To paraphrase a paraphrase I heard today: Modern ethics in the western world, thanks mainly to the proliferation of easy modes of communication and mass organization, has become more focused on people as activists, or members of moral 'groups' taking various stands and exhibiting various symbols of solidarity with each other. I cite as an archetypal example the facebook event where everybody is supposed to wear a pink shirt on the 25th to oppose bullying. It's incredibly popular, with tens of thousands of participants already signed up.
Now, I've always 'opposed' bullying, in the sense that I don't attempt to bully people, and in the other sense that if I see someone being pushed around and I can intervene usefully on the spot, I probably will (and on occasion I have done just that). This kind of moral thinking and action comes right out of greek philosophy (and thousands of years of its subsidiaries), and it is much more classical, independant from technology, and devoid of the 'activism' we see so prevalent today. One could say it is passive only with a trigger to become active in certain situations. Modern activism often simply takes the form of people making general gestures of general stances on certain kinds of action and thought. It is indirect, and very different in formulation.
Please ponder if you like: Does my choosing not to wear a pink shirt on the 25th make me less of an opposer of bullying? Are people who particiate more moral with respect to the specific issue? If everybody was wearing a pink shirt but me, would they perhaps assume I supported bullying?
If I make a facebook event "Wear a blue hat on the 26th to oppose serial killing," am I really doing anything moral at all? If so, then what? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious as to what anyone thinks would be a good answer. Keep in mind that we could make a theoretically endless list of groups and events wherby people wear arbitrary symbolic things to 'oppose' obvious moral crimes. As long as people agree together on what the arbitrary symbol is, and what the particular moral offence is to oppose, they're in business.
Sometimes I worry that people take such activism as a replacement for more direct moral action, in the sense that they think joining a facebook group or wearing a certain shirt abnegates them from having to consider whether to donate serious amounts of money, or run for political office, or take on a hard career that gives them a chance to really improve their society... I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying I worry that it might. It sounds a bit righteous, but I do believe that if we're to congratulate ourselves for our moral actions, there has have been at least some self-sacrifice involved.
Maybe the previous sentence is my only quarrel.
Now, I've always 'opposed' bullying, in the sense that I don't attempt to bully people, and in the other sense that if I see someone being pushed around and I can intervene usefully on the spot, I probably will (and on occasion I have done just that). This kind of moral thinking and action comes right out of greek philosophy (and thousands of years of its subsidiaries), and it is much more classical, independant from technology, and devoid of the 'activism' we see so prevalent today. One could say it is passive only with a trigger to become active in certain situations. Modern activism often simply takes the form of people making general gestures of general stances on certain kinds of action and thought. It is indirect, and very different in formulation.
Please ponder if you like: Does my choosing not to wear a pink shirt on the 25th make me less of an opposer of bullying? Are people who particiate more moral with respect to the specific issue? If everybody was wearing a pink shirt but me, would they perhaps assume I supported bullying?
If I make a facebook event "Wear a blue hat on the 26th to oppose serial killing," am I really doing anything moral at all? If so, then what? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious as to what anyone thinks would be a good answer. Keep in mind that we could make a theoretically endless list of groups and events wherby people wear arbitrary symbolic things to 'oppose' obvious moral crimes. As long as people agree together on what the arbitrary symbol is, and what the particular moral offence is to oppose, they're in business.
Sometimes I worry that people take such activism as a replacement for more direct moral action, in the sense that they think joining a facebook group or wearing a certain shirt abnegates them from having to consider whether to donate serious amounts of money, or run for political office, or take on a hard career that gives them a chance to really improve their society... I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying I worry that it might. It sounds a bit righteous, but I do believe that if we're to congratulate ourselves for our moral actions, there has have been at least some self-sacrifice involved.
Maybe the previous sentence is my only quarrel.
Comments
I agree that we are becoming a society that appears to be activistic but does not actually act so in their own lives. Take CNN's night for heros: One white woman was honoured for starting a running club in a "dangerous, black community". When she accepted the award, something like 10 thousand dollars, she asked us why we were awarding people for not being racist.
I think by rewarding someone like her, who just showed decency to another human being, and calling her a hero than we are telling our citizens that to act with kindness in your life is something heroic. Yet, heroic is the end all of good deeds and accomplishments, which puts pretty low standards on our society.
I digress. I think that creating awareness about issues such as bullying is key to addressing the issue; however, many people do not actually change the way they behave and incorporate their social activism into their personalities. Which is sad... I would rather have a decent amount of people in our population than have a movement to feel good about.
Or, for another example, the large majority of the muslim world (according to a massive Pew polling operation in '07) expresses /support/ for the suicide bombing of civilians in America and Israel (and elsewhere.) An Iranian who takes an outspoken stance against that insanity deserves a lot of praise and support, notwithstanding how obvious we think the stance really should be.
And about the pink shirts, I suspect that if the trend became so popular that only a few people /did not/ partake, those few people might be considered opponents in the eyes of the many. Consider the criticism and innuendo that Obama took for not wearing an American flag lapel pin last year during the election campaigns.