On Ethics: A Song of Finks and Ice

Granville_Cocteau

I remember often running afoul of frivolous rules in Catholic high school, such as dress code, but the Gestapo approach of the administration tended to reinforce bonds of friendship and classmates leaned on each other. To that end, I've been thinking of ethics, friendship and political organization in social networks. (Note: I am somewhat of a philosophy nerd, but if that's not your cup of tea, you can also find me in the "would you ___the above poster" threads. For those that remain, some good stuff below.)

Let's consider, hypothetically, an Internet community focused on friendship and common goals, but often beset with petty rivalries, codependency, and snark. We'll call this hypothetical place tribebook.com. Let's further suppose a minor offense is committed by a member--say a dress code violation. What are the ethics of tattling or self policing in such a situation, if the punishment (let's say excommunication from the network) vastly surpasses the offense?

A quick literature search reveals that writers and philosophers have not looked kindly on garden variety finks. Chaucer, in Canterbury Tales, gives us a metaphorical meaning of crow by relating the story of a once-beautiful bird tarred by verbal indiscretion. Ovid, in Metamorphoses, recounts the myth of the snitch Bathus, whom the gods punished by turning him to stone. Yet another snitch is turned into a screech owl.

Tattling can rise to the level of betrayal. In Dante's Inferno, the treacherous--those who betray their friends, communities, and benefactors-- are placed in the lowest circle of hell. One of Dante's greatest literary inventions was in imagining the worst hell as a cold place. In his system of retributive justice, Dante has the treacherous lie frozen in ice, without the warmth and support that friendship provides. And one sinner's name, in this ice pit, is telling: Bocca, Italian for "mouth."

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, spoke highly of the virtues of being a good friend and being kind to strangers. The Old and New Testaments are rife with examples of giving aid and support not only to friends, but also to strangers (e.g. Good Samaritan) and sinners. "Do unto others" is the golden rule.

In Kant's categorical imperative, the rule becomes restated as follows: Act as if we wished our action would become a general rule. One way to formulate the imperative is to ask: If I snitch on person X, would I wish the same happen to me and my friends?

It's a good question to ask. After all, finks beget finks, and fairly soon the community becomes a rather cold and desolate place.

La pace sia con voi, -Word

mank32

marry me.

Erin_goBrahScience

"What are the ethics of tattling or self policing in such a situation, if the punishment (let's say excommunication from the network) vastly surpasses the offense?"


I think this poses an interesting question. But I want to reply first with a question;

Why would the punishment "vastly surpass" the offense?

snowmaniac

Brilliantly written, sir.

mccindy72

One possible answer to your question is the morality and expectations of the majority of the community in question. If a dress code violation is considered to be a particulary heinous offense based on the belief structure of the population of the community, then excommunication might well be considered to be on a par with the severity of the crime.
Take into consideration of the wide swing of what is allowed in PG-13 movies in the United States - there can be no nudity, other than the buttocks, and the F-word is not allowed. Kissing can be open mouthed but tongues are not allowed. However, graphic violence, mutilation and murder are all acceptable. One wonders about the skewed morality of a society that accepts violence over sexuality.

_TastySnoBalls_

Peace be with you as well ! :drinker:

JewelsinBigD

"What are the ethics of tattling or self policing in such a situation, if the punishment (let's say excommunication from the network) vastly surpasses the offense?"


I think this poses an interesting question. But I want to reply first with a question;

Why would the punishment "vastly surpass" the offense?

I would have to say that it depends (Yes I am a philosophy major and a lawyer). I am not sure what offense is so slight that excommunication is not appropriate- but lets be honest- the rules are there for a reason- to prevent chaos. If you don't like the rules of the website - leave it. No one makes you stay. If the website on the other hand lets things get out-of-hand so to say, they could be shut down (lose sponsors to make the site unprofitable, get in trouble for exploitation)...so they also have to prioritize and balance - the good of the many (all the users) verses the desires of the few who have trouble following the rules...

Erin_goBrahScience

"What are the ethics of tattling or self policing in such a situation, if the punishment (let's say excommunication from the network) vastly surpasses the offense?"


I think this poses an interesting question. But I want to reply first with a question;

Why would the punishment "vastly surpass" the offense?

I would have to say that it depends (Yes I am a philosophy major and a lawyer). I am not sure what offense is so slight that excommunication is not appropriate- but lets be honest- the rules are there for a reason- to prevent chaos. If you don't like the rules of the website - leave it. No one makes you stay. If the website on the other hand lets things get out-of-hand so to say, they could be shut down (lose sponsors to make the site unprofitable, get in trouble for exploitation)...so they also have to prioritize and balance - the good of the many (all the users) verses the desires of the few who have trouble following the rules...

I know you are not the original poster; but you did reply to my question.

The OP posed; what are the ethics of self policing each other when the punishment has grave consequences. So for the purpose of this example we'll say that website.com has a zero tolerance policy of no name calling.

So let's say you and I are playing in the threads and you call me a loser or something else (*itch). In jest and something that neither one of us find offensive. Someone else sees it and they report us.

Now we are both banned.

Without thought or reason we are both in violation of the rules and therefore subject to banishment. Is this ethical? Was the person right to report our conversation? Is what they did ethical?

They could have come to both of us and told us they were offended...we could have taken what is said and make sure to not do it again. In turn reminding others that they may need to keep in check. I personally find it completely ethical to work out issues directly with people before getting a third party or a mediator involved. Third party intervention when minor issues are present is generally unnecessary.

**************

I found this question interesting because in our society we accept "zero tolerance" policies. I think having them allows people to use it as an excuse to not think or have to make decisions. Sometimes decisions that can be difficult.

JewelsinBigD

Jen- I appreciate your response. I find that when the "law" is not just then it makes sense for two people to work it out even between themselves in order to avoid an unjust punishment - but this is not the essence of a website. A Website is a business and even though we may take a lot of interest in the website - they can run it however they want to within the constrains of the law. If they lay down certain rules, and we want to use the website- we have to agree to those rules. Its a license to use and we all had to agree to it.

However, if you and I were talking like that in a public park - even the police might ask us to be respectful of the other people around us.
Now- if we are over your house drinking wine and our language gets out of control - provided my kiddos are not around - no harm no foul. Goes back to the "it depends" thing.
Zero tolerance is necessary in instances where examining the ethical aspects of every action and its nuances are impractical and the majority of the time the result would be the same even after such examination.

Granville_Cocteau

I found this question interesting because in our society we accept "zero tolerance" policies. I think having them allows people to use it as an excuse to not think or have to make decisions. Sometimes decisions that can be difficult.

Brilliant and cute photo

My theory is the following: Yes, the organizers of the hypothetical online community can lay down their rules consistent with state and federal law. An individual user, if they want to keep using the service, would be wise to obey the rules, though if there is a collective uprising against a rule, the organizers would be wise to revisit it.

However, and this is key, if there is a policy (say zero tolerance on dress code) a user believes to be unjust or draconian, the user, while consenting through the service terms to personally obey the rule, is under no individual ethical imperative to report violations of that rule. And in fact, snitching would be unethical by the user's own moral code, if not an undermining of the commonly understood community ideal of magnanimity.

_errata_

Do you even categorical imperative? You stated the categorical imperative like the golden rule, but it isn't the same thing.

For each friend x that snitches on friend y, iff friend y breaks the image posting policy, then the logical implication of universalizing "snitching" would be a site with no cleavage, crotch shots, or whatever else is in the policy. The universalization of that rule doesn't lead to contradiction.

It's like trying to argue that not having people turn other people in for, let's say... committing murder, would lead to a contradiction in the system, and that is absurd. There is nothing contradictory about enforcing the policy of the site.

Try again maybe?

tigersword

One possible answer to your question is the morality and expectations of the majority of the community in question. If a dress code violation is considered to be a particulary heinous offense based on the belief structure of the population of the community, then excommunication might well be considered to be on a par with the severity of the crime.
Take into consideration of the wide swing of what is allowed in PG-13 movies in the United States - there can be no nudity, other than the buttocks, and the F-word is not allowed. Kissing can be open mouthed but tongues are not allowed. However, graphic violence, mutilation and murder are all acceptable. One wonders about the skewed morality of a society that accepts violence over sexuality.

This society was founded by Puritans. Violence was a way of life, with constant skirmishing in the New World with other nations trying to colonize and the native tribes. Sex was incredibly taboo. So that's kind of how we are in this country.

cafeaulait7

I found this question interesting because in our society we accept "zero tolerance" policies. I think having them allows people to use it as an excuse to not think or have to make decisions. Sometimes decisions that can be difficult.

Brilliant and cute photo

My theory is the following: Yes, the organizers of the hypothetical online community can lay down their rules consistent with state and federal law. An individual user, if they want to keep using the service, would be wise to obey the rules, though if there is a collective uprising against a rule, the organizers would be wise to revisit it.

However, and this is key, if there is a policy (say zero tolerance on dress code) a user believes to be unjust or draconian, the user, while consenting through the service terms to personally obey the rule, is under no individual ethical imperative to report violations of that rule. And in fact, snitching would be unethical by the user's own moral code, if not an undermining of the commonly understood community ideal of magnanimity.

Excellent OP, and I agree with your addition above. Personal ethics do not have to match organizational ethics, although folks are wise to follow the rules individually just to avoid being thrown out. They aren't required to have the same ethics themselves, just to follow the rules.

But that last thought makes me want to venture into political theory and examples and counter-examples, and I like hearing the philosophy side from others much better. Y'all probably do, too

I will extend your OP into Honour Code territory, though, if nobody minds. Honour codes are an ethical dilemma for me. If I swear I'll report something -- on my word (and risk of expulsion) -- will I report it? Even in the situation you describe? Rough.

Granville_Cocteau

I'd argue that there's no obligation to obey a rule or law that is unjust. Thoreau, Martin Luther King and others have argued that unjust laws should in fact be disobeyed. Rawls went as far as to lay our criteria for civil disobedience.

For honor codes, they are obviously an attempt to make individual ethics match organizational ethics. Universities have all sorts of honor codes designed to protect against lying, cheating, stealing, etc. But there are more severe codes, such as Brigham Young University's, which prohibits drinking, smoking, and the wearing of short shorts.

There's a fair argument to be made that, in a voluntary association, if you don't like the honor code, you shouldn't join. But what happens when you join but later discover that administration of the code is unjust--say discriminatory or draconian? You believed in the community's ideals, for instance, but saw application of the code was selective. Blacks, for instance, got twice the sentence for the same infraction as white people. Or for the same offense, women were expelled but men allowed to stay.

The dilemma was taken up in "Scent of a Woman" (based on the Italian film Profumo di Donna and novel Il Buoi e Il Mele--"Darkness and Honey") which concluded that, in such a situation, maintaining your individual integrity and character was more important than blindly following a community's unjust code.

When you take it to the level of social networks, it becomes interesting. Facebook, for instance, must screen thousands if not tens of thousands of posts each day for offensive remarks, bullying, etc. By their nature--millions of posts, not enough censors--social networks may not be able to fairly administer the code. Their reliance on self-policing, by nature, defers to individual ethics.

Granville_Cocteau

Just to clarify, an honor code which says you must report something or else suffer consequences (expulsion) is really not an honor code but a law for compulsory reporting. I can see reasons for such a law in some circumstances--abuse, violence, fraud (banks reporting suspicious financial transactions), etc. But again, whether an individual follows the law would also depend to some degree on the individual's conscience/ethics. Gestapo agents who testified they were just following the law had no defense for their atrocities. Conversely, an authority that looks the other way on a serious crime would not only be ethically amiss, but could be held liable for negligence.

The example I was thinking of, though, was a frivolous offense (dress code) prosecuted severely under a zero tolerance policy under a voluntary reporting code, or self policing, in a community. As a previous poster argued, zero tolerance policies prevent the use of careful distinctions. Is it snark, or actual bullying? Was it profane or was it just seductive?

Derpes

We could also consider other ethical theories such as utilitarianism and altruism. Tattling in the context of a social network often does not accomplish doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Altruism might come in the form of setting aside petty biases for the greater good in this particular context.

To your point, many punishments are highly disproportionate when considering the severity of the crime.

We could also bring Hobbes in the argument - what parallels exist between such social networks and the "state of nature"? What about a social contract?

_errata_

At the end of the day it boils down to consent and the rule of law. MFP can create a EULA and decide what is acceptable on their site and what is not. It's like me visiting your home and consenting to abide by your rules, but then afterward, disobeying them invoking the ever so altruistic motivation of "I don't like those rules." Cry me a river.

Comparing cleavage pics and snitching to the civil rights movement is patently absurd because, unlike the people in the civil rights movement, each of us had a choice to consent to the house rules. You don't like them? Fine. Leave. You are free to do so. Civil Rights mattered because the people being abused had no choice. They couldn't walk away. It's also patently absurd, because on one hand we are talking about boobs, and on the other hand we are talking about people getting lynched, poll taxes to prevent voting, and a subhuman standard of living.

:noway:

I don't like the rules, but I agree to them because I want to use the website. You don't like the rules?

:shows you the door:

FlaxMilk

"What are the ethics of tattling or self policing in such a situation, if the punishment (let's say excommunication from the network) vastly surpasses the offense?"

In a situation where the ethics vastly surpass the offense, it would be against my ethics to report, particularly in a situation where people have little to no freedom to leave the situation they don't like the rules of on their own or would be harmed from being reported.

But on a website, me not reporting has nothing to do with what will happen to the rule-breaker. That's the rule-breaker's problem. I don't report most things because I enjoy the snark, find the "indecent" pictures inspiring and motivating, and have a pet peeve about reading a great thread and having it disappear. It's a pretty self-serving approach; I'm not worried about consequences for other adults on a forum such as this. It's voluntary, there are usually multiple chances, and there is an appeals discussion. No one posts a belly button and gets permanently and forever banned.

I would guess that those reporting either have an agenda, in which case they pretty much want to provoke or taunt the rule-breakers and see them go, or they agree with the consequences for the offense. I personally don't use this website at work. I'm at work to work, and I want even this part of my life separate from my work life. I don't agree this site should be kept suitable for work. That's again, in my opinion, the problem of the adult choosing to use it at work. However, the site owners do not agree. They want it suitable for work. Other forum users then have a reasonable expectation that the rules in this area will be followed. They may be perfectly happy to see rule breakers banned. It's self-serving in the way that me not reporting is self-serving. It keeps the forum running in a way they agree with.

TL; DR: I report for underage. For a lot of reasons, I don't want under 18's here. Them getting banned is IMO an appropriate consequence. Those who report for other reasons probably consider the consequences ethical and just.