A simple fact that we should all be able to personally attest to is that software, movie, and music piracy is out of control. Innovation and economic fairness are being suppressed as a byproduct of this behavior. With that being said, it's understandable that measures are being proposed to discourage intellectual property theft, and with the recent proposition of the Stop Online Piracy Act, individual freedom has been resurrected to the top of our everyday thought. Freedom of speech and personal liberty has been juxtaposed with the protection of intellectual and entrepreneurial property rights. My claim is that this is a far more complex and diverse issue than many people are recognizing and deserves a much deeper analysis. Without an adequate understanding of both sides of this issue, we are not equipped to make any rational, beneficial decisions about this type of legislation. With this post, my simple aim is to promote imaginative, productive thought into this debate.
We must understand that the complete liberation of personal behavior may not be valuable to the maximization of human well-being. It can quickly become invasive upon others' rights, and it can easily destroy the fabric of all objective fairness in any society. Sam Harris asks about this problem in The Moral Landscape: "Should I be able to film my neighbor through their bedroom window and upload this footage onto YouTube? Should I be free to publish a detailed recipe for synthesizing smallpox?" One could also ask if it's acceptable that "personal freedom" allows one to teach their children how to build and detonate nuclear weapons. And down the rabbit-hole we fall even to the depths of granting one the personal freedom to, by any means necessary, fulfill their personal desires even at the expense of another humans' rights and possibly, even to the peril of their own. We have to take into account the possibility that one person's unsubstantiated, misguided delusion could propel humanity into a "less happy" state of being. Therefore, we have to guard against it.
It's my belief that the actions of inhuman totalitarian regimes in the past century have propagated a fear that is eclipsing our judgement on this issue, and many are rushing to a conclusion that "absolute personal freedom" is perfectly conducive to overall human flourishing. In reality, there are no simple resolutions for this problem, but a line must be drawn. For this line to be revised or even removed entirely should be a scientific effort, not a political or philosophical one. As Harris' thesis states, we must make it a scientific, unbiased effort to promote the increased well-being and overall happiness for everyone. With innovative neuroimaging techniques, perhaps we can build a world in which theft, murder, and lying are eradicated. This is undeniably one of the most important matters of any society, therefore, with every fiber of my being, I urge you to research the far-reaching effects of this legislation. Perhaps we can look to science, as Harris believes, to discover the ways to maximize well-being and personal liberation for all.
2 comments:
As much as I hate restrictions, I agree something needs to be done to stop the online piracy issues. However, I'm not to sure I want science calling the shots. Or politics! To me, evolution is a bit scary. The natural selection, and genetics part of it anyway.
If they find a gene that identifies a person with a tendency to be a thief, then what? Kill them or lock them away for life? It would eventually spill over into other areas of law. For example, what about people who have anger management issues, will they someday "identify" and "remove" them from society because they could possibly harm others. It wouldn't be fair for us all to lose our freedom to drive just because somebody develops road rage and kills other motorists on the freeway. :/
I have come to the conclusion that none of us in the world are truly free, except maybe the remaining "uncontacted" tribes. We have freedom of choice, but the consequences for some of those choices are a big hindrance in doing what we truly want to do. I can choose to do it, but then...is it worth it? We have laws already that can't be justified. That's why we fear even more freedom restricting laws. One in particular just baffles me; who can justify restricting people from growing any naturally wild plant in their own backyard, to eat, smoke, or even trade for something of similar value? It's crazy!
As children, we can't wait to turn 18, so we can enjoy our freedom to make our own choices. Once 18, we find we are still treated like children who are unable to make choices on our own. After 50 yrs, give me some credit! lol But yeah, there's no easy answer when it comes to writing laws which affect our personal freedoms.
Hey Pam. In a broad scope, I just believe that science can tell us far more about the ways in which we can address human suffering.
Regarding evolution: One very important thing to understand about our evolutionary history is that nice guys DO win! Altruism is accounted for by showing that competing genes benefit and thrive when functioning as a cohesive unit.
The easy assumption to make regarding evolution is to think that behavior such as stealing, murdering, or raping would be selected for by nature. But actually, if you really look at it through a strategic lens of survival for genes, these behaviors could very well mean an organism's demise! I don't think the best strategy for surviving and reproducing down through the eons would be to go out and take on the world!
As Dawkins eloquently states in The Selfish Gene (which is not literally meant to mean that genes think, by the way) We are "survival machines" for our genes. The sum product of an escalating arms race in nature over the past 3.5 billion years. Think about it. All that it took was one molecule to start replicating and competing against others to start this race.
Post a Comment