ethics
-
This New York Times Magazine article is nominally about Internet trolls, but it's more of a high-level essay on morality and ethics on decentralized networks.
Why inflict anguish on a helpless stranger? It’s tempting to blame technology, which increases the range of our communications while dehumanizing the recipients... But while technology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse. This seems to spring from something ugly — a destructive human urge that many feel but few act upon, the ambient misanthropy that’s a frequent ingredient of art, politics and, most of all, jokes. There’s a lot of hate out there, and a lot to hate as well.
(22) #8/1/2008
The sustainable lifestyle picker
This interview with Taras Grescoe about his book Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood got me thinking. In the interview, Grescoe gets into some detail about which fishes you should avoid and which you should seek if you want to support sustainable fishing practices. This information isn't entirely new to me, as I've spent some time browsing the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch website in the past, but I admit that I rarely keep these considerations in mind when I'm at the seafood counter or at a restaurant. (I've been pretty good in avoiding swordfish and Chilean sea bass, but salmon and shrimp are hard to resist.)
I'm also in the midst of reading Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, so recently I've been overwhelmed with information about sustainable and ethical living. It seems to me that there's no way even an informed and conscious eater could manage to weigh and measure all the various consequences of their daily routines without resorting to a life of ascetism or obsession, and even then the inevitable unpredictability of this complex world is likely to lead you to misinformed behavior.
So what kinds of decisions should a concerned individual make to best support sustainable living? Is it more important to eat locally, eat the right seafood, cut down beef consumption, or something else? The answer of course depends on what issues are subjectively more important to you.
Ideally, I'd have access to a reliable tool where I could go and add moral weights to a slate of issues: energy independence, pollution, biodiversity, animal cruelty, human rights, etc. The tool would then display a ranked list of lifestyle changes that would best further your moral goals, so that you could, e.g., choose to focus more of your efforts on cutting your beef consumption than avoiding farmed shrimp. Such a tool would be even more useful if it could also be relevant for the average suburban American -- e.g., what are the best fast food restaurants to patronize, or the best dishes at Applebee's?
This tool certainly would have to be built upon expert opinion to determine how the weighted issues relate to each lifestyle change, and even then there's still no way to avoid some level of arbitrariness and uncertainty. But, if possible, it would be good to have some knowledgeable filter on ethical living that doesn't solely rely on television newsmagazines, government regulation, or market forces.
In truth, I wouldn't expect that such a tool would be accurate and effective in practice due to the sheer complexity of the world, but I'd like to try one anyway out of curiosity. It'd be like one of those candidate picker websites. Anyone have a link?
-
BBC News presents five ethical situations where you have to choose whose life (or lives) to save. Mostly variants of "would you save one life if it killed five." (thx, brian)
(7) # 5/3/2006
-
"[T]he cult of the anonymous source..." At this point in the Judith Miller affair, I am officially uncertain about where the lines should be drawn concerning journalists and anonymous sources. When should journalists be immune to legal action when protecting their sources? I have no idea. But this essay by Michael Kinsley of Slate has begun to convince me that journalists may be taking this source protection thing too far. (But I'm not sure I agree with his money = speech assessment).
(0) # 10/20/2005

Recent comments
Jon May
1 day 12 hours ago
crazymonk
1 day 13 hours ago
Jon May
1 day 13 hours ago
melinda
1 day 14 hours ago
leum
1 day 17 hours ago
RumorsDaily
2 days 9 hours ago
Jesse
2 days 9 hours ago
jbg.
2 days 14 hours ago
jbg.
2 days 14 hours ago
Jesse
3 days 2 hours ago