Green Belt Content
Let's begin our discussion by recapping a little of the film Sin City. The place where the stories take place is the fictional Sin City.
Cruel bandits, strange soulless people, prostitutes and corrupt
policeman walk the streets. The scene is dark with little color, only
enough to highlight the blood and lips of women.
The first character of interest is called Hartigan, played by the actor Bruce Willis. To protect a little girl that had been kidnapped by a pedophile, the son of a powerful senator, the tough policeman risks his life in a solitary courageous act. Hartigan saves the girl, but severely injures the senator's son. His partner, a corrupt policeman who is involved in the senator's protection scheme, shoots Hartigan and frames him in the kidnapping of the girl that he saved.
Hartigan is arrested, despite his innocence, and his life is ruined. Upon leaving prison, Hartigan encounters the girl that he saved and they fall in love. To save her again from the revenge of the senator's son-a repugnant figure-and the corrupt power scheme that reigns in Sin City, Hartigan shoots himself in the head. An altruistic suicide. He died to save the woman he loved and had saved when she was a child.
Hartigan is a character that acts according to his morals.
What is moral sense? These are the feelings that bring us morals. The policeman Hartigan had very strong moral feelings. He wanted to save the young woman he knew he couldn't protect. He would have to place her at risk to live the love that he felt for the girl.
Altruism is a word that means "love of others." It can also be described as selflessness. It is the opposite of egoism. So, did Hartigan act as an altruist or egotist?
Regardless of your evaluation of Hartigan, what is interesting is to observe the issue of moral sense. Let's read a short passage written by the professor Marilena Chau: "How many times, acting on an uncontrollable impulse or some strong emotion (fear, pride, ambition, vanity or cowardice) we do something that, afterwards, we feel shame, remorse or guilt for."
"On many occasions, we are moved by a person whose words and actions show honesty, altruism, even when these things require sacrifices. We admire people like this and want to imitate them. These sentiments and admiration also express our moral sense."
This moral sense is a force that can make us cry when we watch a film. It is obvious that not everyone cries and the degree of emotion is different for each person, but almost everyone has strongly rooted moral feelings.
People differ in how they feel and express their feelings. Two people can have the same moral sense and act differently emotionally. However, not every person has the same moral sense.
Each one of us has his own way of feeling. They say that everyone has their own SUBJECTIVITY. But there are things that touch some more than others, and, there are things that generate similar reactions in everyone. These are called INTERSUBJECTIVE.
Well, if you were a New York Yankee fan and your team won the World Series, this would move you and all other Yankee fans. It is likely that the intersubjective relationship between Yankee fans is completely different from what the same event would generate in Yomiuri Giants (Japan) fans. At best, it would be a judgment of fact. While Boston Red Sox fans might become angry. Perhaps the feeling inspired by the competition would generate a certain amount of envy...
Take a look at this passage from a text by Professor Marilena Chau: "Moral sense and conscience have to do with values, feelings, intentions, decisions and actions with regard to good and evil and desire for happiness. They have to do with the relationships that we have with others and therefore are born and created as a part of our intersubjective lives."
Earlier we used the expression JUDGMENT OF FACT. What does this mean? The victory of the Yankees was only noted in passing by fans of the Japanese team. They have no emotional reaction, nor did they make any kind of evaluation. They simply noted that the team from New York won the World Series. We can say that the result of the baseball game did not result in an ETHICAL JUDGMENT.
Marilena Chau explains that ETHICAL JUDGMENTS are also known as judgments of value. A judgment of value is different from a judgment of fact. When we note something that occurred or an event we are forming a judgment of fact. For example: the glass fell. When we evaluate an act, feeling, state of being, decisions or intentions we make a judgment of value. For example: he knocked the glass over on purpose.
Judgments of value are also normative. We say that something is normative when it establishes rules, which tell us how to conduct ourselves. Judgments of value tell us which ethical norms are appropriate for our action. This is why they are called normative. We judge the actions of others based on these ethical norms that we have internally.
We use judgments of value all the time. Oftentimes our values are based on solid things, even if incorrect or considered bad. Prejudice is linked to a premature judgment of value. Those who practice racial prejudice believe that people who belong to a certain culture are no good or stupid or lazy.
For ethical conduct to exist, a person must know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and virtue and vice.
Moral conscience is manifested in the ability to deliberate on a situation and alternatives, whether they be easy or difficult.
Moral conscience is a person's own conscience. Now, let's address the issue of the inherent good nature of human beings. To do this, we must look to two philosophers. One is called Rousseau and the other Kant. Let's begin with the Frenchman.
Rousseau is one of the greatest philosophers ever known. He was born in Geneva in 1712 and died in 1778. His most famous books were "The Social Contract" (1762) and "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men" (1755).
One of his most famous quotes is as follows. "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains." The idea of the "noble savage" came from Rousseau. For him, man was born free and noble. Society corrupted man. Rousseau believed that moral duty brings us back to our natural condition. It was as if men had goodness stamped on the motherboards of their hearts. By carrying out our duties we would be obeying ourselves and our feelings.
Isn't that interesting. The other philosopher, a man named Immanuel Kant, didn't like the idea that morals came from the heart or from feelings. Kant believed that reason was fundamental for the existence of ethics. What now?
First it is important to note that Kant was born in 1724, in the small German town of Konigsberg. At the time, this city belonged to Eastern Prussia. Incredibly Kant never left his city of birth. He was very methodical.
Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason. In this book Kant examined man's potential for grasping reality through experience. Another important book by Kant was Critique of Practical Reason. In it he formulated his ethics based on reason, his rationalist ethics.
What do you mean? Ethics born out of reason? Do you remember the difference between someone who is autonomous and someone who is heteronomous? An anonymous person has the power to decide about his own life, ideas and feelings. A heteronomous person is not free and his will is decided by external forces or other people.
Kant rejected the idea that morals have an external source like a god or a supreme being. Ethics are derived from a central principle, from a duty based on reason that Kant called the categorical imperative. Wow!
Unlike Rousseau, the philosopher Kant believed that we, by nature, are egocentric, ambitious and aggressive. By nature, man seeks pleasure and things that satisfy him. This is why Kant believed that we need duties and to use reason to become moral beings.
Are desires stronger than reason? A person that is addicted to alcohol has undermined his ability to reason. Why? Not only because alcohol is bad for you, but because it enslaves you.
But, pay close attention here. Professor Marilena Chau clarifies this by stating "DUTIES are not a catalog of virtues or a list of do's and don'ts. Duty is important for any moral action."
Observe now Kant's leap in reasoning: The categorical imperative is summarized by the general formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words, a moral act is carried out as an agreement between will and universal laws.
This formulation allowed Kant to deduct three MORAL MAXIMS that show the unconditionality of acts done out of duty. They are: 1) Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature; 2) So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only; 3) So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
What does the first maxim mean? It means that every human being should want to act while respecting DUTY. And that this moral DUTY is present universally, regardless of time or place. Everyone should respect and strive for ethical conduct as a universal law.
The second maxim says that no one, no human being should be used as a means or instrument in our interest. Human beings should be treated with dignity, as free people that deserve to be treated as an end or as the purpose of our actions.
Kant was extremely clear: men are not means by which to achieve good or happiness. It is not correct to use a person as a means to do good for others.
Do you know why? Because of Kant's third maxim: If your action cannot be universalized, or in other words, if it cannot be used by everyone, even you, and further still, cannot be done any place at any time, this action cannot be considered morally correct.
Kant arrives at the notion of good in an interesting way. The philosopher from Konigsberg did not say that we must act morally to earn divine reward, nor to follow the will of a superior being. We should do good because only good can be universalized. He uses reason and our conscience to analyze each content through this imperative, this duty. So each action or conduct that cannot become universal is not morally correct. Let's take a look at a case using the Kant maxims. How can we analyze the act of a hacker breaking into a computer, according to Kant's categorical imperative?
Our ideas are important, but we can only learn and advance our knowledge when we try to understand the ideas of others. Only by trying to interpret them can we understand them. If we wanted to know everyone's opinion we needn't have read Rousseau or Kant. Knowing how they think about things, we can go even further. As the scientist Isaac Newton said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
Wait a minute. This idea of searching for what people do best, understand their thinking is the basis of HACKER THINKING. Look how the open-source software movement works. When a code is good, hackers improve it and redistribute the improvements on the web instead of creating another. You see. To know if a code is good, we have to know it's source code. What does this mean? We have to look patiently at the lines of code, analyze them, compile them and see what can be done with them.
Would breaking into the computer of a criminal be justifiable according to Kant's maxims? For Kant, no. Break-ins are not morally justifiable in any case, since moral duty cannot apply to one case and not another. Kant defends that duty is universal, so it must hold for all people and every situation.
What about legal action? Can't a judge authorize the tracking or exclusion of an illegal site? If all the criminals were detained and their sites taken off the web there would be no problem in universalizing this norm. That is not the issue. So what is the issue? And what if the judge takes a legal site off the air? If the judge acts in bad faith? Well, in this case, it's obvious that the action of the judge would not comply with the categorical imperative. It would be an action that couldn't be universalized and, therefore, would not be morally acceptable.
Returning to a real potential case: you find the site of a pedophile (one of the most shocking acts imaginable). What should you do?
Well, let's act according to Kant's categorical imperative. We should note down all the possible information about the site and get the URL. We should then call a HOTLINE. In Brazil, the channel that receives anonymous tips on human rights abuses on the Internet is called SaferNet Brasil.
Reporting the site of the pedophile to SaferNet would mean you are acting correctly and ethically, since a team from this organization will gather all the information possible about who and which country hosts the site, how many servers, etc. The team will then contact authorities in Brazil and in other countries that may be involved. Until the criminal site is taken off the web, the team at SaferNet will not rest.
Hartigan is a character that acts according to his morals.
What is moral sense? These are the feelings that bring us morals. The policeman Hartigan had very strong moral feelings. He wanted to save the young woman he knew he couldn't protect. He would have to place her at risk to live the love that he felt for the girl.
Altruism is a word that means "love of others." It can also be described as selflessness. It is the opposite of egoism. So, did Hartigan act as an altruist or egotist?
Regardless of your evaluation of Hartigan, what is interesting is to observe the issue of moral sense. Let's read a short passage written by the professor Marilena Chau: "How many times, acting on an uncontrollable impulse or some strong emotion (fear, pride, ambition, vanity or cowardice) we do something that, afterwards, we feel shame, remorse or guilt for."
"On many occasions, we are moved by a person whose words and actions show honesty, altruism, even when these things require sacrifices. We admire people like this and want to imitate them. These sentiments and admiration also express our moral sense."
This moral sense is a force that can make us cry when we watch a film. It is obvious that not everyone cries and the degree of emotion is different for each person, but almost everyone has strongly rooted moral feelings.
People differ in how they feel and express their feelings. Two people can have the same moral sense and act differently emotionally. However, not every person has the same moral sense.
Each one of us has his own way of feeling. They say that everyone has their own SUBJECTIVITY. But there are things that touch some more than others, and, there are things that generate similar reactions in everyone. These are called INTERSUBJECTIVE.
Well, if you were a New York Yankee fan and your team won the World Series, this would move you and all other Yankee fans. It is likely that the intersubjective relationship between Yankee fans is completely different from what the same event would generate in Yomiuri Giants (Japan) fans. At best, it would be a judgment of fact. While Boston Red Sox fans might become angry. Perhaps the feeling inspired by the competition would generate a certain amount of envy...
Take a look at this passage from a text by Professor Marilena Chau: "Moral sense and conscience have to do with values, feelings, intentions, decisions and actions with regard to good and evil and desire for happiness. They have to do with the relationships that we have with others and therefore are born and created as a part of our intersubjective lives."
Earlier we used the expression JUDGMENT OF FACT. What does this mean? The victory of the Yankees was only noted in passing by fans of the Japanese team. They have no emotional reaction, nor did they make any kind of evaluation. They simply noted that the team from New York won the World Series. We can say that the result of the baseball game did not result in an ETHICAL JUDGMENT.
Marilena Chau explains that ETHICAL JUDGMENTS are also known as judgments of value. A judgment of value is different from a judgment of fact. When we note something that occurred or an event we are forming a judgment of fact. For example: the glass fell. When we evaluate an act, feeling, state of being, decisions or intentions we make a judgment of value. For example: he knocked the glass over on purpose.
Judgments of value are also normative. We say that something is normative when it establishes rules, which tell us how to conduct ourselves. Judgments of value tell us which ethical norms are appropriate for our action. This is why they are called normative. We judge the actions of others based on these ethical norms that we have internally.
We use judgments of value all the time. Oftentimes our values are based on solid things, even if incorrect or considered bad. Prejudice is linked to a premature judgment of value. Those who practice racial prejudice believe that people who belong to a certain culture are no good or stupid or lazy.
For ethical conduct to exist, a person must know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and virtue and vice.
Moral conscience is manifested in the ability to deliberate on a situation and alternatives, whether they be easy or difficult.
Moral conscience is a person's own conscience. Now, let's address the issue of the inherent good nature of human beings. To do this, we must look to two philosophers. One is called Rousseau and the other Kant. Let's begin with the Frenchman.
Rousseau is one of the greatest philosophers ever known. He was born in Geneva in 1712 and died in 1778. His most famous books were "The Social Contract" (1762) and "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men" (1755).
One of his most famous quotes is as follows. "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains." The idea of the "noble savage" came from Rousseau. For him, man was born free and noble. Society corrupted man. Rousseau believed that moral duty brings us back to our natural condition. It was as if men had goodness stamped on the motherboards of their hearts. By carrying out our duties we would be obeying ourselves and our feelings.
Isn't that interesting. The other philosopher, a man named Immanuel Kant, didn't like the idea that morals came from the heart or from feelings. Kant believed that reason was fundamental for the existence of ethics. What now?
First it is important to note that Kant was born in 1724, in the small German town of Konigsberg. At the time, this city belonged to Eastern Prussia. Incredibly Kant never left his city of birth. He was very methodical.
Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason. In this book Kant examined man's potential for grasping reality through experience. Another important book by Kant was Critique of Practical Reason. In it he formulated his ethics based on reason, his rationalist ethics.
What do you mean? Ethics born out of reason? Do you remember the difference between someone who is autonomous and someone who is heteronomous? An anonymous person has the power to decide about his own life, ideas and feelings. A heteronomous person is not free and his will is decided by external forces or other people.
Kant rejected the idea that morals have an external source like a god or a supreme being. Ethics are derived from a central principle, from a duty based on reason that Kant called the categorical imperative. Wow!
Unlike Rousseau, the philosopher Kant believed that we, by nature, are egocentric, ambitious and aggressive. By nature, man seeks pleasure and things that satisfy him. This is why Kant believed that we need duties and to use reason to become moral beings.
Are desires stronger than reason? A person that is addicted to alcohol has undermined his ability to reason. Why? Not only because alcohol is bad for you, but because it enslaves you.
But, pay close attention here. Professor Marilena Chau clarifies this by stating "DUTIES are not a catalog of virtues or a list of do's and don'ts. Duty is important for any moral action."
Observe now Kant's leap in reasoning: The categorical imperative is summarized by the general formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words, a moral act is carried out as an agreement between will and universal laws.
This formulation allowed Kant to deduct three MORAL MAXIMS that show the unconditionality of acts done out of duty. They are: 1) Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature; 2) So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only; 3) So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
What does the first maxim mean? It means that every human being should want to act while respecting DUTY. And that this moral DUTY is present universally, regardless of time or place. Everyone should respect and strive for ethical conduct as a universal law.
The second maxim says that no one, no human being should be used as a means or instrument in our interest. Human beings should be treated with dignity, as free people that deserve to be treated as an end or as the purpose of our actions.
Kant was extremely clear: men are not means by which to achieve good or happiness. It is not correct to use a person as a means to do good for others.
Do you know why? Because of Kant's third maxim: If your action cannot be universalized, or in other words, if it cannot be used by everyone, even you, and further still, cannot be done any place at any time, this action cannot be considered morally correct.
Kant arrives at the notion of good in an interesting way. The philosopher from Konigsberg did not say that we must act morally to earn divine reward, nor to follow the will of a superior being. We should do good because only good can be universalized. He uses reason and our conscience to analyze each content through this imperative, this duty. So each action or conduct that cannot become universal is not morally correct. Let's take a look at a case using the Kant maxims. How can we analyze the act of a hacker breaking into a computer, according to Kant's categorical imperative?
Our ideas are important, but we can only learn and advance our knowledge when we try to understand the ideas of others. Only by trying to interpret them can we understand them. If we wanted to know everyone's opinion we needn't have read Rousseau or Kant. Knowing how they think about things, we can go even further. As the scientist Isaac Newton said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
Wait a minute. This idea of searching for what people do best, understand their thinking is the basis of HACKER THINKING. Look how the open-source software movement works. When a code is good, hackers improve it and redistribute the improvements on the web instead of creating another. You see. To know if a code is good, we have to know it's source code. What does this mean? We have to look patiently at the lines of code, analyze them, compile them and see what can be done with them.
Would breaking into the computer of a criminal be justifiable according to Kant's maxims? For Kant, no. Break-ins are not morally justifiable in any case, since moral duty cannot apply to one case and not another. Kant defends that duty is universal, so it must hold for all people and every situation.
What about legal action? Can't a judge authorize the tracking or exclusion of an illegal site? If all the criminals were detained and their sites taken off the web there would be no problem in universalizing this norm. That is not the issue. So what is the issue? And what if the judge takes a legal site off the air? If the judge acts in bad faith? Well, in this case, it's obvious that the action of the judge would not comply with the categorical imperative. It would be an action that couldn't be universalized and, therefore, would not be morally acceptable.
Returning to a real potential case: you find the site of a pedophile (one of the most shocking acts imaginable). What should you do?
Well, let's act according to Kant's categorical imperative. We should note down all the possible information about the site and get the URL. We should then call a HOTLINE. In Brazil, the channel that receives anonymous tips on human rights abuses on the Internet is called SaferNet Brasil.
Reporting the site of the pedophile to SaferNet would mean you are acting correctly and ethically, since a team from this organization will gather all the information possible about who and which country hosts the site, how many servers, etc. The team will then contact authorities in Brazil and in other countries that may be involved. Until the criminal site is taken off the web, the team at SaferNet will not rest.
SaferNet Brasil Site: www.denunciar.org.br/twiki/bin/view/SaferNet/WebHome
- White Belt Content
- Yellow Belt Content
- Green Belt Content
- Blue Belt Content
- Brown Belt Content
- Black Belt Content