Is the Internet Beautiful?
We all know what the internet is - the global network of servers & computers which constitute what has been termed the information highway.
The one analogy used to describe the internet that struck a chord in me is that its a web. That immediately got me thinking about spiders. Now not all spiders have the same kind of web, but one that stands out is the roughly circular, aesthetically sound, webs spun by orb spiders. They're amazing works of engineering but that's not what I want to highlight. The web of orb spiders are beautiful, works of art in their own right.
Question: Is the worldwide website aka the internet beautiful? If yes, how? If no, should we beautify it? Why and how?
The one analogy used to describe the internet that struck a chord in me is that its a web. That immediately got me thinking about spiders. Now not all spiders have the same kind of web, but one that stands out is the roughly circular, aesthetically sound, webs spun by orb spiders. They're amazing works of engineering but that's not what I want to highlight. The web of orb spiders are beautiful, works of art in their own right.
Question: Is the worldwide website aka the internet beautiful? If yes, how? If no, should we beautify it? Why and how?
Comments (56)
If you're referring to aesthetics, I personally think that Internet is far away of being beautiful. It could help us to be connected and make stronger relationships. Nevertheless it is a place where most of the people involved don't know how to behave in. I miss, sometimes, more moderators flowing around in the webs.
For example: in this forum, if the mods consider that we are respecting the rules we are in the risk of being kinked out and I think it is fair. But, in big social media users we do not see the same control. Most of the people spread disinformation and hate without control. It is one of the most dangerous concerns we should care about.
Oh, another thing, inside Twitter, if the users are not agree with you, they quickly call you "fascist"
The fascist word is overused in Twitter
:ok: Great way to get this thread going! Although my intention was to discuss structural aesthetics of the www, it seems content too has a bearing on how beautiful/grotesque the internet is. So, yeah, the web is/maybe a work of art, but the venomous arcachnid at the center is truly hideous!
Exactly, it is a work of art and it has changed the world. But, sadly, most of the people are using a poisonous use of it
The whole relationship between the internet and beauty is interesting. Initially, computers seemed to be about the functionality but, gradually art became incorporated. This meant that art and design being incorporated, especially in graphics and illustration. When I was at school I wished to be an illustrator but chose not to go down that route because so much was becoming computer art and I wished to draw and paint. I have become aware of the way in which many have seized the opportunity and I had a friend who became a website designer. Also, some individuals make fantastic computer art, for example @PoeticUniverse on this site, and I don't know if you have seen his work.
There have been mixed reactions to the digital age of art but it is also likely that the internet has changed conceptions of aesthetics. Many choose to escape into the comforts of the virtual world, including reading, looking at images and listening to music, in a way which could become separate from appreciation of the aesthetics of the real world. It is a fantasy world with possibilities beyond the ugliness of many aspects of mundane daily lives. Like the media in general there are pictures which are enhanced by technical means and choice of selection. So, it is about the manufacture of aesthetics. Who knows where it will go and will AIs have the 'perfect' bodies, as some may have imagined in a different age as being only possible after a resurrection at the end of the world.
I never get called a fascist. I get called a woke leftist liberal communist degenerate. I used to get called a woolly liberal, which on the whole was rather more accurate.
Regarding the topic - yes, the internet is beautiful. All electromagnetic phenomena are beautiful from the Northern lights to the static on your woollen cardigan and from the sway of a compass to the crackle of connections on an electricity pylon. If you imagine yourself to be a single electron then you can explore the universe. There is also a distant terror in beauty, although you can search terror from top to bottom and find no beauty at all.
I think it depends on the country. Where I live, Twitter is controlled by leftist accounts. Whenever you are disagree with them, they quickly answer with the same word: "fascist" or "bourgeois"
I remember a debate about the monarchy and the the next (I wish) Queen of Spain. The tweets were about insulting her and a reference of guillotine. It was disgusting as hell.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting[/quote]
You broached an interesting topic: can AI produce art?
If we (make the egregious error) of distinguishing AI from humans based on the ability to create art, write poetry, basically differences based on creativitivity, I'm afraid we'll have to either categorize some of us as subhumans or others as superhumans. That, to my reckoning, is going to go sideways faster than you can say Jack Robinson. That's that!
Furthermore, we seem to make a hue and cry of how the glamor industry in particular and all others in general photoshop their products and services. We do the same for children and we don't complain, hiding the dark underbelly of humanity as it were and applying filters on their minds so that all they see are sunshine and rainbows.
Another point is that the internet is just a modern, technologically upgraded, incarnation of an older version of a knowledge network based on real people and books.
What sayest though, monsieur/mademoiselle?
I was speaking more about the aesthetics of the created bodies of artificial intelligence rather than their specific artistic abilities. Your point about their own creative capabilities would raise the question as to what kind of minds can be created as artificial intelligence?
What would beauty be to AI? Will it be identical/similar to our own (subjective/objective) standards of beauty? Remember wide hips, a feminine aesthetic feature, has a very sound biological rationale - women with hourglass figures are likely to be fertile and survive childbirth! In short, there's logic to beauty!
It is hard to know what the aesthetics of A1 will be. It may not be based purely on biology like Darwin's natural selection. Perhaps, it may involve blending of the genders at some stage as the creation of androgynous or hermaphrodite superbeings.
Twitter is a pile of crap, getting crappier.
DarĂo (Mexico)
I wish we can get rid of it but I do not know how can I help to avoid people to join Twitter.
I will do so. Protect yourself too.
What do you mean by “beautiful”? I would define the term as “The properties of a stimulus event which evoke sensory and perceptual experiences that are in accordance with the preferences of the subject”.
I don’t think such properties are found within the parts of the stimulus event itself but rather they are found between the interface of the stimulus and the physiological / psychological response produced by particular arrangements of the sensory / perceptual systems of the subject. Take taste for instance, your particular preferences aren’t within the food itself, but within the response evoked between your developing taste sensory systems and the chemical composition of the food itself. Your sense of taste adapts to the taste stimuli that it is exposed to regularly within the environment. You will acquire taste preferences for a food in correspondence with the stimulus event evoked by the foods exposure to your taste sensory systems.
Another issue is the sheer generality of measuring the internet as a whole with such powerful capacities and wide ranging utilities. I mean, it can literally be used for just about anything regarding the transmission of information. Its analogous to questioning whether or not INFORMATION is beautiful. It encompasses the whole spectrum of possible aesthetic experience and judgment. Aesthetics is not restricted to the natural world but rather it extends to the artificial world as well — to all possible experiences both physical and virtual.
In considering all of this, the best answer I can offer is that it seems to have the capacity for beauty and of ugliness as well.
Im curious. Isn’t the internet a system of networks linking various forms of information between us? Is there not a wide variety of possible information which can effect us in different ways? Doesn’t information produce a diverse spectrum of possible influences and scale the full range of possible aesthetic experiences and judgments? It contains essentially the culmination of our information. Information can be have a positive aesthetic value (receiving praise from friends and family) as well as its negative counterpart (learning that your pet died). Are you making an aesthetic judgment regarding the internet based on the seeming prevalence of negativity within your own personal experiences? Surely it has the capacity for both, wouldn’t you say?
I get your point.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
We haven't been able to produce an objective definition of beauty. Nor is there a good subjective definition we could work with. Aesthetic appreciation may, therefore, lie in the interaction between subject & (the) object (of beauty). Reminds me of the lock and key model of biomolecular interaction. There's nothing about beauty that's either a ball or a socket, but ball-and-socket, that's beauty! Does that make sense?
Absolutely. I wasn't referring to all internet itself. I was wondering about how fake news or hate speech spread so easily through social media. We can be agree that Internet has brought us some "facilities" but at the same time, it is a tool which most of the people do not know how to use.
You have put some cute examples but what about the boy receiving cyberbullying or a girl sharing her naked body? Internet can be a dangerous place too.
Furthermore, it is clearly that Twitter as a big social media is used just to persuade their users through fake arguments and stupidities.
We should put some limits to internet
I see. I suppose im more focused on the initial topic. Fake news and hate speech are troubling, to be sure, but they are separate issues. The internet is essentially a super system for transmitting information — a “tool” as you said. It isn’t the source of such things, rather it is an amplifier of a purely human manifestation. Regarding your epistemic point, we seem to have functional knowledge about the internet, but i would agree (as a ubiquitous feature of our epistemology) we are largely ignorant of it in its totality. Im not sure if I would agree with your statement that Quoting javi2541997. Im not saying its false either but rather I would just need to see evidence before accepting your premise. This also depends upon what exactly you mean by “know”.
Cyber bullying, sexual exploitation, and twitters political agenda are genuine issues but alas separate ones from the one I was addressing. It’s easy to trail of topic with such interesting points raised and I just want to clarify that we agree with my original argument and it seems as if we have.
Just out of interest, setting the aesthetics of the internet aside, you seem to be making the argument that the act of sharing our bodies virtually is immoral or bad. Im unsure and thus withhold judgment either way, so maybe you could share with me your reasonings which brought you to that conclusion… Im aware of many negative examples resulting from such behavior but i find those to be judged independently based on consequentialist arguments. I fear I am ignorant to any sound deontological arguments inferring wrongness or immortality to the act itself. If you wish to fully digress from the topic of internet aesthetics, then perhaps we can address the issue of whether or not the act of sexual exposure is intrinsically immoral.
The internet is the computer network over which data is moved around in various ways. It's the servers and cables and home computers. Among the various ways there are of moving data around on the internet are email, file transfer, instant messaging, and the world wide web. The web is the collection of interconnected pages (some of which can be used to access other internet applications like email).
I think that makes sense. Sort of like the mereology between an object and the arrangement of its constituent parts (at what point does an accumulation of water droplets become a puddle, pond, or sea?). I hold the view that aesthetics is best defined subjectively. I define “subjective” as something which is dependent upon a mind to (conceptually) exist. It is true that a mind likely depends on objective things for concrete conceptions to abstract into such things as aesthetics, but once abstracted such things are no longer dependent on objectivity. Like loosing ones sight (objective) though nonetheless retaining mental representations of visual information. They are based, perhaps dependent, upon objective information in their manifestation, but what makes the difference is that subjective information has the capacity to continue in its absence of objective information.
It could be an evidence the age of the users. It is scary how young are the users around internet. Being young is related to childish situations. This context provokes toxic or cyber-bully actions. Why this situation happens? Because these kids do not know how to act properly through the web.
In the other hand, sure older people is guilty too. A fake news or a poisonous comment flow through internet as quickly as a twister. Instead of stopping it, many people take part of it just for business interests.
I do not want to sound that boring or populist but I think it was a disgrace the act of Elon Musk buying Twitter for $ 43000 Millions. We have a lot of troubles in the world but the richest in the world knows that the real power of manipulation is on internet and that's why they want to be there. Cleaning up their image.
I don’t think those arguments are valid. The issue is whether or not the act of exposing oneself on the internet is intrinsically wrong or immoral. Whether the act itself is wrong Irregardless of the consequences or end result. I interpreted you to be making a claim, namely, that exposing our bodies on the internet is wrong/bad. This implies that every such act is wrong simpliciter, with no conditions or exceptions. I see many obvious ways it could result in bad ways but your claim seemed to go beyond that. Maybe if i put it in argument form it will help.
I’ll attempt to represent you as best i can in logical notation.
Starting with your conclusion:
C) The act of exposing your body on the internet is immoral (as in all cases).
Now, I requested the premises from which you drew this inference from. This is what you gave me so far:
P1) If you are young, then you don’t understand what the act of exposing yourself on the internet results in.
The reason it isn’t valid is because the truth of the conclusion doesn’t follow from the truth we assume in the premise. If the act is wrong simpliciter, then it must include those of us who are not young and not ignorant of the consequences — which is another issue, the argument introduces consequentialist terms in the premise to infer a deontological claim. If the act is wrong always, then the consequences are irrelevant. See this is the problem im having. I think a possible world exists wherein such an act can be done without any negative consequences, and such an existence means it is logically possible, thus there is no contradiction derived and a contradiction is necessary for your proof. The act of exposing yourself can’t always be wrong and also sometimes (in a possible world) not wrong. Therefore it can only be one or the other and it seems as if you are arguing from the position that it is always wrong. In order to establish a proof you would have to derive a contradiction from the claim that “it is logically possible to expose yourself on the internet and cause no harm” or present what properties within the act itself constitutes it as always morally wrong. The latter commits us to take absurd positions entailed within the logic (e.g. A possible world wherein the act is realized and results in an infinite utility gain — be it predicated upon units of happiness or pleasure or avoidance of suffering), because if you say it is ALWAYS wrong them I can introduce a possible scenario in which the good gained is infinite and since you are committed to the view that it is always wrong you then are committed to say that the act was wrong no matter the result. I think such a position would be absurd to hold and find the argument unacceptable as a result. We can even make it further absurd by considering a possible world where you are offered a choice: a) commit the act resulting in avoiding infinite suffering and death to occur within the universe or, b) refuse to commit the act resulting in infinite suffering and death to occur within the universe. In this scenario, on your view, you would have to say the person performing the act did a bad thing in order to retain a logically consistent position (to avoid a contradiction).
Sorry if this is too technical. I’ll conclude with a counter argument to my interpretation of your position:
P1) If the act of exposing yourself on the internet is wrong (simpliciter), then there can be no logically possible scenario (one that commits no contradiction) where the act is good.
P2) There is at least one logically possible scenario in which the act is good.
C) Therefore, the act of exposing yourself on the internet cannot be wrong (simpliciter).
First of all, thank you for responding me with such technical arguments. But I did not wanted to search for valid or correct arguments. I just wanted to share my opinion that Internet could be a dangerous place. You complained that my arguments were so simplistic. I only can say that yes it is true, because my main goal was just to express all the negative sides of the web. I wanted tl be simplistic since the beginning.
When I put youth in the previous text, It wasn't a premise but just an example of what I do consider as ignorant. This is why we start gaining knowledge through the years. We need to be mature and thanks to the experience we can take the right choices whenever we act. But, a 15 or 16 years old tend to not do the right choices. Even, when we see a young person being responsable of their own acts, we quickly think: wow he/she is so mature. It looks like older than he or she is!
Furthermore if it is good or bad exposing ourselves in internet, I think that is even unnecessary unless we are public figures. I do not think my life is so interesting to exposing it. But... If I do so, probably in the future I would have some negative issues. I pretend to defend in my side that sometimes is better to be unknown.
As you thought previously I would see it ALWAYS that bad because my perspective of the world is pessimistic. According to own circumstances we would see it in one side or the other.
I meant no offense and do not think your arguments were simplistic. What i wanted to do was explore your opinions because opinions are beliefs and I wondered why you held a belief that i don’t. It could very well be that i am wrong and there are good arguments for that view but i will never be exposed to them if i don’t investigate and look for them. You don’t have to be technical or well spoken in the language of philosophy and logic to point out something I may have missed. My four-year-old does it constantly. I was only trying to aid you in articulating your thoughts and expressing your ideas in ways more common to philosophy—not because you are simple or wrong but because such ways are the only ones that I understand. Its my conditioning to a philosophical framework which I require in order to develop any concept of which you speak. Your thoughts are what im interested in and you can express them any way you like but i need to translate your language into philosophical concepts in order to form any idea or understanding of your thoughts.
It is likely that i interpreted you as if you were using a strict precision of language when in truth you were speaking casually. Which is fine. Neither is better than the other. You said in your latest response that which is much more reasonable and practically expresses your original meaning well enough for you until I pedanticized it by over analyzing speech which was not intended to be a dialectic but rather to make practical sense of the topic.
I have only read the first paragraph of your response and felt compelled to reveal my actual intentions and better communicate in a way which is not so easily interpreted as coming across so negatively. I apologize for my neglect. I just try to communicate with as little words as possible as you can see i am prone to lengthy comments nonetheless. I just want to clarify that for you before I read your entire response.
Quoting javi2541997
What I mean by premise is a statement that gives a reason for believing a conclusion. I was originally curious about your initial statement (which was a conclusion in terms of argument) that it is bad to expose our bodies on the internet (or more precisely, that a girl showing her body on the internet is a bad thing). That is a statement which can be either true or false and it was where your reasonings have lead you. I was interested in why you believe that statement was true. A supporting statement which if true justify your belief. You responded with an example of how it could be bad but that wasn’t what I was trying to figure out. For example, if I say “I am alive” i am making a statement which could either be true or false. Most of the time we don’t bother to provide reasons for such a belief and just accept it or take it for granted, but in the case of your belief that bodily exposure on the internet is wrong I can’t take for granted as i cant reason why such would be the case. So if the same were true about my statement “I am alive” and reasons were requested, then i would provide a supporting statement likewise capable for truth or falsity, such as “I contain specialized, coordinated parts; I am metabolizing various interlocking chemical reactions; I undergo homeostasis; growth; reproduction; and respond to stimuli” and those would be my reasons and likewise my premises. So the argument would look like such (in logic):
Premise 1) If a thing has many specialized, coordinated parts, a metabolism, is homeostatic, undergoes growth, can reproduce, and is responsive to stimuli, then that thing is alive.
Premise 2) I have many specialized, coordinated parts, a metabolism, am homeostatic, undergo growth, can reproduce, and am responsive to stimuli.
Conclusion) Therefore, I am alive.
I hope this clarifies our misunderstandings and please don’t feel obligated to provide your reasons. I just try to explore the ideas of others when i can and see what I can learn.
Of course you clarified me your misunderstandings. I understood you since the beginning when we started debating each other. You tried to give another vision of internet issues and affairs.
Well, I think showing our body through internet is bad from an ethical point of view. Sometimes it looks like some apps act as a marketplace. When you are Young you would not probably care at all because you are to peppy to see the danger. But whenever you become an adult you would see it with different eyes and regret your past actions. Nevertheless, it is late (according to internet times) because your data is flowing around over there...
Then, to clarify my argument:
Premise 1: Show our bodies in internet is unethical and it provokes some consequences.
Premise 2: The youngest do not see the consequences of the future so, they show their bodies on internet.
Conclusion: Youth tend to be ignorant showing so much data about them and whenever they want to care it is too late to do so
Quoting javi2541997
I understand. We have been discussing the ethics of showing our body on the internet this whole time. I have been trying to request from you the argument supporting your claim. Its like the example argument i gave you supporting the claim “I am alive”. A claim requires a supporting argument (additional statements) in order to be convincing. I can give you an example argument that would support your claim, but I cannot give you one which is [1] “valid” and [2] “sound” ([1] ”a conclusion which follows logically from the premises” and “containing all true premises”) because that is precisely what im trying to hear from you. Anyway, just to give you an idea, or at least better clarify what im looking for, here is one example (and subsequently my refutation of it).
First, the argument in common language: Showing our bodies through the internet is bad (this is the main or concluding statement of your argument) because you will be exploited by others (this is a supporting statement or premise). Now, the argument in formal language: (p1) If showing our bodies on the internet will result in our exploitation, then showing our bodies on the internet is bad; (p2) showing our bodies on the internet will result in our exploitation; (c) therefore showing our bodies on the internet is bad.
This is a [1] modus ponens [2] syllogism ([1] an argument structure which uses a conditional statement (e.g. if the stove is 450 degrees, then touching it will burn your skin) to bridge the inference between the conclusion (main claim) and the premise (supporting claim). It then asserts the truth of the premise (touching a 450 degree stove will burn your skin), from which (as long as the premise is accepted) the conclusion must follow). ([2] an argument in three parts (using three statements): conclusion, premise and inference). The example argument is valid because each of the statements follow logically from one another (assuming all the statements are true). However, it is not sound because the statement of the premise (showing our body on the internet
results in exploitation) is demonstrably false.
My refutation demonstrates a proof by contradiction (to say something is both true and false). This is a deductive argument (meaning the statements are absolute and the inference necessary or without exception), and as such, the statement of the premise (showing our body on the internet results in exploitation) is to say: “In absolutely every case where a person exposes themselves on the internet they have been exploited, as it is impossible to do so otherwise”. Kind of like a square having four corners: If you are a square you have four corners. We cannot imagine a square with anything other than four sides, which means it isn’t logically possible (logical impossibility means to say so derives a contradiction).
We cannot imagine a square with anything other than four sides, so to say a square exists with three sides is to say a square both has and does not have four sides (3 is not 4). Now, the premise says “showing our body on the internet results in exploitation” in the same way. In this cases, however, I can imagine a scenario where someone could show their body without exploitation (“exploitation” here being defined as “the mistreatment of a person for ones own self benefit”). The key is “mistreatment” because if a person doesn’t feel like they are being treated unfairly, or moreover, feels satisfied and well treated, and since ones own treatment or mistreatment depends on ones own feelings (which are private and acceptable only to them), then we only need one case wherein the individual performed the act of showing themselves on the internet, and then, based on their own feelings (that we have no access to), expressed no feelings of mistreatment, and furthermore never retracted the statement at a later time, would be all that we needed to derive a contradiction.
To summarize, if we are making deductive claims by using absolute terms and expressions, it is necessary to demonstrate that anything otherwise is impossible (squares with sides other than four), that is logically impossible because it is cognitively impossible to imagine. All it takes is an imagined scenario that cant be ruled out of the realm of possibility. Squares with more or lass than four sides —impossible. Someone who showed their body on the internet without feeling exploited, then and thereafter —possible.
Quoting javi2541997
The error here is in your terms. In premise 1: “Showing our bodies” (“our” is general, it implies us (people) as a whole set). Then in premise 2: “The youngest do not see the consequences of the future” (“youngest” is a proper subset of people as a general whole). This means that the two premises do not follow from one another (they are invalid). What has to do with the youngest subset of people is not the same as what happens to all people. If the argument is invalid then it doesn’t matter if the premises are true or not. No inference can be made between the two. Its like arguing that all fruit is red because there are red apples. Apples are a proper subset of fruit.
By the way, premise 1 is actually your conclusion. Though worded differently with both deductive language (Showing our bodies on the internet is unethical) and inductive language (it provokes some consequences), which make up two separate claims — not that I can’t work with that but we a ways away yet. The conclusion I am struggling with a bit. im going to try to re write your argument and just let me know when I got it right, ok?
P1) Youth show their bodies on the internet.
P2) Youth are ignorant to the consequences of showing their bodies on the internet.
P3) Youth, in their ignorance, later in their lives regret showing their bodies on the internet.
C) therefore, showing our bodies on the internet is unethical.
This is just cleaned up. I could condense it further or omit some unnecessary information. Something like this:
P1) If people regret showing their bodies on the internet when they were young, then people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.
P2) People regret showing their bodies on the internet.
C) Therefore, people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.
This one is valid. However, i need the argument demonstrating that all people regret showing their bodies on the internet. As you need that in order to arrive at “…is unethical” since “most” or “many” would have to be also in the conclusion “…is mostly unethical” or “…for many is unethical” which are much weaker statements (“weak” not used as a pejorative here, but rather to imply intellectual honesty). Is that the conclusion or would you like to change it?
Those premises are clearly better than mines. I just did my best to put some arguments of why I was seeing (and I still see) unethical show the bodies or so much data around the internet.
Whatever how we are debating I guess we are getting to the same point here: showing our body is unethical.
Nevertheless, I see you are complaining that my premise of "Youth" is not good enough because is a very general term and I was not very concise. Let me try it again:
P1) Teenagers which ages are between 14 and 18 tend to show their bodies through internet without responsibility being unethical in their actions.
P2) Then, due to their lack of consideration they commit actions that, furthermore of being unethical, would regret in the future because they are innocent right now.
Conclusion: Therefore, showing bodies by Teenagers between 14 and 18 years old are both unethical and dangerous to them.
Yes I would like to change it.
I gave another try trying to be more specific in the comment of above.
How does that argument lead you to the conclusion that “Showing your body on the Internet is unethical”? That is a general statement again but you are reasoning about a small subset of people and not just people in general which is what the statement (the conclusion) is saying.
I think i figured out the issue. Think about the words you are using. Your argument comes accross in absolute terms. You likely would be just as happy saying that some people have come to regret (or there are many who regret) showing their body on the internet. Therefore, for those individuals, showing their body on the internet was unethical. You just have to back off the strong and absolute statements. Some things are logically impossible like square circles, but a single individual free of any regret from showing their body on the internet (which is literally all it takes to break your argument) just are not impossible (or they are beyond yours and my own abilities to understand or reason). Though it may be true and I may be dead wrong, going through the arguments seem to point to my view being correct. So until I hear a convincing argument otherwise, I will have to maintain my position.
My position is that for some people it is possible that the act causes no regrets. With such possibility, I can not use such information honestly to arrive at the conclusion that the act is wrong for everyone always, and thus will maintain doubt that such is the case. Im not saying that it isn’t either, but that there is no evidence or good reasoning available to justify believing that it is. I think it’s about 99 percent in favor of it not being the case when considering just the mathematical likelihood within an incredibly diverse pool of billions of people that at least one has no regrets. To be honest, I found the claim rather extraordinary and still do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ans so far nothing I have heard comes close.
Don’t feel defeated or anything. We (as people) have been grappling with similar issues for thousands of years. Its just not there yet. Alhough, by learning the flaws in our reasoning we are already making progress. You get used to being wrong about everything all the time. I at least have come to accept that. We are fallible. We just have to work through it or give up on philosophy.
It boils down to the issue of whether or not ethical values are objective or subjective, are real or constructed, and even if they can even be true or false in any meaningful sense at all. Check into ethical realism / anti-realism, cognitivism /non-cognitivism, etc… I won’t burden you with my biases, but just point you in the direction of the main issues.
I see it is difficult to convince you about my arguments. But this is why this forum is interesting and what philosophy stands for.
I understand that using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions? For example: alcohol, tobacco, drive licence, getting married, etc... all of those example are sent to general citizens with a specific age (thus, teenagers).
According to the restrictions we put on young people we can say that the reason is their lack of "maturity". For this reason, I personally think that we should connect it with other examples or real life issues as the use of internet. I still think it could be a problem to them doesn't matter the circumstances or arguments because the law and the State as public orders should protect the citizens in a weak position.
Whenever a young boy or girl shows so much data of him/her than needed it is causing a big problem that authorities should take part of.
Furthermore, if it is unethical or not as we both are debating, I guess it even breaks the law in some countries.
If you say I should not treat (in general terms) the youth with such limitations. Should you be able to make an enterprise or agreements with them? In this examples we can see if they are mature enough.
I will do so. Thanks for the recommendation :up:
Quoting Cartesian trigger-puppets
They are both objective and subjective. We make objective laws trying to reinforce the ethical behaviour in a society. Nevertheless, it is also upon the subjectivity of each person on applying and respecting such laws
Quoting javi2541997
That logic doesn’t follow. You capitulated my earlier point here:
Quoting Cartesian trigger-puppets
However, you yet again attempt to draw a fallacious inference: “…using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions?”. Either you are making a non related point (which is irrelevant) to my argument, of which, to be clear, was that the truth of a whole set (e.g. people or fruit) can not be limited to the truth of a particular subset (e.g. young people or apples). We can’t say that fruit grows on trees just because apples do. Likewise, we can’t say that people are restricted from the consumption of alcohol and tobacco just because young people are. The restrictions which I was referencing was the fact that whole sets are generalized with respect to varying characteristics of which its subsets may or may not be limited to. The fact that young people have more restrictions than of people in general (since it includes those legally restricted and those without restrictions) illustrates the truth of my point, not yours. Just because all of a particular subset includes a characteristic, doesn’t mean all of the set as a whole does. All young people are restricted from alcohol and tobacco, whereas with people in general, only some of them have such restrictions (young people or mentally disabled or incarcerated…etc). You are figuring it backwards. A whole set includes every characteristic of each of its proper subsets. A subset includes only some of the characteristics of the whole set. So we can reason that some people have restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, because young people do. We can’t say that All people have such restrictions because young people do. Just like how we can say that some fruit grows on trees since apples grow on trees, and not that all fruit grows on trees because apples do. Like these examples, I reasoned that just because some (not all) people regret showing their bodies on the internet, doesn’t mean that all people have such regrets. Since your argument was that showing your body on the internet is immoral because some people later regret it, it therefore means that said characteristic (regret) is only universally true of a particular subset
and partially true of the set as a whole.
That young people have restrictions is consistent with my view. It certainly doesn’t mean that all members of a whole set must share a characteristic of the members of its subset. That was my point.
Quoting javi2541997
This is a separate issue. I never said we shouldn’t treat the youth with limitations. I simply said that they have them. I made a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive one. If you wish to discuss this new topic, that is fine. I only ask that we conclude with the original issue regarding sets and subsets. If some people have regrets about showing their bodies on the internet, does that then mean all people have regrets? Converging on this issue (or disproving my position on it) is necessary for me to maintain interest and move on to a separate topic. I just don’t like not getting to the bottom of things.
Quoting javi2541997
Law and ethics tend to correspond but they are two different things. It would be wrong for me to call you an idiot, but not illegal. legality only comes into effect when a majority of a population agree that something is wrong and subsequently legislate against it. How is law objective? Law is arbitrary and constantly changing in correspondence with our ethics (of which only a majority agree). For something to be objective it wouldn’t be affected by our opinions or feelings. Laws are objective with regard to which ones currently stand within the realm of the legislative system, but we were discussing ethics not law.
Yes, I understood your point. But whether you like it or not, we as members are treated by general terms. You believe that there could be some teenagers with maturity enough to take and understand their own responsibilities and it is unfair being treated as a whole just to being in a specific set.
Well this issue happens for practical purposes. Most of the teenagers (I put them as an example because they are what we are debating about) share some similar circumstances or characteristics of “ adolescence” as well as: A period of Rapid Physical/Biological Changes, has Psychological Repercussions Too, Career-Consciousness, Emotional Conditions, Flight on Imagination, Hobbies and Other Details. These are the facts which defines a teenager as an overall and this is why we put general basic rules on them
I still defend my point of view. It is true that probably not all teenagers would regret show their bodies. But let’s be honest… how can we know if they will regret it or not in the future? This is why I cared about the issue in my arguments of previous comments. A teenager doesn’t care about their circumstances, doesn’t see the effect and cause of their actions and it is not responsible enough.
Maybe they are not regretting showing their body right now but how can we know what would happen in the next 5 years?
There are a big number of people that when they become more older they delete their social media and then they ask if it is possible to erase all their data… conclusion, they end up regretting their past actions as teenagers.
(I know this sounds again so general and there would be someone who wouldn’t care at all. I don’t know what say in this context. Good for him or her)
Law is objective because it tends to rule all the possible circumstances and actions of the citizens on the state. It doesn’t matter (most of the cases) what was the purpose or thoughts of the citizen not respecting the law.
You cannot plead ignorance for not understanding or knowing the law… this is why is objective.
And yes I am agree that is not necessarily related to ethics
Quoting javi2541997
What do you mean by treated by general terms? We have many similarities but we all have many differences, too. We cannot completely know one another so we categorize specific behaviors (with much unavoidable error) as we experience one another and become familiar with common patterns. On a societal basis, we lack the resources to measure each persons unique behavior traits so we arbitrarily measure behavior patterns most common to specific groups (proper subsets) such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc, because of common trends in behavior that are disproportionate to other subsets, or to the whole set itself. Age is a group with an especially prevalent amount of behavior patterns which differ from the grey area of social norms and expectations. This is because the group of individuals who make up the subset of people known as “youth” share a critically important quality— age, and lack thereof, has a strong correlation with lived experience. The system isn’t perfect and expecting it to be, or thinking it possible, is a sign of philosophical naivety. Not directing that towards you per se but it seems to be annoyingly prevalent among the general public.
In response to some teenagers being responsible enough for particular activities but unfairly being generalized according to the common behaviors of their group (of which I never expressed any values such as fairness or unfairness to—those were examples, not my opinions), I would just say that we are not perfect, and therefore have not constructed a perfect system. Since the system is not perfect, there will be errors in the judgment and the execution of how we regulate the system. Knowing this, it is simply pointing out the obvious and expected. It is to imply that the system should be perfect when that simply isn’t possible by virtue of being entirely constructed by human beings.
Quoting javi2541997
We can’t, it seems. That is why I don’t pretend to know that I do in my arguments. I don’t know either way. And I don’t think you do either. I think you should withhold from committing to a belief one way or another until you can confidently answer the this very question.
Quoting javi2541997
How about saying the act may or may not lead to regret with everyone, and that it is unfounded to argue that it is immoral for everyone since we are basing our judgments on regrets. Why not just be like me and say that you don’t know one way or another and instead try to work out probabilities one way or another while admitting that each have probability? I think i said 99 percent just given the mathematical unlikelihood that all 7 billion of us share the same take on such things. Some may think its a good thing, and some very likely (it would be like 0.000001 percent probability that all of us do not) just do not care about it.
It is true that I do not know it neither. But this is exactly the case I was looking for. Trying to protect (or at least guaranteed) the uncertainty of what the future holds. We both do not know what is the mind of teenager (well, we experienced it but we are in other businesses now) and then, for this reason, we have to take part in the issue and make basic rules to protect them. Probably everything ends up without any problem at all... but who knows? So in this issue we need something to put them on a safe context in the future.
This is like an insurance. Probably you would never experienced something tragic as a fire, but you sign an agreement with the company for whatever could occur in the future.
If I do so, this debate ends because it would means we reached an agreement in our controversial discussion
Quoting javi2541997
Law is objective in its application in accordance with its own vague and arbitrary boundaries. It is not an objective thing of the world. If humans were whipped out and our artifacts underwent total subatomic decay back into their original cosmic states, then would law exist? If not, then how is it objective? It is dependent upon the transmission of information from the emergence of intelligent life on our planet.
Quoting javi2541997
That is the aim, my friend. The holy grail of argument.
Quoting Cartesian trigger-puppets
We can finish here then. You put on the table very good arguments to consider about. Thanks for debating with me in this thread. See you in the future in other thread/topic related to our uncertainties and concerns :up:
How would we define beauty?
I wuz hoping for a mathematical answer - the cables that route the signals between computers & servers are, to my reckoning, haphazardly laid down i.e. they aren't exactly what one would consider pleasing to the eye.
However, if you focus on the web's structure/architecture you might uncover a hidden order that, to some, would be the Megan Fox of networks.
Let's work with that for the moment!