A blogger friend (who I respect) wrote an article Change Is a Choice in which she says:
My arguments
When a child is fascinated by fire and is running into it, doesn't a parent have a right to stop or control it? The child would then cry and scream, perhaps, for being thwarted. But so, should it be allowed to run into the fire saying that it has a right to learn for himself that fire is hot, and that that would be a lesson better learned? The child might get severely burned, right? Similarly, we put control on terrorists; impose our moral standard on them. Isn't that desirable?
The instinct to control collective social behavior isn't wrong in itself. I also tend to think the instinct to control has an evolutionary significance. Like, if parents didn't feel an instinct to control their children's behavior, the infants might not survive. At larger, social, level too a similar arrangement is at work.
If one agrees that a parent can control a child, then why can't a government control its people? Let's view the family as an organism and an individual as one of the cells that make the organism. The society is exactly the same kind of organism as the family but of a much bigger size. The instinct to control is the instinct to increase the survival and well being of the organism. The organism itself is of prime importance and not its individual cells. Because individual cells can only exist if the organism itself is there! So, each and every cell's primary interest should be to maintain the existence of the organism which houses them, and not their own interest alone because that would in principle lead to tragedy of the commons, killing the organism and with it all its cells. If all cells want to exist then they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the organism as above their own.
Now, all cells do want to exist. Removing the metaphor, all people do want to exist and thrive. (Who doesn't?) So they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the society as above their own individual interest. Because human societies are such that all humans are interdependent. No one can survive alone on one's own. A human being in a civilized society is, by birth, a part of the society. Any person thinking of himself as a distinct, independent individual who can think only for himself, is committing a fallacy that in principle would lead to "tragedy of the commons", as I mentioned above. Hence, if one believes that one wants to have a good life then one is automatically obliged to not act in a way that only serves one's own selfish interests, without benefiting at all to the society. Because just by existing, one is a cost to the society.
Assuming that we have immaculate and infallible mechanism to measure moral judgement, I would go so far as to say that any human being who is able-bodied and able-minded, but isn't contributing to social well being, and thus is only a cost to the society can be imposed external morality by those whose judgement is better. The problem (which I am fully aware of) is in the measurement of who is right and wrong. We don't have immaculate and infallible capacity or mechanism of judgement. And for that there is no solution. That is what makes the issue grey. And there I don't see black and white answer. There is no solid line which divides grey from black and white. So all through the grey continuum, we can't tell for sure where control is right and where it is wrong because it's subject to subjective judgement of people.
What my friend suggests here is: Treat the grey as white ("always freedom"), precisely because it is grey. On the other hand, the position of "always control" would be like saying: Treat the grey as black. What I am saying is: Treat the grey as "grey"!
Not all people know what is in best interest of the society. And quite a few these days blatantly declare that they don't even care. This blatant class doesn't deserve to live, frankly. Not that I am going to shoot them, don't worry! It's just that their life is a waste, and a contradiction in itself. They want to exist, but they don't care whether the society that keeps them alive exists. Myopic! These people need strong controls. Then there's the class which means well, but hasn't the right judgement as to what is the best interest of the society. These need good education first. But if education doesn't work because of whatever reasons ("weakness of will" being a major one) then legal controls are of help. Some of them might feel it's unjust, but in the end it's for their betterment only. The rights that they feel they are deprived of are the rights that they never actually had! They are those myopic rights that will do harm to them without them being aware of it. These days TV and certain class of films are giving people the ideas of rights (through propagating individualistic philosophy) that never should exist. Not if the organism, the society, has to exist.
My position
I think this is not only my position but is what actually happens, and will happen anyway.
I will use my best judgement in weighing each case separately to decide whether I want to vote in for control, or for freedom. It seems to be the most logical way to me. Because I can't act against my better judgement. Acting against one's better judgement is by definition immoral, isn't it?
If, say for example, the government comes up with a ban on porn, I will weigh it with my best judgement, and if I think the ban is right, I will vote in for the ban. If, in another example, the government plans to ban the whole of internet, I would probably vote in for freedom. Which side I will be, that I can not decide by some fixed rule, as my friend suggests in her article. I will use my best judgement in every situation.
I think if one puts an individual above society, then one would put freedom above control as a rule. If one puts society above individual then one will opt for using one's best judgement. And that judgement is not as a rule meant for individual, but for the greater entity which includes all individuals. It could be in favor of control, and it could be against control. Depends on the case. The focus is on social good, and not individual (personal) good alone. There will be exceptional cases where my moral standing will be put to test, and on occasions I may fail the test, since I am not perfect. But in general, this is the view I endorse.
An individual's best judgement is not always the right judgement, I know, but nor is the rule "freedom always trumps social control" always going to lead to best outcome. Besides, I just explained how the maxim is fallacious. The issue remains unsolvable. I will never claim that there is a perfect solution to this problem. I have just tried to justify my stance and my method.
Finally, another wise friend of mine gives his input which I agree with, and which quite nicely sums up my arguments:
Many people do not think of long term consequences, and not everybody is wise enough to do so. Moreover, people expect the society to pay for the consequences of their short-term thinking. It is society which has to keep a drug addict in an emergency room. It is society who has to take care of the kids of a fool who became a vegetable because he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.
As long as society is providing and is responsible for an individual and for the consequences of his acts, the individual cannot claim total freedom to do whatever he wants, even if it is to harm only himself.
- Freedom always trumps social control. (By social control she means legal enforcement against people doing what they like as long as they are not harming others.)
- Laws prohibiting terrorism are moral and just, while laws prohibiting drug use are not so. (The reason she gives is that, unlike a terrorist, a drug-doer doesn't harm anyone else but himself.)
- Morality can't be externally imposed. That which is outside the domain of choice is outside the domain of morality. (This I don't disagree with, by the way.)
- Even if it means having to live with problems, or wait long for betterment, freedom to live as one likes is a must. The "do-gooders" – even well-intentioned ones – have no right to decide for others what is right.
The reader can learn her point of view by following the original article and the comments thereof linked above.
My objection: "Freedom always trumps social control" sounds very wise and nice, but I have a problem with the word "always". My stance: Controls are necessary to the extent people are ignorant. The following post is my case against the statement "freedom always trumps control" with regards to the objection I stated.
I think that it is a very delicate and complex issue and must not be dealt with as black and white. I don't largely disagree with her, but I don't fully agree too, because the use of the word "always" indicates that she treats it as black and white. By doing so, she suggests a solution to social problems, which is less or no control by the government, while I am at a loss for perfect solution. I do not think that this issue can be resolved so simply without doing more harm than benefit. I would be satisfied with having no perfect solution but would be wary of suggesting a black and white solution.
My arguments
When a child is fascinated by fire and is running into it, doesn't a parent have a right to stop or control it? The child would then cry and scream, perhaps, for being thwarted. But so, should it be allowed to run into the fire saying that it has a right to learn for himself that fire is hot, and that that would be a lesson better learned? The child might get severely burned, right? Similarly, we put control on terrorists; impose our moral standard on them. Isn't that desirable?
The instinct to control collective social behavior isn't wrong in itself. I also tend to think the instinct to control has an evolutionary significance. Like, if parents didn't feel an instinct to control their children's behavior, the infants might not survive. At larger, social, level too a similar arrangement is at work.
If one agrees that a parent can control a child, then why can't a government control its people? Let's view the family as an organism and an individual as one of the cells that make the organism. The society is exactly the same kind of organism as the family but of a much bigger size. The instinct to control is the instinct to increase the survival and well being of the organism. The organism itself is of prime importance and not its individual cells. Because individual cells can only exist if the organism itself is there! So, each and every cell's primary interest should be to maintain the existence of the organism which houses them, and not their own interest alone because that would in principle lead to tragedy of the commons, killing the organism and with it all its cells. If all cells want to exist then they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the organism as above their own.
Now, all cells do want to exist. Removing the metaphor, all people do want to exist and thrive. (Who doesn't?) So they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the society as above their own individual interest. Because human societies are such that all humans are interdependent. No one can survive alone on one's own. A human being in a civilized society is, by birth, a part of the society. Any person thinking of himself as a distinct, independent individual who can think only for himself, is committing a fallacy that in principle would lead to "tragedy of the commons", as I mentioned above. Hence, if one believes that one wants to have a good life then one is automatically obliged to not act in a way that only serves one's own selfish interests, without benefiting at all to the society. Because just by existing, one is a cost to the society.
Assuming that we have immaculate and infallible mechanism to measure moral judgement, I would go so far as to say that any human being who is able-bodied and able-minded, but isn't contributing to social well being, and thus is only a cost to the society can be imposed external morality by those whose judgement is better. The problem (which I am fully aware of) is in the measurement of who is right and wrong. We don't have immaculate and infallible capacity or mechanism of judgement. And for that there is no solution. That is what makes the issue grey. And there I don't see black and white answer. There is no solid line which divides grey from black and white. So all through the grey continuum, we can't tell for sure where control is right and where it is wrong because it's subject to subjective judgement of people.
What my friend suggests here is: Treat the grey as white ("always freedom"), precisely because it is grey. On the other hand, the position of "always control" would be like saying: Treat the grey as black. What I am saying is: Treat the grey as "grey"!
Not all people know what is in best interest of the society. And quite a few these days blatantly declare that they don't even care. This blatant class doesn't deserve to live, frankly. Not that I am going to shoot them, don't worry! It's just that their life is a waste, and a contradiction in itself. They want to exist, but they don't care whether the society that keeps them alive exists. Myopic! These people need strong controls. Then there's the class which means well, but hasn't the right judgement as to what is the best interest of the society. These need good education first. But if education doesn't work because of whatever reasons ("weakness of will" being a major one) then legal controls are of help. Some of them might feel it's unjust, but in the end it's for their betterment only. The rights that they feel they are deprived of are the rights that they never actually had! They are those myopic rights that will do harm to them without them being aware of it. These days TV and certain class of films are giving people the ideas of rights (through propagating individualistic philosophy) that never should exist. Not if the organism, the society, has to exist.
My position
I think this is not only my position but is what actually happens, and will happen anyway.
I will use my best judgement in weighing each case separately to decide whether I want to vote in for control, or for freedom. It seems to be the most logical way to me. Because I can't act against my better judgement. Acting against one's better judgement is by definition immoral, isn't it?
If, say for example, the government comes up with a ban on porn, I will weigh it with my best judgement, and if I think the ban is right, I will vote in for the ban. If, in another example, the government plans to ban the whole of internet, I would probably vote in for freedom. Which side I will be, that I can not decide by some fixed rule, as my friend suggests in her article. I will use my best judgement in every situation.
I think if one puts an individual above society, then one would put freedom above control as a rule. If one puts society above individual then one will opt for using one's best judgement. And that judgement is not as a rule meant for individual, but for the greater entity which includes all individuals. It could be in favor of control, and it could be against control. Depends on the case. The focus is on social good, and not individual (personal) good alone. There will be exceptional cases where my moral standing will be put to test, and on occasions I may fail the test, since I am not perfect. But in general, this is the view I endorse.
An individual's best judgement is not always the right judgement, I know, but nor is the rule "freedom always trumps social control" always going to lead to best outcome. Besides, I just explained how the maxim is fallacious. The issue remains unsolvable. I will never claim that there is a perfect solution to this problem. I have just tried to justify my stance and my method.
Finally, another wise friend of mine gives his input which I agree with, and which quite nicely sums up my arguments:
Many people do not think of long term consequences, and not everybody is wise enough to do so. Moreover, people expect the society to pay for the consequences of their short-term thinking. It is society which has to keep a drug addict in an emergency room. It is society who has to take care of the kids of a fool who became a vegetable because he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.
As long as society is providing and is responsible for an individual and for the consequences of his acts, the individual cannot claim total freedom to do whatever he wants, even if it is to harm only himself.
Update: My saying that we should put the society above individual may seem like I am suggesting one should die if it benefits the society. No, that I don't mean. Let me make it clear that the very concept of morality is to enjoy higher well being. So "self-sacrifice" defeats the purpose of moral behavior. What I am saying, in essence, is that an individual must align his/her self interest with the interests of the society, so that well being has to necessarily increase. If one thinks for oneself alone, and if all of us did that, alienation and chaos would naturally result, which would reduce the well being of all. That's what Tragedy of the Commons explains.
The reason why the government can't control people is because it's assumed that the people are not children. There is a reason why children are not given full legal rights under the age of 18. After that, no one has the right to impose their morality on to them. So if an adult wishes to ruin their life by taking drugs, or by getting run over by a car, or even by burning themselves, that is their prerogative and their responsibility.
ReplyDeleteKapil Sibal's quote where he says "we have a responsibility to protect our people…" is offensive for precisely this reason. It assumes that adults in the country are children and need protecting. Furthermore, he assumes that he's the godfather of the people and that his wisdom is superior to theirs. If we believe in the principle of adults taking responsibility for their actions, then there is absolutely no wiggle room for a politician, or anyone else to impose their morals onto another person.
Another flaw is assuming that society is a "organism". There are times when something is merely a collection of things and not a bigger "whole". Society is one such example – in fact, "society" doesn't even exist! Society is merely a collection of people. Nothing more. Not an organism. Not an entity with its own consciousness.
ReplyDeleteAlso, cells are mindless beings. They are in fact like little robots with no mind of their own. Therefore morality when it comes to cells and plants makes no sense in the absence of consciousness. So supposing we found out one day that cells do indeed have consciousness and feelings, we would have no right to control them merely to continue our own existence. Since no conscious being has a moral responsibility to sacrifice themselves for the continued existence of another without their choice.
But this is a moot point. "Society" is an artificial construct. It possesses no properties of its own, no law that follows, and is in fact a myth – one which he made up for the sake ofconvenience.
First of all, in reply to your first comment, this post has nothing to do with Kapil Sibal’s issue, in which I stand with freedom. To the rest of the comment, where you say people above the age 18 are no children and thus can do whatever they like…, I have addressed it in the article itself, so don’t have anything more to say. (The last paragraph itself suffices for it.) Btw, have you studied Tragedy of the Commons?
ReplyDeleteTo the second comment, I am surprised that you literally build on the organism and cells metaphor! Metaphor! Cells don’t have consciousness, but they are just used as a metaphor for people who do!
Society doesn’t even exist?! I call that hyper-rational position. Just like determinism. With a person using that card, no game (discussion) is possible.
//Since no conscious being has a moral responsibility to sacrifice themselves for the continued existence of another without their choice.//
ReplyDeleteAnd it is not about "sacrificing oneself for another" (meaning, dying for others) but regulation of one's behavior, so that everyone, including the one who is being regulated, benefits.
I didn't mean "self-sacrifice" in terms of giving up one's life. Self-sacrifice also includes making any kind of adjustment for the sake of "society".
ReplyDeleteThe tragedy of the commons is so powerful because there is in fact no escape. Another name for this is the prisoner's dilemma. Even if someone does "sacrifice" for the sake of society, they always lose…always. That is why there is no escape from the prisoners dilemma.
so to correct the misapprehension, let alone dying, one has absolutely no ethical, moral, or even selfish responsibility to change themselves in any way for "society".
For a metaphor to be valid, it must share the essential qualities of the underlying situation which are trying to mimic. Hence, I pointed out that cells do not have consciousness – it's futile to use them as a metaphor for individuals and adults in a free "society".
Tthe fact that society doesn't exist is a mere observation. It certainly doesn't qualify as "hyper rational" because it's so obvious. I'm not aware of anyone who insists that society is a real organism with feelings, emotions, and even properties of its own. Therefore to talk about society itself is meaningless.
//one has absolutely no ethical, moral, or even selfish responsibility to change themselves in any way for "society".//
ReplyDeleteI am frightened! If intellectuals think like this, there seems to be no hope.
// they always lose…always//
That’s not true, even of Prisoner’s Dilemma. There is such a thing as cooperation. If both parties cooperate it is clear that both would reap higher payoff. Since everybody doesn’t look at life in game theoretic sense, we have value education in place to encourage cooperative behavior. That’s the reason why we talk about ethics and morality. That’s why there are Gods around (in religions), to orient people from some “common” values. Common morality. If people value the same thing, they would naturally cooperate. With or without God, for as long as humans have been living in societal form morality has been around. It’s what makes us human!
Society is a group of interdependent individuals who align each other’s self interests to maximize welfare. It’s not a living organism but it certainly exists, as a system which fulfills that definition. And the metaphor of organism is appropriate in that any change in one part of the society affects related individuals through chain reaction. When one is sick, one goes to hospital where someone is employed to serve him. The doctor is not said to sacrifice anything, of course, but hadn’t it been a “society” he could be doing something else, instead of binding himself to one profession for all his life. What we have is like division of work and responsibilities whereby we enjoy higher efficiency and higher welfare. If there were no doctors, no engineers, no farmers, no dairymen, then humans wouldn’t be living this comfortable a life. Dependence would be much less, but so would be welfare. Totally remove dependence and we are in jungle!
This system is society! In it, everyone’s life is so intricately interwoven (and higher welfare is the purpose) that it is everyone’s responsibly to act in the common interest, in the interest of the society. That doesn’t preclude anyone from having fun (besides, higher wellbeing is itself fun), and no one is even perfect. But if there is anything which maintains order in the society is it responsible behavior, and not the other way around. If a doctor, for example, shirks his responsibility, it would affect others’ lives. They would in turn throw away their responsibilities to take revenge, and it will further affect others’ lives. If it goes on then there’s negative result of Prisoner’s Dilemma! But we are alright, that means it doesn’t carry on for long. Thanks to human intelligence which understands responsibility and morality! Society is a delicate organism. And it’s a monumental error to think we are not a part of the organism. We may not realize it (maybe because we so get used to it), but we are continually interacting with other agents of the society for our living. If the system disappeared, maybe we can’t survive at all individually; or at least that survival would not be pleasant.
Social responsibility = moral behavior.
Extracting optimum payoff from Prisoner’s Dilemma is a human achievement. That’s why the society has reached this level of sophistication on the first place! Be careful, you are suggesting the contrary.
Well, a careful study of the prisoners dilemma, reveals that cooperation is indeed possible when the game is repeated multiple times as it is in "society". So this doesn't rule out cooperation. A lot also depends on the lifespan of the individuals concerned.
ReplyDeleteShowing interdependency is itself not enough to complete the analogy with a living organism. You have to show consciousness. Otherwise, even the air conditioning vents are "organisms". Consciousness is a necessary and indeed sufficient attribute without which, all other analogies breakdown.
This division of labor as you have pointed out takes place with each person acting in the most selfish manner possible. No one is sacrificing anything for society, nor is anyone thinking of anyone but themselves. The dictates of the free market ensure that necessary services will always be available. In the essential ways, "society" is a self organizing system. No need exists for the individual components to do anything other than look out for themselves – and no one else.
Perhaps to make a point clear of, you could give an example where a person "sacrificing" something benefits "society". Without such an example, I'm unable to conceived of any situation where your assertion can be put into practice.
Your example of a doctor shirking his responsibilities doesn't ring true for the simple reason that a doctor's aim is to earn money. Not doing his or her job properly is not only an obstacle to that, it will also lose them future business from patients who expect a certain standard of treatment. Again, everyone acts in their own self-interest.
The only concession I'm willing to make, is in the case of limited resources like land, water, and air. But this is a matter for government regulation of these resources – and not of society itself.
Your model seems to assume that everyone has that developed a capacity of judgment.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying is this: When the person does an activity A, he receives the benefit B. Activity A has some cost to the person but benefit B is greater than the cost. So person A isn’t actually sacrificing anything, but is in fact acting purely selfishly to derive benefit B which is greater than his cost. You’re right. Given a particular structure of society, action A will always give benefit B which will be greater than the cost of doing A. But how this will be perceived by the individual depends on his level of judgment. He will see it as a purely selfish act only if he has certain level of clarity about how the society works.
Not everyone operates with that level of clarity about complexity of the system. However, the fact that action A will produce benefit B remains. Hence, we use other means to make sure that people take action A anyway. We use soft conditioning like education, religious conditioning; moderate pressures like social customs and traditions; and hard controls like laws,… thereby filling the gap between, say, sociopaths (poor judgment) and decent human beings (good judgment). Since only a tiny fraction of population is actually philosophically developed, majority of peoples’ judgment is so low that, in many cases involving varying complexity, they won’t be able to see benefit B, and thus will only see the cost involved in action A. So, doing action A always seems to them like a sacrifice, to the varying degree depending on where their judgment lies. Many of them, in many cases, not only not do action A, but also do other things which result in “reducing welfare” of all, forget about getting benefit B. They need to be controlled.
Say, action A is not breaking traffic rules. And benefit B is obvious – smooth flow of traffic. So to a “developed” person, action A isn’t a sacrifice. But there are many for whom action A is a sacrifice due to their poor capacity of judgment. It’s for them that we require traffic police in place. This example gives an intuitive understanding that not all controls are counterproductive with respect to welfare. However, in the grey continuum, due to increasing complexity, there is a point after which the controls become counter productive because it is difficult to make the right judgment.
At this point, let me restate my original position: I am not in favor of total control, or in favor of total freedom, because in my view both are prone to failure. Your “total freedom” model will fail for the simple reason that not all people are “developed”. Ideal state is to operate at “optimum level of controls”. Who will decide where that level is? No one. The system automatically gets to that equilibrium point through interaction of conflicting views.
In the meantime, if we wish that the world remains in a sustainable state, we must encourage ethical and moral behavior, so that with time the point of “optimum level of control” shifts towards increased welfare state, and not towards decreased welfare state, because the position of this point is also determined, in the long run, by collective consciousness (views of people).
(I had to post this comment several times due to problem in using HTML. Sorry if you got too many notifications, in case...)
A couple of things Darshan.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it's not for us to decide whether or not a person has the capacity for judgment or not. Once a person reaches the age of maturity, the are assumed to have the level of judgment of a mature adult. Doing otherwise, is an interference in their lives and is the same excuse that so many parents use by selling their children off in arranged marriages or forcing them to take up work that they don't like.
In short, if we hold to the view that a person is responsible for their own actions and that they and only they are responsible for their life after the age of maturity, then we must adopt a hands-off approach.
Breaking a traffic light is not a good example. In reality, I may well benefit from breaking a traffic light without any immediate consequences to myself. So in this case, action "A" has the cost and with almost no benefit. Since this is one of the examples which is subject to the prisoner's dilemma, we introduce an artificial cost in the form of a traffic fine. This is pretty basic – it doesn't involve any societal control it all. It's similar to regulating land, water, or other scarce resources.
Could you perhaps give another example where a person's truly selfish act without breaking the law harms "society"?
Let’s not dwell on the examples. You can get the essence anyway (or so I hope). Let me approach the point from whole new way.
ReplyDeleteAnyone would agree that rapists and terrorists can be controlled. But when it comes to, say, running a porn website, maybe some (you?) would say that it can’t be controlled, and that the individual has the freedom because he is not harming anyone.
So, your contention is not against control, but it’s about where is the “optimum level of controls”. Meaning, how much and on what things controls can be applied. Right? Because if you agree (which I assume you do) that rapists and terrorists can be controlled, then what happens to your // they are assumed to have the level of judgment of a mature adult// ? We can’t “assume” like that to conveniently elude the complexity.
Hence, saying “always freedom” or “total freedom” isn’t a right point of contention. That can never be. The argument then is essentially about where to draw the line. And I say there is no perfect answer.
If you (or the one who fights for his freedom) don’t see the harm that a porn website’s owner does to the society, you will fight for his freedom. I see the harm (just an example), so I will vote in for controlling him. It’s a matter of subjective opinion, and those opinions are formed by myriad factors and personal experiences, plus intelligence level of a particular individual. If you ask an infantile drunkard whether drinking harms society he will probably say it doesn’t. But if you ask someone whose family member has been killed by a car whose driver was drunk, he will say it certainly does. The same is the case with almost every case that is in the grey area. So, what I am saying is: The system will automatically decide where the optimum point of control is. You do everything in your power to save X’s freedom; and I will do everything in my power to take it away. (Let’s say X is doing something which you see as his personal life, while I see it harming society.) No solution. Period.
Not all controls are counterproductive. THAT’S ALL. Say not “always freedom” or “total freedom” and I don’t have any problem. (Even if I have, what can I do?) *smiles*
It's a given that any action which directly harms another person is against the law. This isn't "social control". So rapists and terrorists, harm people, therefore those actions are outlawed. Porn sites don't force themselves on other people and do not harm them. Therefore there is no question of "control".
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for an example where you seek to proscribe a certain action which doesn't harm anyone directly and still needs to be regulated in the name of "society". Regular laws which outlaw criminal activity directly harming other people is not what I would call "social control".
Indeed, rapists and terrorists are adults. Which is why we have no problem in letting them bear the full consequences of their actions. It is also why the law shows significant leniency towards minors who are assumed to not have complete responsibility. So there isn't any contradiction here. Commit a crime, get punished. Cause-and-effect.
Rapists and terrorists have full freedom to do as they wish. The consequence is that they will bear the cost of their actions. A pretty logical arrangement if you ask me.
Fortunately, "harm" can and should be proved in court. If you have a contention that porn websites harm others, then you need to prove that using logical arguments. A mere opinion doesn't make it fact. It is NOT a matter of subjective opinion as you like to put it.
The examples you've given, aren't really "gray areas" at all. There might indeed be gray areas but I haven't seen any so far.
From the post: //By social control she means legal enforcement against people doing what they like as long as they are not harming others.//
ReplyDeleteIf the porn websites are banned by law, I will simply not raise my voice for their freedom. If the voting is taken I will vote in for the ban. Because my younger brother spends hours watching it, and fails his exams, and that puts his career at risk, which if happened, he will have a poor life, and I am emotionally and financially connected to him, so it's my concern. (Just an example.) Simple as that.
When I, with my subjective opinion, which is formed by my personal experience and my personal intelligence, see that something is harmless I will fight for it's freedom, and vice versa.
I am not going to put "social control" by pointing a gun at the offender. Don't worry. And whether the harm that I see is proven by the court is immaterial for me. If it's not proven, let it be. I am fine. But if I am asked my view, then this is what it is. If you don't see grey issues, I can't do anything about it.
I am done with this discussion. Thank you.
Again from the article (in case you have missed the part):
ReplyDelete//It is society who has to take care of the kids of a fool who became a vegetable because he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.
As long as society is providing and is responsible for an individual and for the consequences if his acts, the individual cannot claim total freedom to do whatever he wants, even if it is to harm only himself.//
Hope that is a better example meeting your requirement.
At least we agree on the definition of "social control". It does NOT include laws restricting others from harming their fellow citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think I adequately pointed out that those who are not legally adults cannot be treated as such. So if you're younger brother is below the age of emancipation, then you or his legal guardians have the right to prevent him from watching porn sites. In any case, the onus for doing this is on the parents – not on the porn sites. It's like banning knives just because an immature person might cut themselves.
More to the point, porn websites CANNOT be legally banned by law and stand the test of constitutionality. The fact that India has a dubious view on porn websites is merely proof of the immaturity of its government.
You of course have the right to project any view you wish. But this is an academic debate – I thought that was the point. It's hardly personal.
Yes – the helmet example IS a better one. And yes – I don't agree that helmets should be mandated.
ReplyDeleteTo take your example at face value, ALL risky activities should be banned. Including rock climbing, sailing, bungee jumping, and skydiving. Banning any of these activities leads us down the slippery slope of the nanny state which essentially tells its citizens "You don't know what's good for you I know better." As a responsible adult, I find that attitude offensive. Because the government isn't some "all wise entity" – it too is made up of people.
Finally, it's not "society" who has to take care of the child. Like I said, there is no "society". The care of the child would be entrusted to the next of kin or whoever his or her legal guardians are presumed to be. Only rarely will a child be left with no one to take care of them and be entrusted to the government.
Okay. The last point. Your model still assumes that humans operate only with rationality. When someone watches porn he is not making a rational decision. There's another side to humans, emotional/instinctual side or the animal nature. Porn websites appeal to that side of humans. To totally ignore that side and assume that humans only have rationality is also a mistake. (On a side note, that's the reason spirituality fails.)
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing rationally. And the beauty of rationality is that a rational position can not be proven wrong. But a rational position is not necessarily a good position. Your point (as also is the case with Spiritualists) is essentially that people have to be developed from inside, that's all. But such perfect development is an utopia. Because emotional side can not be controlled fully my rational mind. Our animal nature is there to serve universe's goals, and thus it is more powerful than our reason. That's why scientists/philosophers also agree that reason is a tool to serve emotional needs. Reason can not be be all and end all.
Government may not ban porn websites. Since the harm done by them is indirect, and moreover, the measurement of harm is difficult. So only good judgement we can make is by using rationality. We think that it's people's mistake to choose to watch porn. And it is, to an extent, no doubt. But alluring people to something which is irresistible to the animal nature should also be considered wrong. And whether we accept it or not, people are not perfectly rational. And your model (which doesn't seem to consider non-rational part of humans) is thus incomplete, and will fail for that reason.
If someone understands human nature as more than rational, and extends his concern, it's anything but immature!
Indeed you are right! There exist many situations where a person's emotions overwhelm their reason. Provisions already exist in law to take this into account. For example "temporary madness" is a well accepted principle in common jurisprudence. When necessary, courts DO take this into account.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for more mundane and routine activities – like browsing porn – an adult is expected to let reason guide their judgments. But more importantly, even if it doesn't, they – and they alone – are expected to bear the consequences. No one said being an adult is easy. Temptations exist every day which appeal to our "animal nature" and threaten to overwhelm our reason. But except for the most extreme circumstances, no leniency is provided.
Consider this for a moment. A mullah sitting in some village declares that women wearing jeans appeals to the "animal instincts" of young men and therefore women must refrain from wearing them. How much leniency is to be accorded to such a view? Answer: none. This is because we expect adults to have control over their emotions and behave in accordance with the social contract. If they don't, the consequence is theirs and theirs alone.
You see, the argument is still about how much and on what things controls are appropriate, and not about whether controls are appropriate at all. I am good with that from the beginning. So, on the main point of contention, let's agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteSince I don't have perfect mechanism to measure indirect and emotional harm, but the harm exists nonetheless, I will use my best judgement in every case. And so can others! That only seems logical to me. You perhaps see a solid line. +1 to your judgement then.
It's been enriching all the same. Thanks for the time and energy you spent on discussing this. :)
We need to have rules and regulations, so that we don't go back to barbarous age again.
ReplyDeleteAnd freedom to everyone to do everything will eventually lead to chaos, and if we carefully observe, you can have a glimpse of our culture going to dogs, great disbelief in our own values and culture, readiness to blindly believe in someone else's ideas, culture etc.
One thing is clear, none can stop or delay the progress/regress:)
//One thing is clear, none can stop or delay the progress/regress.//
ReplyDeleteNo single person can, but if everyone understands how the society functions, and conducts himself/herself in most ethical manner possible, then the society as a whole would only improve, progress. In any case, being virtuous (which includes being moral)is good for one's own health.
If the world is ever to become a better place (though I am not optimistic about it) it will not be because of those who have “resolved” their moral issues by committing themselves to some fixed rules of behavior and thereby become complacent, but because of those who constantly fight an uphill battle against complex (and increasingly so) problems of human world.
--
PS: Are you from India? Please do not use Anonymous mode of commenting, unless absolutely necessary. Knowing the commenter's background sometimes helps make more sense of the comment.