The Evil Hammer
After reading Russell Buckley’s article, The Death Knell of Privacy, I could only think of all the ways this technology can be used to make life worse. But wait, is making someone accountable bad. I have two distinct ideas to convey tonight: 1) accountability has its place and 2) just because something can be abused does not mean it should not be used.
First, the importance of accountability has been lost in our world of individuality. We (and I am speaking to most of the “western” world) have become so focused on self fulfillment that responsibility to others has been lost. For example, I am married. I am no longer free to seek selfish fulfillment because I have a responsibility to my wife. (Now I am in no way complaining. If you have ever met my wife you will know that I got the better deal.) I have someone else’s needs to consider before making a decision.
Now want does this have to do with Buckley’s article? A lot. Buckley sees the ability to be tracked as a way for an overbearing boss to crack the whip if an employee is goofing on the job. I agree that companies could choose to do this, and if they do they have every right to do so.
I began to think how neat it would be to have your phone alert you when your wife was with in a mile or make sure your teenage daughter was really spending the night at her friend’s house. The benefits became even more apparent when my wife and I went to a friends apartment for the first time last night. It took twenty minutes for us to all meet up because we did not know exactly where the apartment was and they did not know where we were.
How cool would it be to have a function on your phone that would tell you “Dave is 245 feet north west”. This would be great.
Could someone abuse it? Absolutely. Could wives use the technology to checkup on their husbands? Could parents use it to checkup on their children? Could employers use it to check up on employees? Well, yes, yes, and yes. But is this that big of a deal. I do not think so. All of these groups mentioned have responsibilities to one another and therefore anything that helps insure accountability is not inherently bad. Tracking an employees movements may help protect that employee. For example, “I see that you really were stuck on the interstate for five hours without moving”.
Secondly, just because something can be abused does not mean it should not be used. There are many examples of this. Being that I am from Tennessee I think I will use examples that remind me of home. My father has built many things in his life. He has built furniture, barns, and homes. He has tried to teach me how to handle a hammer.
The hammer is a great tool. With it one can build structures that are remarkably complex, but that hammer could, just as easily, bludgeon someone to death. So for this reason, should the hammer never be used? Should those who might explore hammer technology not be encouraged to continue study?
These questions are silly. We should never limit the study of technology because the results of that technology might be used for evil, as long as that study does not harm others.
An example of this is stem-cell research. The US government allows private stem-cell research, even though a large portion of this nation does not believe it is right.
Another example is firearms. The gun itself is not evil. It is very similar to a hammer. In the right hands a gun can insure a good turkey dinner, but a criminal can use that same gun to attack his neighbors.
Technology is amoral. It should never be labeled as good or evil. Morality is introduced by us mortals, and one day we will be held accountable for how we have used our technology.
First, the importance of accountability has been lost in our world of individuality. We (and I am speaking to most of the “western” world) have become so focused on self fulfillment that responsibility to others has been lost. For example, I am married. I am no longer free to seek selfish fulfillment because I have a responsibility to my wife. (Now I am in no way complaining. If you have ever met my wife you will know that I got the better deal.) I have someone else’s needs to consider before making a decision.
Now want does this have to do with Buckley’s article? A lot. Buckley sees the ability to be tracked as a way for an overbearing boss to crack the whip if an employee is goofing on the job. I agree that companies could choose to do this, and if they do they have every right to do so.
I began to think how neat it would be to have your phone alert you when your wife was with in a mile or make sure your teenage daughter was really spending the night at her friend’s house. The benefits became even more apparent when my wife and I went to a friends apartment for the first time last night. It took twenty minutes for us to all meet up because we did not know exactly where the apartment was and they did not know where we were.
How cool would it be to have a function on your phone that would tell you “Dave is 245 feet north west”. This would be great.
Could someone abuse it? Absolutely. Could wives use the technology to checkup on their husbands? Could parents use it to checkup on their children? Could employers use it to check up on employees? Well, yes, yes, and yes. But is this that big of a deal. I do not think so. All of these groups mentioned have responsibilities to one another and therefore anything that helps insure accountability is not inherently bad. Tracking an employees movements may help protect that employee. For example, “I see that you really were stuck on the interstate for five hours without moving”.
Secondly, just because something can be abused does not mean it should not be used. There are many examples of this. Being that I am from Tennessee I think I will use examples that remind me of home. My father has built many things in his life. He has built furniture, barns, and homes. He has tried to teach me how to handle a hammer.
The hammer is a great tool. With it one can build structures that are remarkably complex, but that hammer could, just as easily, bludgeon someone to death. So for this reason, should the hammer never be used? Should those who might explore hammer technology not be encouraged to continue study?
These questions are silly. We should never limit the study of technology because the results of that technology might be used for evil, as long as that study does not harm others.
An example of this is stem-cell research. The US government allows private stem-cell research, even though a large portion of this nation does not believe it is right.
Another example is firearms. The gun itself is not evil. It is very similar to a hammer. In the right hands a gun can insure a good turkey dinner, but a criminal can use that same gun to attack his neighbors.
Technology is amoral. It should never be labeled as good or evil. Morality is introduced by us mortals, and one day we will be held accountable for how we have used our technology.
1 Comments:
I think you final paragraph is excellent - scientific development should never be impeded by those who fear the future.
I would add one note of caution, however. I agree that employees shouldn't need to fear being tracked by their employer if they are doing legitimate work. But as a society, I think we need to remain wary of science and technology being infallible.
What if the technology is wrong but I can't prove it? What if I was never where it claimed I was? Blind faith in the technology can be equally as dangerous. In your example, a spouse could come to doubt their partner even if it could be shown the technology was broken, creating doubt where there was none, which is hard to repair.
Post a Comment
<< Home