![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A question that has come up in two comments I've been pondering my reply to 1 and on which I think I may actually have a really basic ethical difference about:
Lets assume a certain act is "bad" under your ethical code. It's hurtful, unethical, immoral, etc. If you did it yourself you would be being immoral/unethical.
If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?
Because I say yes. Inaction is itself an action. It's not the same as doing the "bad" act yourself, but it's not completely different either.
To go back to the Bible2, everyone but the Good Samaritan was complicit in the suffering of the victim.
See also First they came....
In the context of social justice, if you live in an unjust society (and unless you're reading this in some distant perfect future3, you are) and you do nothing to work against that, you are complicit in that injustice. Which means you have to work hard just to stay still, so to speak, which is horribly unfair but it's just another side effect of the broader unfairness of the social injustice.
Which is not to say that doing nothing makes you a bad person, life is hard and there's only so much you can do. But nor is it inherently better than doing actively bad things, and in some cases it may be worse (the same way that bad medical assistance is often, but not always, better than none).
To give an example: one of the Big Things in RaceFail09 was white authors saying "Well, if I write POC characters they will probably end up being a bit racist even if I try my best. So the least racist4 thing to do is to only write white characters!" (See Talking About (And To) David Levine)
But the active racism of a mildly racist depiction is probably better than the passive racism of following the all-or-mostly-white-characters status quo (where to draw the line is a matter of opinion)5. And there is NO WAY not to be a bit racist in whatever you do. Which sucks, but hey.
So, do people agree? Or do you not see inaction as just another form of action, subject the same moral/ethical rules (whatever they are, depending on your own POV) as, uh, active action? (You can tell I never studied philosophy, there's probably proper jargon for this stuff) Is there some hole in my argument or description?
1)It's quite possible you weren't arguing this anyway, and I do intend on writing individual replies. But now I can leave out a chunk of my argument and maybe stay under the comment length limit :)
2)I may not be christian, but I think Jesus was pretty good with the educational metaphorical story. See also... :)
3)In which case, hi from the past, hypothetical future person!
4)Where by "racist" I mean "acting in a way to support society wide racial prejudice", not "Actively and consciously discriminating against people based on race".
5) Which is better for an individual story on aesthetic grounds being of course a totally different question.
Lets assume a certain act is "bad" under your ethical code. It's hurtful, unethical, immoral, etc. If you did it yourself you would be being immoral/unethical.
If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?
Because I say yes. Inaction is itself an action. It's not the same as doing the "bad" act yourself, but it's not completely different either.
To go back to the Bible2, everyone but the Good Samaritan was complicit in the suffering of the victim.
See also First they came....
In the context of social justice, if you live in an unjust society (and unless you're reading this in some distant perfect future3, you are) and you do nothing to work against that, you are complicit in that injustice. Which means you have to work hard just to stay still, so to speak, which is horribly unfair but it's just another side effect of the broader unfairness of the social injustice.
Which is not to say that doing nothing makes you a bad person, life is hard and there's only so much you can do. But nor is it inherently better than doing actively bad things, and in some cases it may be worse (the same way that bad medical assistance is often, but not always, better than none).
To give an example: one of the Big Things in RaceFail09 was white authors saying "Well, if I write POC characters they will probably end up being a bit racist even if I try my best. So the least racist4 thing to do is to only write white characters!" (See Talking About (And To) David Levine)
But the active racism of a mildly racist depiction is probably better than the passive racism of following the all-or-mostly-white-characters status quo (where to draw the line is a matter of opinion)5. And there is NO WAY not to be a bit racist in whatever you do. Which sucks, but hey.
So, do people agree? Or do you not see inaction as just another form of action, subject the same moral/ethical rules (whatever they are, depending on your own POV) as, uh, active action? (You can tell I never studied philosophy, there's probably proper jargon for this stuff) Is there some hole in my argument or description?
1)It's quite possible you weren't arguing this anyway, and I do intend on writing individual replies. But now I can leave out a chunk of my argument and maybe stay under the comment length limit :)
2)I may not be christian, but I think Jesus was pretty good with the educational metaphorical story. See also... :)
3)In which case, hi from the past, hypothetical future person!
4)Where by "racist" I mean "acting in a way to support society wide racial prejudice", not "Actively and consciously discriminating against people based on race".
5) Which is better for an individual story on aesthetic grounds being of course a totally different question.
no subject
no subject
Sticking a token character of any sort in is just making life difficult for your narrative, and possibly being insulting.
Well yes, but deliberately avoiding non-white characters can be just as damaging. See the works of Joss Whedon (when white Australians notice how unrealistically white your setting is, you're doing something wrong) *adds extra footnote*
I mean if you (general you, not you you :)) really only feel like writing white characters and to write anything else would make your writing suck, well, I guess you should only write white characters..but you're still somewhat complicit with the extreme whiteness of fiction. It's just that in this particular case it's the lesser of two evils. Same way some authors really are better off not writing any female characters (or at least not giving them any dialogue or plot) But all things being equal...
I've been trying to make my writing more diverse and have found it's helped my writing, helped shake up some of my preconceptions etc (I ask myself "WHY is this character white/male/straight etc?" And either there's a good answer and I understand the character better, or there's no good answer and I design them more thoughtfully). But I'm still probably not going to add any POC to my Jane Austen fic :)
EDIT: An example where avoiding diversity really detracts from a story imo: science fiction and fantasy which plays around with gender and reproduction and doesn't ask "How does this affect GLBT people?" or has aliens which are completely and compulsorily heteronormative and implies this is exactly the same as humans and so on. One of the glaring flaws in the otherwise excellent "Lillith's Brood" series, for example.
no subject
I also have the same reaction to fantasy novels which only focus on the Good And Righteous King regaining his throne from the Evil Userpers, completely ignoring 99% of the population who live in muttle and daub, but expecting them all to come out and fight and die at the appropriate moment.
no subject
no subject
-may have considered the odds so far against them that they wouldn't have been able to help whatsoever
-have a serious heart condition that would put them at huge risk if they got worked up
-have somewhere genuinely more important to get to fast etc.
9 times in 10 inaction has no such excuse, but you can't persecute somebody unless you are really sure. Then there is also weighing up the pros and cons of acting in a situation, which is somewhat subjective, and the other person may come to a different conclusion to you, even if you do know all the facts, and not necessarily be 'wrong' for their differing opinion.
As to the writing-about-POC thing, I think if I was an author and concerned about race and how many POC to include and if I could write about them fairly, I would just not mention the race of at least a good number of my characters... it's not exactly a relevant feature in the majority of stories, and if it is a relevant feature it should be pretty clear to the author whether or not they should include them.
no subject
As a reader I've been trying not to assume that characters are white (or male or whatever) unless the text explicitly says so, it's been interesting (and then of course they mostly end up turning out to be blond or whatever)
no subject
The crunch has to be in that 'could'. How do you define 'could'? 'Could' as in if you set aside all your other priorities and devoted time and energy to just this? Or 'could' as in fitting it around your other needs and obligations? That difference is how most of us sleep at night.
Think of it like charities. You could theoretically give to any charity. But you cannot give to every charity. At some point you have to make a decision about the extent and direction of the charitable giving you do and the charitable giving that you do not do.
I also think the world is too complicated to think in terms of bad and good. You just have to try to lighten your own shade of grey as far as possible.
So turning a blind eye is 'bad' but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sometimes it is a very sensible choice. And sometimes of course it isn't.
Personally, I try to make each decision on an individual basis depending on the current circumstances and the people involved, because if I tried to make rules for myself I would probably forget half of them.
no subject
Oh yes, definitely.
no subject
There are two chapters in the Tao Te Ching that I turn too when the world is being particularly sucky.
The first is about moral relativity Chapter 2.
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
One person's good is another person's bad. Most people don't wake up and say 'hahahaha, I'm am going to perform evil acts rubs hands together' the world isn't that black and white, if it was, well, it would make life so much easier wouldn't it? That's why fundamental monotheist religions (predominantly islam and christianity) are so popular, someone tells you this is wrong, this is right, there isn't any of that crazy thinking or shades of grey to confuse things.
Sometimes good people do bad things, sometimes bad people do good things, sometimes bad things are done for good reasons and vice versa. If you put a line in the sand then that's the greatest injustice of all, because not every case is the same, not every evil is ...well evil.
The other chapter that I hold fast too, and it's possibly my favourite (depending, my favourites change all the bloody time).
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.
Keep to the three treasures, and if that isn't enough, let things take their natural course.
The three treasures: simplicity, patience, compassion.
If you do the right thing in life, if you live your life well, if you respect others, that's a big impact on the world, if you live your life the way you want the world to be, truly live your life that way, you are a living example to others.
Real life example, the United States, the country, it shouldn't interfere with the affairs of other nations, it should invest it's resources to being the best damn country in the world socially, and democratically, and the rest of the world will look at the United State and say 'wow, that is cool ' I truly believe that would have a more positive impact on the world then it's military interference.
Never undestimate the power of example, it's done more good in the world then I believe people realise.
Source: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
no subject
Which adds up to: all things being equal, if you're going to expend a certain amount of energy it's probably more ethical and more effective to change your own behaviour than to change anyone else's.
So, to return to the good samaritan example, not attacking people > helping an attack victim > actively pursuing attackers. Are you arguing that it is better not to help attack victims or am I missing your point? I can understand not pursuing the attackers, while I disagree I can kind of see the logic (and I believe in pluralism and all that :)), but if someone is asking you for help and you can help them then I think it's immoral not to.
I mean with the example of American foreign policy, I think the main issue is that they
a)Actively do a lot of harmful things overseas (pursuing destructive trade policies for example) and
b)Don't respect other countries autonomy even when they're "helping" ("liberating" Iraq against their will, for example)
So step one is definitely for them to stop that. But I don't think it's bad for them to support the requests for aid from countries with problems they're not able to solve themselves (after an earthquake say. Or as a result of previous American foreign policy)
well, I was being a bit esoteric (as usual)
Oh hell, I'm a moron, I'm always throwing myself in the way of danger to help other people, except at the time I'm way too angry to think about self-preservation. Just ask my mother, she thinks I'm going to get myself killed one day.
But that's tangible, I see something, I react. When it comes to more intangible, to things in the world which I can't directly change, then I'm a bit more philosophical about it.
But sometimes it's best not to do something, for example...someone with a drug addiction, you can only go so far to help, before you gotta sit back and let them muddle through it. You can't force people to overcome addiction, you can't force people to leave an abusive relationship, you can't save people from themselves.
That's a really hard thing to realise.
But I don't think it's bad for them to support the requests for aid from countries with problems they're not able to solve themselves
If only things were that simple. It really isn't by the way, even seemingly gifts of charity, also a political reason behind, always a debt to be paid. This is why countries always get a bit antsy when a more powerful nation offers to send in troops to help in an natural disaster, it's walking a fine line there.
Re: well, I was being a bit esoteric (as usual)
Absolutely. If it's not clear than any active action will do more harm than good then it probably is best to default to doing nothing.
You make a good point about the aid thing. I just read an interesting book about world debt and agriculture etc, it's certainly pretty complicated.
EDIT: Obviously you don't need me to tell you about this, but for reference and anyone else here's an article from the accompanying website. *goes to write review of the book*
no subject
I don't believe in evil or good. I don't believe in absolutes, and anytime someone uses the word evil, or uses terms like 'That's wrong, or you're wrong' unless you're talking about some tangible fact.
And I get really itchy in my fingers when people throw such terms around, because it's so obvious to me that the world isn't that way.
But then other people seem so sure that the world is all black and white, or right or wrong, and I'm like 'How can you live you life like that?'. Because you can throw the most seemingly 'evil' example at me, and I'm like, but what about the bigger picture.
That's just me.
no subject
In fact so far you've hit on a large selection of my "Huge topics I have majorly conflicting but strongly held views on" :)
no subject
no subject
I am not saying that this will or won't happen, but I do think the reasoning is more fear based than 'thinking of other peoples feelings' based.
no subject
no subject
In so far as the race thing goes:
Edward James Olmos is a FRAKING BAD ASS -->
http://odeo.com/episodes/24336353-Battlestar-Galactica-at-the-United-Nations-VIDEO
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sticking a token character of any sort in is just making life difficult for your narrative, and possibly being insulting.
Well yes, but deliberately avoiding non-white characters can be just as damaging. See the works of Joss Whedon (when white Australians notice how unrealistically white your setting is, you're doing something wrong) *adds extra footnote*
I mean if you (general you, not you you :)) really only feel like writing white characters and to write anything else would make your writing suck, well, I guess you should only write white characters..but you're still somewhat complicit with the extreme whiteness of fiction. It's just that in this particular case it's the lesser of two evils. Same way some authors really are better off not writing any female characters (or at least not giving them any dialogue or plot) But all things being equal...
I've been trying to make my writing more diverse and have found it's helped my writing, helped shake up some of my preconceptions etc (I ask myself "WHY is this character white/male/straight etc?" And either there's a good answer and I understand the character better, or there's no good answer and I design them more thoughtfully). But I'm still probably not going to add any POC to my Jane Austen fic :)
EDIT: An example where avoiding diversity really detracts from a story imo: science fiction and fantasy which plays around with gender and reproduction and doesn't ask "How does this affect GLBT people?" or has aliens which are completely and compulsorily heteronormative and implies this is exactly the same as humans and so on. One of the glaring flaws in the otherwise excellent "Lillith's Brood" series, for example.
no subject
I also have the same reaction to fantasy novels which only focus on the Good And Righteous King regaining his throne from the Evil Userpers, completely ignoring 99% of the population who live in muttle and daub, but expecting them all to come out and fight and die at the appropriate moment.
no subject
no subject
-may have considered the odds so far against them that they wouldn't have been able to help whatsoever
-have a serious heart condition that would put them at huge risk if they got worked up
-have somewhere genuinely more important to get to fast etc.
9 times in 10 inaction has no such excuse, but you can't persecute somebody unless you are really sure. Then there is also weighing up the pros and cons of acting in a situation, which is somewhat subjective, and the other person may come to a different conclusion to you, even if you do know all the facts, and not necessarily be 'wrong' for their differing opinion.
As to the writing-about-POC thing, I think if I was an author and concerned about race and how many POC to include and if I could write about them fairly, I would just not mention the race of at least a good number of my characters... it's not exactly a relevant feature in the majority of stories, and if it is a relevant feature it should be pretty clear to the author whether or not they should include them.
no subject
As a reader I've been trying not to assume that characters are white (or male or whatever) unless the text explicitly says so, it's been interesting (and then of course they mostly end up turning out to be blond or whatever)
no subject
The crunch has to be in that 'could'. How do you define 'could'? 'Could' as in if you set aside all your other priorities and devoted time and energy to just this? Or 'could' as in fitting it around your other needs and obligations? That difference is how most of us sleep at night.
Think of it like charities. You could theoretically give to any charity. But you cannot give to every charity. At some point you have to make a decision about the extent and direction of the charitable giving you do and the charitable giving that you do not do.
I also think the world is too complicated to think in terms of bad and good. You just have to try to lighten your own shade of grey as far as possible.
So turning a blind eye is 'bad' but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Sometimes it is a very sensible choice. And sometimes of course it isn't.
Personally, I try to make each decision on an individual basis depending on the current circumstances and the people involved, because if I tried to make rules for myself I would probably forget half of them.
no subject
Oh yes, definitely.
no subject
There are two chapters in the Tao Te Ching that I turn too when the world is being particularly sucky.
The first is about moral relativity Chapter 2.
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
One person's good is another person's bad. Most people don't wake up and say 'hahahaha, I'm am going to perform evil acts rubs hands together' the world isn't that black and white, if it was, well, it would make life so much easier wouldn't it? That's why fundamental monotheist religions (predominantly islam and christianity) are so popular, someone tells you this is wrong, this is right, there isn't any of that crazy thinking or shades of grey to confuse things.
Sometimes good people do bad things, sometimes bad people do good things, sometimes bad things are done for good reasons and vice versa. If you put a line in the sand then that's the greatest injustice of all, because not every case is the same, not every evil is ...well evil.
The other chapter that I hold fast too, and it's possibly my favourite (depending, my favourites change all the bloody time).
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.
Keep to the three treasures, and if that isn't enough, let things take their natural course.
The three treasures: simplicity, patience, compassion.
If you do the right thing in life, if you live your life well, if you respect others, that's a big impact on the world, if you live your life the way you want the world to be, truly live your life that way, you are a living example to others.
Real life example, the United States, the country, it shouldn't interfere with the affairs of other nations, it should invest it's resources to being the best damn country in the world socially, and democratically, and the rest of the world will look at the United State and say 'wow, that is cool ' I truly believe that would have a more positive impact on the world then it's military interference.
Never undestimate the power of example, it's done more good in the world then I believe people realise.
Source: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
no subject
Which adds up to: all things being equal, if you're going to expend a certain amount of energy it's probably more ethical and more effective to change your own behaviour than to change anyone else's.
So, to return to the good samaritan example, not attacking people > helping an attack victim > actively pursuing attackers. Are you arguing that it is better not to help attack victims or am I missing your point? I can understand not pursuing the attackers, while I disagree I can kind of see the logic (and I believe in pluralism and all that :)), but if someone is asking you for help and you can help them then I think it's immoral not to.
I mean with the example of American foreign policy, I think the main issue is that they
a)Actively do a lot of harmful things overseas (pursuing destructive trade policies for example) and
b)Don't respect other countries autonomy even when they're "helping" ("liberating" Iraq against their will, for example)
So step one is definitely for them to stop that. But I don't think it's bad for them to support the requests for aid from countries with problems they're not able to solve themselves (after an earthquake say. Or as a result of previous American foreign policy)
well, I was being a bit esoteric (as usual)
Oh hell, I'm a moron, I'm always throwing myself in the way of danger to help other people, except at the time I'm way too angry to think about self-preservation. Just ask my mother, she thinks I'm going to get myself killed one day.
But that's tangible, I see something, I react. When it comes to more intangible, to things in the world which I can't directly change, then I'm a bit more philosophical about it.
But sometimes it's best not to do something, for example...someone with a drug addiction, you can only go so far to help, before you gotta sit back and let them muddle through it. You can't force people to overcome addiction, you can't force people to leave an abusive relationship, you can't save people from themselves.
That's a really hard thing to realise.
But I don't think it's bad for them to support the requests for aid from countries with problems they're not able to solve themselves
If only things were that simple. It really isn't by the way, even seemingly gifts of charity, also a political reason behind, always a debt to be paid. This is why countries always get a bit antsy when a more powerful nation offers to send in troops to help in an natural disaster, it's walking a fine line there.
Re: well, I was being a bit esoteric (as usual)
Absolutely. If it's not clear than any active action will do more harm than good then it probably is best to default to doing nothing.
You make a good point about the aid thing. I just read an interesting book about world debt and agriculture etc, it's certainly pretty complicated.
EDIT: Obviously you don't need me to tell you about this, but for reference and anyone else here's an article from the accompanying website. *goes to write review of the book*
no subject
I don't believe in evil or good. I don't believe in absolutes, and anytime someone uses the word evil, or uses terms like 'That's wrong, or you're wrong' unless you're talking about some tangible fact.
And I get really itchy in my fingers when people throw such terms around, because it's so obvious to me that the world isn't that way.
But then other people seem so sure that the world is all black and white, or right or wrong, and I'm like 'How can you live you life like that?'. Because you can throw the most seemingly 'evil' example at me, and I'm like, but what about the bigger picture.
That's just me.
no subject
In fact so far you've hit on a large selection of my "Huge topics I have majorly conflicting but strongly held views on" :)
no subject
no subject
I am not saying that this will or won't happen, but I do think the reasoning is more fear based than 'thinking of other peoples feelings' based.
no subject
no subject
In so far as the race thing goes:
Edward James Olmos is a FRAKING BAD ASS -->
http://odeo.com/episodes/24336353-Battlestar-Galactica-at-the-United-Nations-VIDEO
no subject