Mastodawn

Taggart

I'm really struggling with the idea that the responsibility to correct for corporate evil resides with individuals, and that failing to do so constitutes some form of evil itself.

It would seem tantamount to castigating individuals for not recycling "enough" when the true cause of pollution lies with industry.

It would seem a way for capital to coerce the pro-human and anti-capital to tear each other apart, causing nothing but self-inflicted wounds.

Then again, blithe oblivion to whence one's resources come also seems irresponsible.

But like, I have work to do that is more important than choosing the least impure tool every goddamn day.

And this is where deontology comes into the picture: there is some proximity to "evil" that we must not tolerate, but the line is different for everyone, and its designation often derives from moral absolutes that lie closer to the heart than the head. And I dunno, as much as consequentialism has proven its capacity for horror, I think sourcing morality from a higher plane has as well.

It is all too easy to paint with the broad brushes of "evil" and "fascism," but to do so spreads the paint thin and diminishes its color. Hannah Arendt was right, but there must be a difference between individuals existing in an unjust society without their consent and a direct participant in the unjust actions.

In other words, I don't think simple syllogisms work for the assignment of evil.

The Doctor 2d ago

@mttaggart Explains a few things about the deprecation of critical thinking.

Shecky - Third Wheel 2d ago

@mttaggart The world is not black and white, only shades of gray...

Eddie.2d ago

@siliconshecky @mttaggart quickly approaching Vantablack

AA 2d ago

@mttaggart Generalizations usually aren't fair, and these two words fall under that umbrella. But that only means there are varying shades of evil, and I'm losing track. Individuals aren't responsible for corporate evil. Some individuals have no choice, others are voluntarily complicit. These are not the same.

I read a really good analysis sort of in this direction the other day: https://mastodon.nl/@abhayakara/116251929650735281

In addition, I'd suggest that "evil" is not the right frame. Most of us imagine we have agency where we don't, and fail to take advantage of agency where we do.

In this case, deciding which tools you use is not a place where you have much agency, and you rob yourself of actual agency by wasting neurons on this.

Where most of have agency is in collective work on the system.

Ted Lemon (@[email protected])

This is worth reading just for the ethical philosophy. Really, he shoots utilitarianism in the head in the second paragraph, and makes it stick. The analysis of AI ethics specifically is good, perhaps with not enough emphasis on the creation of technical debt. https://types.pl/@wilbowma/116247527449271232

Mastodon.nl door Stichting Activityclub

A lot of this work is actually just figuring out how not to damage solidarity, because many of our cultural norms do that. We argue over ideology when we share the same values, and wind up failing to work together. We allow human cognitive biases with respect to hierarchy to bypass our own judgment when we could actually do something differently than what the hierarchy tells us to do, and that would actually be okay even to the hierarchy.

@abhayakara I don't disagree with you (I kinda do with the linked piece, but I'll deal with that later). Evil is not my framing, but those who would call me such for using tools adjacent to the government.

I don't entirely agree with him either, but certainly his takedown of consequentialism was solid and helpful, and I think the method of analysis is good even if you might have somewhat different baseline philosophies.

Regarding the evil tools question, what I would ask is, why are you having this argument? It sounds an awful lot like people with shared values arguing over ideology, which is just a category error.

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage. There's no need to argue about it. Just test it, or if you can't test it, agree that it would be interesting to test it and set it aside until you can.

@abhayakara I think it's worth examining how we exist in the world for inconsistencies, and since we exist alongside other people with varying views and feelings, alignment on these issues kinda matters.

Here I've identified a common sentiment in communities in which I exist that is in tension with my intuition. So the "argument," such as it is, is as much with myself as anything. I'm attempting to arrive at synthesis and doing so in public in the hopes that my ethical struggle can inform others.

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage.

The entire point of deontology is that ultimately you're ascribing to something untestable for moral value, so...no not entirely. Maybe it's garbage to you, but as I indicate, it's a framework employed by many, and so we must consider it.

Why must we consider it? It all devolves to whether or not the ideologue is willing to use force or not. If they are, then the problem is that they are willing to use force, and their ideology is a side issue. If they are not, there's no problem.

@abhayakara I don't think it does all devolve to that, no. If I'm building solidarity, to your point, with others who feel strongly on this issue, it would be prudent to understand and account for differences in beliefs here. Dismissing them out of hand leads to negative affect and lack of participation. How do we get over our disagreements? First, by understanding them, and examining our own beliefs carefully.

I should note that my own ethical framework is based largely on the ethics of care, which centers interpersonal relationships and duties to others as the primary contributors to moral value. This is in contrast to more empirical frameworks, but it also means I cannot dismiss people in my community outright.

Ah, I don't mean to dismiss them out of hand. I mean to treat them realistically. Like, "is this actionable now?" If yes, let's take action. If no, let's figure out what action we can take that gets us to where we can take action on it.

I think the ethics of care is a very reasonable way to think about this, and that is indeed a challenge. E.g. if as in my previous example, someone wants to use force to make their ideology happen, you still have to engage with that.

And if they don't, that doesn't mean you should dismiss it.

But part of the process has to be spreading better approaches. E.g., if you are thinking in terms of ethics of care and they are thinking in terms of winning the argument, that doesn't mean your ethics of care are no longer important, but you can't just take on the whole burden of solidarity yourself.

And this person with their ideology has some reason for holding that ideology, and that reason is probably a more effective place to connect than the ideology itself.

And that's to say nothing of the problem that usually when people talk about solving a problem, they want two things: comfort/care, and to solve the problem.

Prioritizing comfort/care is totally valid, maybe even correct. Particularly if the problem can't be solved.

But when someone has unreasonable demands, and you want to prioritize comfort/care, the point is to figure out how to do that, not to take the top-layer communication as if it were literally what they need to communicate.

Also, just to be clear, what I mean by ideology is things like "capitalism is the best way to distribute resources."

When someone says that, I can immediately agree with them that we need a way to distribute resources, and that indeed capitalism might be the best way. And then we can talk about how to test that theory.

By doing that I'm validating their core need, and gently interrogating the ideology in a way that fosters cooperation.

I don't actually care which ideology is correct. My goal is just to identify what we can cooperate on now. And if I'm not stupid in how I communicate about it (which I usually am, don't get me started, this is a work in progress, quit hassling me :) we can now cooperate without ever deciding who is right about the ideology.

BTW, I don't mean to minimize your struggle, but rather to participate in it. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong!

Marc Trius 2d ago

@mttaggart what if evil is both individual and social, and has both individual and social remedies in the appropriate contexts?

@alter_kaker Whatever "evil" is manifests in both frames, sure, although that feels orthogonal to my point.

Marc Trius 2d ago

@mttaggart maybe I'm missing your point then 😊

@mttaggart You've probably already heard, but BP invented the concept of an individual "carbon footprint" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

But I've been feeling this way about the political system too. Its very popular to blame voters for choosing wrong or not bothering to vote, rather than looking at the dynamics of why that happens. We are only allowed dog shit options, then a ton of people point fingers at each other no matter how it shakes out.

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook

Climate-conscious individual choices are good – but not nearly enough to save the planet. More than personal virtue, we need collective action

The Guardian

@unlofl @mttaggart I don't disagree, but I struggle with this, because We the People are at least somewhat responsible for electing good government and, where necessary, working outside the system to bring about change. Is Jeff Bezos going to go quietly? Absolutely not. Can we throw our hands up and do nothing? Absolutely not. The system is responsible, but so are people, and too many people actually like hurting others. What if the body politic is actually a rotting corpse?

@theorangetheme @mttaggart I just don't think its useful to complain about people who don't vote, and yelling at them to vote won't work, they've heard it all before.

Instead, the way to actually change this is to force politicians to get a little better, so they can build support, so that support can push them to be better... I think a lot of this is based on the defeatist idea that politicians can't influence public opinion or don't need to try.

@theorangetheme @mttaggart

I think a lot of people are just discouraged and don't think the system can ever improve or help them, and desperately want change.

Some of that sentiment got idiots to support Trump, just because he seemed different and said he would shake things up.

That sentiment was also why Sanders got so much support from slightly more informed people, including "not likely voters."

I think Dems are doomed if they don't even claim to have a vision about changing things.

@unlofl @mttaggart I agree. I mean, that's sort of where I am, honestly. I'll still vote, because it's something, I guess, but I stopped pretending that corporate democrats are an actual opposition party, even if they change their profile pictures to rainbows during Pride. Some of the things Congressional democrats did during Trump II made me seriously consider never voting again, which shocked me. So yeah, I get it. :/

@unlofl @mttaggart I like to joke that Gavin Newsom wouldn't put me in a camp, but he also wouldn't try to get me out of a camp, either.

@theorangetheme @mttaggart Gavin Fucking Newsom would get some PR consultants and put together a focus group to determine if closing the camps is a winning political move, and at least meet with lobbyists representing whoever is making money on it.

You know, all the "stake holders"

@unlofl @mttaggart Exactly. And then he'd have the camp director on his podcast to show that, you know, we can all just talk to each other as humans.

@theorangetheme @mttaggart Hottest take I agree with is that "Liberals see their role as mediating between the oppressors and the oppressed"

You know, not leaders, middle managers.

@unlofl @mttaggart We're gonna have a lot of work to do to rebuild this godforsaken country after all is said and done...

Helga 2d ago

@mttaggart I feel this about consumption generally. I do my best to lower my footprint but I refuse to beat myself up about coffee pods when corporations are bribing the government to pour toxic waste into rivers etc, etc, etc.

The Doctor 2d ago

@mttaggart May I quote you on that?

@drwho Sure!

@mttaggart Thank you kindly.

Chris 2d ago

@mttaggart Yes. This resonates with me big-time. I don't want to have to consult some ideological purity chart just to buy a thing I need for example. And I live in a small town, meaning my options are already severely limited.

If my options are to buy something from an online retailer with dubious morality or drive two hours one way to buy it at a supposedly "better" company, then the latter isn't really a valid option.

The recycling metaphor is a good one. Corporations put the burden of "guilt" on the individual instead of being held accountable for their actions.

Paddy Duke 2d ago

@mttaggart I lean more towards deontology than other philosophies, but I broadly agree. At the very least, policing individual ethical ‘purity’ while states and corporations run amok is an inefficient use of that energy.

That said, I still think over-indexing on utilitarianism has contributed significantly to the state we’re in now.

A sentence I see far too often is some version of, “Putting aside the ethical concerns, and harms to X, [product/tech] has some very impressive uses for Y.”

Ms. Rachel Andry (Isn't Real)2d ago

@mttaggart I feel like he consequent of "individual choices in aggregate will not solve systemic issues" isn't "I don't need to consider my individual choices at all," but instead "where can I direct my limited energy that will make the most direct impact on people's lives."

to give a few examples:

1) the act of refusing to engage with media by the wizard lady who's currently funding trans genocide in the U.K. may only have a negligible impact in terms of ratings or advertising money, but it also costs you literally nothing in terms of time or effort, so you might as well do it.

2) wearing a mask indoors requires significant effort, but it also has a direct impact on others' lives by way of harm prevention (that is, not willingly taking part in spreading a mass-disabling virus).

3) worrying about one's carbon footprint both requires a lot of effort (research, "ethical" spending, etc.) and has a negligible at best impact on climate catastrophe, because most pollution is caused by big corporations.

it's clear, then, that 1 and 2, but not 3, are worth doing.

@YKantRachelRead I think that's broadly correct, but then we get into a conversation about which activities are virtuous and worthwhile, and which are not. Which products/tools are acceptable, which are not.

And boy howdy, are there some opinions about that. I have some of them myself! They're not all useful!

Ooze 𓁟 2d ago

@mttaggart It is for very good reason that eternal vigilance is so often cited as of paramount importance in the maintenance of moral ideals. Your last sentence exemplifies the difficulties of the present age i.e. we have been pushed to our limits by the demands of capital. Now, in this harried state, we find it hard to summon up the energies to defend the moral positions which will prevent us from being sucked further into the maw of the machine. This is one of the goals of the machine and we owe it to ourselves to strive against it.