-
22 votes
-
Scandal erupts over Netflix's no. 1 show 'What Jennifer Did' and possible use of artificial intelligence
12 votes -
The Homo Economicus as a prototype of a psychopath? A conceptual analysis and implications for business research and teaching.
6 votes -
The influencer who “reverses” Lupus with smoothies. Psychiatrist Brooke Goldner makes extraordinary claims about incurable diseases. It’s brought her a mansion, a Ferrari, and a huge social following.
18 votes -
Is an ethical social media platform even possible?
I've long been uncomfortable using platforms that have a bad reputation with respect to: Human rights / genocide Disinformation Privacy All three of those can be connected with advertising...
I've long been uncomfortable using platforms that have a bad reputation with respect to:
- Human rights / genocide
- Disinformation
- Privacy
All three of those can be connected with advertising revenue, among other things. When I use platforms that are shady in this regard, I know I'm colluding with them and contributing to the problems they create. So it's been a relief to see new platforms like Tildes emerge, as well as those based on ActivityPub.
But even platforms that don't have overt advertising (Telegram?) do have a problem with hate groups that go unchallenged. And I know that if I was running an instance of an ActivityPub compatible platform such as KBin, I mightn't be able to keep on top of moderating things like disinformation.
So I suppose my question is, where do you draw the line? I've deleted my Twitter and Meta accounts and I'm exploring alternatives, but I'm not sure if I'm going from the darkness to the light, or just into shades of grey.
38 votes -
Moral purism, personal responsibility, and dysfunctional standards
This is a post about the topics mentioned in the title, and how they are related in my life. I suspect it might provide a point of consideration and discussion for other members, as I provide an...
This is a post about the topics mentioned in the title, and how they are related in my life. I suspect it might provide a point of consideration and discussion for other members, as I provide an argument that could be applied to other people and situations.
For good or bad, I put much value on morality, and see the world through a moralizing lens. This is not necessarily a case of reducing everything to "evil choices", it's more complicated than that, but it's been bothering me for a long while. It's partially because I often find myself judging myself too harshly, especially after failing to live up to my moral ideals.
For example, I don't like overconsumption and the surrounding hyperconsumerist ideology, so I hadn't bought any sort of "geeky" merchandise for some years. It's because, even though I thoroughly enjoy fictional works, there's this hyperconsumerist ideology and culture surrounding geekdom. So I thought, and to some extent still think, that buying any kind of merchandise was being tricked by the system.
I bought a simple merchandise item -a mug- the other day, which prompted me to question why I bought it. It feels shameful to write even now, but it's because I thought I should treat myself to something. It was cute, after all. When I thought about this issue, I realized certain things.
For starters, I put too much emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to moral issues. One reason is I tend to blame myself. I often question myself first before questioning others or the wider picture. Another reason is that there are many, many moral tales that emphasize the role of personal responsibility. Too many stories have the hero look down on the villain and declare: "There's always a choice." And then the hero explicitly or implicitly says the villain just wasn't strong enough.
I think this is to a great degree due to how personal responsibility is mythologized in the contemporary culture. Abrahamic religions often put much emphasis on choosing the morally good choice. After all, the whole afterlife dichotomy is built upon this idea. Furthermore, with the "Enlightenment", the idea that individuals are rational and free to choose has become very prominent. So, both pre-modern and modern beliefs about morality puts much emphasis on personal responsibility.
This has different effects on different people, and I recognize that my experience is not necessarily generalizable, but I do think that it provides a kind of insight on some issues. At least for some people. Basically, I've come to realize that ethical issues have more of an emotional impact on me than most people. I also have a dysfunctional pattern of trying to live up to unreasonable standards. When these two and the emphasis on personal responsibility were combined, it created a very difficult pattern for me. It made me more vulnerable to moral purism.
I've recently realized why this moral purist tendency is straining for me, and there's a very simple why: it's because it's a thought that belongs to a fictional, idealized world. It doesn't consider the complexities and realities of the world I live in, it demands that I should live in that fictional, ideal world. In other words, it fails me, because it doesn't recognize that I'm a human with real needs and wants.
I don't mean this in the cliche "Oh, humans are imperfect," way, because that way of thinking still puts the moral purist way on a pedastal. It just tells you that you are weak and imperfect, and tells you to compromise. I think this is not a good way of looking at it, because it still reinforces the idealized thinking. It just tells you to make concessions, which is unacceptable to a perfectionist.
Instead, I say that it's a shitty psychology. This way of thinking doesn't consider how a human mind works, what it needs to be healthy and happy, and the overall workings of the world. Healthy thinking comes from being able to cope with realities of the world—in a way, it's being in tune with the reality you live in, and that necessitates recognizing your own emotional needs and wants. Moral purism encourages you to neglect your own emotional needs in pursuit of some fictional, impossible person you want to be. It's a fantasy.
In this context, it's healthy to come to terms with your own limits as a single person. The wider picture should be considered. For example, in my situation, buying merchandise now and then doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make this act morally bad. I live under capitalism, and no matter what I do, as long as I continue to live in a society, I will always contribute to its workings (and healthy people don't go "off the grid"). From my point of view, it's bad that doing things I love contributes to an inequalizing system, but in no reasonable way should I be expected to give up what little or moderate joys I get by participating in this system. Of course, there should be a limit regarding consumption, but the bar is certainly not as high as I thought.
This is my personal experience with moral purism. I think the culture of overemphasis on personal responsibility feeds into it. What are your thoughts about it? Have you had similar experiences? The don't have to be about consumerism, as moral purism is seen many, unrelated issues.
Note: This goes without saying, but this post doesn't suggest that having a better world in mind and striving for it is bad. It just criticizes an unhealthy way of approaching the mentioned topics.
16 votes -
The human element in AI-driven testing strategies
7 votes -
An AI-generated image of a Victorian MP raises wider questions on digital ethics
9 votes -
Addressing equity and ethics in artificial intelligence
13 votes -
We techies are responsible for "You'll own nothing, and you'll enjoy it."
This hit me while watching the latest Gamers Nexus video discussion with Wendell, and Steve recited the quote. It's often brought up as the inevitability of modern product ownership as company...
This hit me while watching the latest Gamers Nexus video discussion with Wendell, and Steve recited the quote.
It's often brought up as the inevitability of modern product ownership as company executives push profit-first practices like subscriptions, licenses and anti-right-to-repair designs. However this neglects the fact that these systems don't come from nowhere - they have to be built by programmers, engineers and designers.
I don't know if those same people support right-to-repair and freedom to manipulate what you buy in their private lives (or if they have even thought about it), but it seems like every techie I speak to does support it, yet somehow these things keep getting made.
I want to try and escape my bubble about this. I don't believe the engineers are powerless against the executives - if the engineering community works together and don't backstab, I think these systems can be prevented at the technical level and never see the light of day.
What happens at these notorious companies (John Deere, Apple etc.) that I'm missing? Is the lure of money too great? Is the threat of being back stabbed too large?
41 votes -
A 17th-century classic of Ethiopian philosophy might be a fake. Does it matter, or is that just how philosophy works?
14 votes -
Decolonise media: How do you cover genocide?
18 votes -
According to IRS leaked US data Warren Buffett sometimes privately traded stocks that Berkshire Hathaway was buying and selling
14 votes -
Novo Nordisk suggested to senior UK government officials that they could “profile” benefit claimants – those who are most likely to return to the labour market
17 votes -
The ritual of the calling of an engineer
30 votes -
Supreme Court, under pressure, issues non-binding ethics code for justices, without mechanisms for enforcement
48 votes -
My left kidney
24 votes -
What Ethical AI really means
13 votes -
The language used to describe AI risks
6 votes -
Navigating the buzzwords behind an ‘ethical’ bag of coffee
17 votes -
Tool safety
7 votes -
Professionals in Sweden are pushing back hard against a rightwing plan to make them snitch on undocumented migrants
23 votes -
Human trials of artificial wombs could start soon. Here’s what you need to know
11 votes -
How to regulate AI? Bioethicist David Magnus on medicine’s critical moment
4 votes -
For the first time in the United States, research with cephalopods might require approval by an ethics committee
21 votes -
Scientists grow whole model of human embryo, without sperm or egg
19 votes -
Chuuk Lagoon's skull problem
5 votes -
Meat eaters of Tildes - what have you tried to make use more ethical?
I'm going to start with three questions but feel free to propose your own: What if anything have you tried around finding and using more ethical sources of meat? What cooking methods and recipes...
I'm going to start with three questions but feel free to propose your own:
-
What if anything have you tried around finding and using more ethical sources of meat?
-
What cooking methods and recipes do you use that reduce the amount of meat you eat in a meal?
-
What vegetarian protein sources do you find palatable and tasty?
45 votes -
-
A single reform that could save 100,000 lives across the USA immediately
24 votes -
Failures in accuracy, ethics and responsibility with Linus Tech Tips and LMG as a whole
163 votes -
There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit
28 votes -
Not all porn is created equal - is there such a thing as a healthy pornography?
83 votes -
Storing dead people at -196°C
44 votes -
A fact-checked debate about euthanasia
21 votes -
Apple tests ‘Apple GPT,’ develops generative AI tools to catch OpenAI
17 votes -
Google is directing searchers straight to troves of nonconsensual deep fake porn, raising legal and ethical concerns
18 votes -
Expressing dual concern in criticism for wrongdoing: The persuasive power of criticizing with care
7 votes -
US Supreme Court justices and donors mingle at campus visits. These documents show the ethical dilemmas
27 votes -
A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast: Patrick Gray on Shakespeare
6 votes -
Women in Denmark can now take a blood test to identify genetic foetal abnormalities in early pregnancy. But it has raised ethical questions.
62 votes -
How we could stumble into AI catastrophe
12 votes -
"Ethical" brands that aren't living up to their hype vs what's actually a good one?
34 votes -
As humans, can we make way more ethical and utilitarian use of technology and internet than is currently happening?
Rewind yourself back by about two decades from now when the Berners Lee basic protocols like HTTP and HTML were just being formed and the internet as we know it was just being prepared (those who...
Rewind yourself back by about two decades from now when the Berners Lee basic protocols like HTTP and HTML were just being formed and the internet as we know it was just being prepared (those who weren't born can also visualize it as enough documentation and information exists).
What a world of opportunities it was and what a promising future. It felt you could do almost anything with the help of this new technology, irrespective of your race, gender, caste, creed, religion and even social status.
The promise of the information superhighway was that an ordinary pleb will have as many opportunities as those at the top, isn't it? Do you think that promise has been fulfilled today? Do you think we have made at least decent use (if not the best possible use) of this technology?
Now, I'm not saying everything is in doom and gloom, far from it as computing power has enabled the masses to do lot's of things they could only dream of in the 1990s! Opening your smartphone in the middle of a street and having a video call with a friend was like a fantasy dream in those days (at least for the ordinary pleb).
There are many other great achievements too like cheap hardware which is light years ahead (relatively speaking), apps that let you control all aspects of your lives from finances to health to work in a matter of a few taps.
But on the other hand, we have let a few large entities thrive and create massive monopolies on these very technologies we happen to use. Efforts at open source and digital rights and freedoms took on until about late 2000s but then started fading. Today, we have those very entities which are trying to curb user's freedoms heading and/or controlling organizations like OSI, Linux Foundation, Mozilla Corp., Red Hat, etc. which are supposed to act like stewards of our digital freedoms. The situation today is very gloomy in the sense that many of the digital freedoms that our predecessors fought for are on the verge of getting lost today at the hands of surveillance capitalism and we (as collective society of humans) are responsible for it.
Can we take an oath today to make as much ethical use of technologies like internet as possible? To act in as much a manner as possible that preserves the digital rights and freedoms of the common individual or pleb in the society like you and me?
I believe that's the only progressive and better path for humanity.
36 votes -
The real reasons you shouldn’t clone your dog
14 votes -
Should we be going back and editing games for content that doesn't fit with a modern viewpoint?
Thinking about the recent incident where the devs for Skullgirls (current devs, not original devs) went and changed a bunch of artwork and other content for the fighting game, which released in...
Thinking about the recent incident where the devs for Skullgirls (current devs, not original devs) went and changed a bunch of artwork and other content for the fighting game, which released in 2012 after being Kickstarted. Aside from removing the sexualized imagery of an underage character, probably a good call, what about the other things they've decided are in 'poor taste' in 2023?
Should we be going back and editing games, or even movies, tv shows, and books to reflect more modern sensibilities? Is a game like Skullgirls even worth preserving its original content?
My opinion is no, unless it's something that is now illegal, I don't really enjoy the precedent that's been set lately where we go back and correct past mistakes in media. However, I also see the argument about removing media that may encourage racist or sexist thinking or put down minorities, but is it useful to see the media as it was and see how far we've come? Is that useful enough? Should only the original creators make that decision?
Just thought this was interesting. Tag as desired.
48 votes -
Any vegans on Tildes?
If so, how did you become vegan, why, and what has your experience been like?
50 votes -
Compassion and the moral emotions in the work of Martha Nussbaum
3 votes -
Cambridge-Caltech team of scientists claim to have created synthetic human embryos from stem cells at conference; work not yet published
29 votes -
Peter Singer - Ordinary people are evil
8 votes -
The curious side effects of medical transparency
10 votes