Humans communicate through many channels, including words, tone of voice, body position, facial expressions, etc. An “innocent” view is that these channels say similar compatible things; added channels mainly help us to say more things faster. A “hypocrisy” view, however, is that we say more socially-acceptable things via words, which can be more easily quoted, and via other channels we more say things we’d rather were not quoted, things often in conflict with our words.
It's not an argument; it's a statement about how morals actually work.
In philosophy, it's often important to make a distinction between descriptive statements, which are about how things actually are, and prescriptive statements, which are about how things should be. When we discuss society's reasons for adopting a certain moral, this distinction becomes vital. For example, there's a huge difference between saying, "People believe stealing is immoral because they're taught so by their elders", and saying "Stealing is immoral because we're taught so by our elders".
I think there are a number of reasons police are not considered immoral, including: they're considered necessary, they're mandated by authority, and their primary purpose is to stop crime, not make a quick buck.
I don't think society's morals are determined by simple utility considerations (although they're affected by them, especially long-term).
If you think devices like tone readers will be banned, then you need to work to ensure that they are not banned. Likewise, any legislation that banned video of the police also needs to be opposed.
All it takes for bad people to take over is for good people to do nothing.
By that argument police are immoral too, and we wouldn't tolerate having them.
Most humans don't have an IQ >120 -- does that mean an IQ >120 doesn't make much difference?
A blackmailer profits from what is considered immoral, which is also seen as immoral. For example, when the state taxes prostitution, the people who are opposed to prostitution don't say "Good, taxes will make prostitution less profitable". They're more likely to object, on the grounds that the state shouldn't profit on an immoral activity.
A blackmailer also uses subterfuge, threat, speaks ill of other people, and profits without contributing anything of value, which is usually seen as immoral.
I think you're probably right... but I'm not sold on some of your analogies.
There are reasons for trying to protect the private sphere beyond just the opportunity to engage in hypocrisy. The intuition is that we need a space in which to experiment with behaviours and ideas without being penalised and judged for them in a wider context.
And I would argue that this is the primary motivation for protecting the kind of privacy threatened by voice recordings... it's just that this comes at a cost - the possibility of hypocrisy.
But I don't know how you would establish either way which concept should sit at the centre of the narrative. Putting a desire for intimacy over hypocrisy at the centre just makes me feel warm and fuzzy I guess - and in general seems to do the explanatory job well enough in a lot of cases.
Parents of autistic children will push for their kids to have the tone reading tech. Also, many high functioning autistics do have influence in the marketplace of ideas.
Widespread use of these devices would be a problem for depressed people, or others with psychological issues. You would be broadcasting your problems to everyone.
And who would want to have a conversation with someone constantly sending out negative signals, no matter how hard you tried to relate to them?
Thanks, added that now.
I wonder whether these devices could be useful to train people to be better communicators by making them more aware of the bodylanguage and non verbal cues they exhibit - I know I always get the feedback to watch that, so it surely would be useful to have to some way to gauge myself on a continuous basis. Does anybody know if these technologies are available outside the specific researchers labs in some way?
I have never before heard the argument that the problem with blackmail is that victims might steal to pay for it. There are lots of things people might steal to pay for.
Robin, you should have linked to this on police/law and technology.
The reason there is a difference in the abilities of individuals to read others is because ignorance of what others are thinking can be advantageous at times. The most important trait an innovator must have is the ability to ignore people telling him/her that he/she is wrong. Of course that skill is only useful when you are actually right.
Most people ignore being corrected when they are wrong. Some people actively hurt those who correct them, the old “kill the messenger” idea. That is how groupthink happens. When agreeing with those with more social status brings higher social status itself, then decisions can be no wiser than the wisdom of the person with the highest social status.
I think that blackmail is illegal because it allows for greater hypocrisy. If it were possible to profit from someone else's hypocrisy then there would be an incentive to be less hypocritical. Since blackmail is only directed against those with assets, making blackmail illegal only protects the wealthy from one adverse effect of their hypocrisy.
That's more like an etymological argument. I don't quite care what the historical justification would be and would be suspicious of it if told.
I suspect, on basic game theoretic grounds, that we have laws against blackmail to prevent overreactions to it or the threat of it.
Seriously, google before posting. There are two people awaiting trial in Illinois facing 4 to 15 year sentences for precisely this "crime." Here is another article on it http://gizmodo.com/5553765/...
Has anyone looked at whether or not it is possible to game these devices? Learning to fake your fakery, even if only a small portion of the population could do it, would render them useless.