than a lot of other friendships. "Better"? Yes, better in the sense that you can talk about all kinds of things, including negative experiences and other bad parts of life. In the beginning, this kind of "friendship" may seem to offer more honesty than usual, an acceptance of dark and bright sides both. Until the first fight happens, sometimes out of the blue as far as I am concerned. Then my "friend" does not only focus only on him/herself. Lol, in fact I think that reverting to seeing only your own side of things is typical for being angry. We all do it. My hurt is behind the things I say when I am mad with somebody. I believe that is one reason why fights can strengthen real friendships - that somebody gets mad about something tells that it is something s/he cares deeply about.
But the abusive "friend" does more than that. S/he typically places the blame for his/her actions on me. I make him/her act the way she does. Sometimes this will also be coupled with devaluation of what I say - s/he is rightfully angry, I am just moaning and bitching.
Afterwards. The apologies, the plea for forgiveness. I usually forgive the first time, in my past I have stupidly forgiven the second and the third time, too...
Stupidly? Yes, because the way you "make up" with an abusive "friend" is always only about him/her, not about a mutual recognition of your respective points of view. The abusive "friend" may apologise for the hurt s/he has caused, but s/he does not really respect your side of the argument, and will never really accept responsibility for his/her actions. After "making up" in this kind of "friendship", things may appear good for a while - until it all repeats itself.
You may feel that you want to stay friends with your "friend", maybe help him/her out of the vicious circle they have got themselves into. You can see their pain, if you have done your part of the bargain, and seen things from your "friend's" perspective. But more and more I feel that forgiveness certainly doesn't do the trick. It just sets a pattern where they feel free to take their temper out on you. The only thing that can change them is that they start taking responsibility for their own actions. With some luck, they will have some people left to support them if and when they do. I must admit, though, that I do not see it as a moral obligation to stick around such "friends".
The way I see it, it is not a question of abandoning a friend. You weren't friends in the first place. It is a question of realising that the person you thought you made friends with was never who you thought s/he was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (RSS)
