On Morality...

Given the recent topics of conversations, the subject of rights and obligations has come up a bit on Feministe. I think that there are a lot of places people come from on the subject of rights and obligations, so I thought I'd do a little polling and see where people fall.

Generally speaking, when I, and I think most other people, talk about morality, what we're really talking about are rights and obligations against and towards other people. Moral theory is a pretty complex and highly debated field, and I'm not even going to try to sum up or explain all of the different sources of and theories of morality. Suffice to say that there's a lot of debate.

In our society, there's very little relation between "Legal" and "Moral." The two sometimes overlap, as in the case of, say, murder- but the fact that something is against the law doesn't make it immoral. It's against the law to jay-walk, but I'm not sure that I've ever seen someone try to argue that it's immoral. Likewise, the fact that something is legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's moral. It's legal to lie to and cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend, but most moral theories would suggest it's probably not very moral to do so.

With regards to rights and obligations: When you are said to have a right, X, it implies an obligation in other moral beings. If I have a right not to be killed unjustly, then it follows that there's an obligation in other moral beings not to kill me unjustly. If someone else is said to have a right to personal autonomy, then I have an obligation not to unjustly encroach on that person's personal autonomy. Rights and obligations are sort of constantly pushing against each other. For each right you have, there are coralary obligations that other people have to respect.

"People."

I think that a point that many people get hung up on is the use of the word "person" within moral theory. In everyday language most people use "human" and "person" pretty interchangably. When someone says "I saw a group of people standing over by such-and-such" we parse that as meaning a group of human beings. That's not necessarily the case in moral theory.

When we talk about "persons" in moral theory, what we're talking about are moral agents. Some moral theorists believe that only human beings can be persons, but quite a few leave open the possibility for non-human persons. Think, for example, of Star Wars (I know, geeky, right?). Any of the sapient beings in the Star Wars universe could be considered persons if they're capable of being called moral beings. If they have the capacity to understand moral obligations, they'd be people. This even includes things like artificial intelligences- computers that are self-aware.

For more practical and (for now!) realistic examples, consider the possibility that some animals turn out to be smarter than we'd previously thought. If some apes or dolphin turn out to have human-like intelligence, and can understand rights and obligations, shouldn't they be included in the moral community?

Moving more towards my personal beliefs (although, by no means only mine), is the possibility that some things may have rights, but not obligations. I don't really want to weigh in too heavily in the animal rights debate right now, because, quite frankly, I don't have a horse in that race, and I haven't thought enough about animal rights to take a strong, educated stance, but even within the world of human beings we recognize that there are some humans that have rights without attached obligations.

To put it broadly: Human beings that aren't capable of understanding or acting on moral obligations are generally held not to have them. This is, I think, the main reason why we usually hold young children to lower standards of behavior than adults. If a child engages in theft, lying, or even some forms of violence, we generally don't hold them accountable in the same way that we'd hold a teenager or an adult.

When a six year-old hits another child, or steals a toy or candy, we recognize that part of this is likely because the child doesn't yet have a developed sense of moral obligation and behavior. You can tell a young child that stealing is wrong, or that hitting is bad, but it takes some time for the child to develop a sense of obligation towards other people. Children develop a sense of understanding beyond the self over time, they're not necessarily born with this.

This is also one of the reasons why people who are deemed insane are held to a different standard than those who are not. If you are unable to control your own behavior, or experience the world in such a way that moral behavior is completely impossible, then you can't be said to have the same obligations as a person who can make moral choices. Which is not to say that such actions go unpunished or no steps should or are taken to prevent future repeat offenses- but the standard is different, and we generally think that such people "need help" not just prison (as an example).

Anyway, that's sort of a brief run-down of where I'm coming from on discussions about morality and moral behaviors. Like I said, there's a lot of debate in the field, and my thoughts shouldn't be taken as an explanation for what every moral theorist has to say- some would agree, others wouldn't. I thought it might help understand where I'm coming from in some conversations, though.

Let's clear a few things up...

Not that I think it'll make much difference to those involved, but:

1. I'm not a radical feminist. If I walked up to most self-identified radical feminists and tried to tell them that I'm a rad-fem as well, I strongly suspect one of two reactions: a. they'd laugh in my face at such a patently ridiculous claim, or b. they'd punch me in the face for making such a ridiculous claim. I know it's a difficult concept, but bear with me. Radical feminists are feminists, but not all feminists are radical feminists. I am a feminist, not a radical feminist.

2. Anyone who can read my blog and think that I want to ban video games is flat-out a moron. I mean, I can see how you might get the idea that I, like that uber-dipshit Jack Thompson, think that video games are evil, what with my post Games are Good For You. You know, the post where I talk about some of the ways that games are, uh, good? Or, maybe it's the post where I specifically say that I'm opposed to banning games? Actually, I suspect it's more about posts like the one I made about RE5. Of course, if you read the whole post, and the follow-up, you'd notice that I specifically mention how much I love gaming. That I'm critical of games sometimes is not to say that I don't love them or that I think they should be banned- in fact, it's rather the opposite. It's my love of games that inspires me to be critical and push for improvements. There's a pretty significant difference between constructive criticism and an attempt to ban games. Saying "I think things can be better" does not translate into "We should ban games" unless you've got all the mental facilities of a rock.

But, clearly, I haven't made it clear enough. If you're a gamer, and you're thinking that people like Tipper Gore or Jack Thompson are better allies than me? You've got all the intellectual power of raw hamburger. I don't want to ban any games. I want games to improve, and I'm doing my damndest to discuss them in an intelligent fashion so that we can, with any luck, get to the day when games are taken as seriously and seen as being as valid an art-form/entertainment medium as film. Super conservative groups and people like Gore and Thompson don't want to see games succeed- they want to destroy the industry. They think that games are responsible for all of societies ills.

But, hey, you're free to pick whatever allies you want.

3. I've seen some complaints about "Free Speech" popping up a bit. There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes free speech. I'm not imposing on your right to free speech by not letting insulting or hostile comments through moderation. I'd be imposing on your right to free speech if I tried to shut down your blog, or if I took actions to silence you on your own turf. You have every right to be as closed minded or obnoxious or offensive as you want on your own space, and if someone tries to shut your site down, and I know about it, I'll stand up for your right to say what you want. I won't stand up for your "right" to shut other people's sites down, though. When you try to silence other people, you are the one destroying freedom of speech.

And, for the record: I'm more than happy to entertain disagreements on my site. If you show respect for me and my site, you can disagree with me all you want. If you come on here and tell me to go fuck myself or post threatening comments, I'm not letting them through. If you don't like the things I say, I encourage debate. Just keep it at least moderately respectful. I think that's fair.

Anyway, I just thought I'd clarify those few things, on the off chance that it matters to anyone.

What a Weekend...

First: This is post 50. Hooray? Sadly, it's sort of a lame post. Oh well.

Second: I just wanted to greet the 218 of you that visited on Sunday. I'd roll out the welcome mat, but, well, it's buried under 50 or so copies of a Stalin biography. Ah, what can you do, right? Hope you found something interesting to read while you were here.

Third: Because I hate freedom of speech, I turned on comment moderation. I also hate cute puppies, vanilla ice cream, and your mom. Those are also reasons why I turned on comment moderation. Did I mention that I hate freedom? Oh, yes. I do. So, if you've got a post about freedom of speech, cute puppies, vanilla ice cream, or your mom... don't bother. I hate them all, and they'll not appear on my blog.

Welcome to No Cookies For Me...

Over the past year or so, I've been commenting pretty regularly on a variety of feminist blogs. When my buddy krafty started up 79soul, I jumped at the chance to be a part of the blogging community. The time has come for me to focus a blog more exclusively on the socio-political issues that are important to me. I'll still be posting on 79soul, and will likely cross-post things that intersect where pop-culture and politics meet, but I think that 79soul should be about entertainment and pop-culture, and I don't want to try to force posts about my feminist leanings onto a site about music and movies.

Thus, No Cookies For Me is born.

So, for all the people who've been telling me "You should have a blog!"
Now I do.