You will never fix bug #0.1
- July 21st, 2008
- Posted in Tips & Tricks . Ubuntu
- By
- Write comment
I tend to agree with you on most of the things you said…but, you (and others including me) will never fix bug #0.1 ==> The Human
It’s not possible, neither in a free software society nor in the real world, never. Or, well, yes, just advocate a genocide of all human beings…this would be the one and only solution to fix this bug, really.
But as you wrote: "The first is that at a community level we have some form of rough moral consensus that advocating genocide is Just Wrong [...]"…so this is not a good solution to the problem.
So how could we find a better way to live together?
- be objective to others:
don’t judge because of your moral views, judge from the rational view, i.e.
your example of this "upskirt" article on Planet Fedora:- Rational: "this girl didn’t give her agreement to photograph and to publish it"
- Moral: "terrible, because it has sexual content, imho / she doesn’t look nice / the skirt is not short"
- sometimes you need to be a dick
No, really, there is already a bigger dick coming after you…really, so it doesn’t really matter to be a dick sometimes. - let people be people, don’t change them, because they won’t
"Assholes" won’t change, because someone says so. They shouldn’t change at all. Because if they are wrong, they’ll lose anyways…but if they are right, they’ll win, and the guy who tried to change this "asshole" will be the one to blame… - let people be people
Darwin tried to explain that long time ago…and Abba sang a song: "The Winner Takes It All" - To fix our problem really easy:
" V: But again, truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror." (Quote from "V for Vendetta", yes also from the Writers of "The fucking Matrix" (O-Quote: MJG59))
So, look into a mirror, tell yourself, that you are not a dick, that you are without any fault, and that you can throw the very first stone (Kudos to the author who wrote those words into the Holy Book Of The Christian Religion, which doesn’t really fix mankind not even start to fix it, quite the opposite…damn, I just forgot Point 1, right? Oh man, I’m such a dick!)
As you can see, there is no real way to have common commitment…you will kick someones ass all the time…but we learn from our faults of the past and present in the future, and we are getting better…really… it … just … takes … time … with or without our views, comments, articles or speeches. And this applies for everybody…not only men.
(Workaround: a) Don’t setup a planet aggregator host, b) don’t read blogs, c) move along)
Kind regards,
Stephan
Rational: “this girl didn’t give her agreement to photograph and to publish it”
Moral: “terrible, because it has sexual content, imho / she doesn’t look nice / the skirt is not short”
Actually, the first one is a moral argument, not a rational one. It’s morally wrong to take someone’s photo and publish it without their permission, not rationally wrong. Rationally, if you can get away with it, why not?
“It has sexual content” is a cultural argument, IMHO. “She doesn’t look nice” is a personal preference. “The skirt is not short” is an opinion (with no conclusion).
In short, all the examples you gave were straw figures, you gave them incorrect labels.
For me the rational view is really "she/he didn’t give her/his agreement", because that is what it is…
The moral view in this case is more the subjective side…
Let’s just try to solve #1, for now.
Where in “she/he didn’t give her/his agreement” do you find that it should not be published? I can not find it there. The only way you can process that fact “she/he didn’t give her/his agreement” rationally and end up with “you should not publish it” is to add a moral fact in addition to the first. (*rant* The trick most people in the west use to try to get away from that fact is to claim thattheir morality is neutral, but they always fail to prove it. I have seen moral that is objective, right, wrong, etc but I have yet to see any moral that is neutral */rant*)
Where in “she/he didn’t give her/his agreement” do you find that it should not be published? I can not find it there. The only way you can process that fact “she/he didn’t give her/his agreement” rationally and end up with “you should not publish it” is to add a moral fact in addition to the first. (rant: The trick most people in the west use to try to get away from that fact is to claim that their morality is neutral, but they always fail to prove it. I have seen moral that is objective but never one who’s neutrality could survive a minute of thinking)
TBH,
to publish or not to publish is something I can’t judge. If someone means, who took the picture in the first place, it needs to be published, it’s his decision.
Where I come from, there is one saying: "If you have something, you want to say, speak up, if not move along, but if you speak up, you need to take the consequences"…which means: If this guy publishes the photo, and someone recognizes him/herself, and doesn’t agree with it, there is always the chance, that the person on the picture will come to the guy who took the photo, and sue/ask him/her to remove it or go to court.
From the area where I come from, the sueing part was more, to hit someones head deep in the dust, and kick it very hard.
So, from my rational view: It can be hard to proof that this guy is on the right side of the law, when there is law which prohibits those pictures, without an agreement, the proof can be quite easy.
From my moral view: It’s his/her decision to take the photo, eventually to publish it publicly, but if someone comes and kicks his arse because of his/her action, he/she should face it like a proud woman/man, because he/she decided to do what he did. But, we can’t judge him on his decision, because we are not on the picture, neither can we kick his arse, because we are not involved in general at all.