Instructions
Complete your reading of George Orwell's novel 1984 by Wednesday, December 3, 2008. When you reach one of the stopping points given below, respond to the Essential Question for that section of the novel. For each of the essential questions, you must respond to the question in 100-300 words and respond to the comments of at least one of your classmates in separate posts of the same length. Since this is a Web Log, your comments will not be nested, so be sure to identify the question and response you are addressing. Given that there are four stopping points and Essential Questions, I expect at least 8 responses from each of you.
NOTES: There is a cut-off date by which you must complete your responses to each essential question. I expect to read direct references to the novel and relevant discussion of pertinent ideas. Lastly, sign your posts with first name and last initial. Like this--John D.
Google has the capability to track every user's Internet use, not just those who are registered users. Recently, the government requested data from Google that the company refused to provide. What would happen to our privacy if Google and the government were to cooperate? Maybe the 21st century Big Brother is a hybrid of government and industry. I'm glad to see that Jewel is no longer using fingerprints in its payment system, but what if government and industry began to see eye to eye on the use of privately collected information? What if Jewel sold the government its fingerprint records? What if Google sold its Internet use information to the government?
3 comments:
I'm not exactly sure as to where to post this, but it applies to 1984 and I don't want to buggy up any other post so here is some more food for thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance is basically the uncomfortable feeling you get by performing double think. That same feeling that requires you to apply doublethink again so you do not feel cognitive dissonance. You could say, with much philosophical and psychological backing, that doublethink does in fact go against the nature of humanity. They aren't just trying to crush the human spirit, as they do with the idea of passion and lust, they want to rewrite the human spirit. It's a lofty goal that the Party aims for, and I wonder if it even possible. I think it was in LR that we talked about cloning and what it means to be human (is a clone still a human, or a soulless automaton?) If the Party can truly successfully erase and rewrite the soul, then what does that mean for humanity? If they can create a people who's inherent nature is to follow the doctrine and lifestyle planned by the Party, do they not create the first ever purposeful, peaceful, happy, and perfect race?
Naturally we would be vehemently opposed to this idea, and rightly so. After all, it is inherent of our human nature to oppose its destruction, just as we are kindly opposed to someone crushing us to a pulp. It is really a battle between two spirits, one of the present and past-one that constantly struggles to find peace with the limitations of the world. The other, the spirit of the Party's future, isn't trying to adapt the world to meet its desires, but rather to adapt the spirit to meet the state of the world.
A recent psychology study has shown that, for bullies, the act actually triggers the pleasure sensors in the brain. Now imagine, which is not impossible to consider with current and future advancements in biotechnology, that we can rewire the neurons so that this “defect” is created in a human. We could build a society of brutal inquisitors, those who would take pleasure in the humility of others. And would then the act be wrong? Is it wrong to provide the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people? Perhaps the role of government would be more successful if instead of trying to meet the desires of the people, it altered the desires so that the needs would be able to be met.
Right now we feel bad when people are dying of famine, disease, and war. There is sadness and guilt when people are hurt, and there is apathy when lofty success and grand purpose cannot be achieved. What if instead of trying to meet the impossible demands we set before us (World Peace,) we merely altered ourselves to be happy with the current conditions. Would it be wrong for people to be happy? Take it a step further. What if we first altered society, so that we could ensure the current state of the world would be eternal. Naturally times change (and for the most part, we cannot stop this change.) So what if first ensured that history stops, and change never comes? Then say we alter our animal nature, our human spirit, to find pleasure and peace and purpose in the current condition? Sound familiar? Sound like the Party? Now, with that logic in place, and taking a step back from your natural convictions...does it sound wrong?
One thing I found fascinating about the ideas George Orwell presents in 1984 was how similar they were to Kantian ethics. Some of the most striking philosophical implications were the existence of absolute truths, freedom as a necessary precondition for rationality, and a rejection of happiness as the sole end of human existence. DJ’s genetic engineering example does a beautiful job of showing how these ideas interconnect. Happiness is by its very nature subjective, based on the physical and psychological needs of the being in question, and therefore cannot be the purpose assigned to rational beings in general, much less the à priori basis of morality. Any mindless automaton can maximize utility; one could argue that animals do so every day. To use a more “intelligent” example, computers are easily stumped by so-called Gödel statements such as “This sentence is false.” One thing that separates rational beings from irrational beings is their ability to understand the implications of their thoughts and actions. Irrational beings are not capable of doublethink because they cannot comprehend the implications of a universe governed by their own maxims, so one could say that they are not capable of morality at all, because they will do nothing out of a sense of duty and only consider present circumstances.
Kant and the Pietists argued that there was an objective end to the existence of rational beings (humans): to bring moral worth to the universe. This objective end cannot be the maximization of utility, as it must be determined from first principles. We must then look to what allows us to act out of a sense of duty in the first place: free will. Any moral action must preserve free will and rational beings in general as ends in themselves, and never as means to the end of happiness, since that would defeat humanity’s notion of purpose. To preserve rationality, we must act in a rational manner, understanding the implications of the maxims under which we act. The basis of all morality must be the philosophical preservation of free will in a rational manner. Therefore, the goal of human existence should be to act in such a manner that every maxim which governs a person’s actions must be one which that person could will that it become a universal law.
This principle, the categorical imperative, gives us a means to judge the morality of the Party’s actions. If the Party molds human consciousness to be at peace with its surroundings, why is that bad? The answer is that the free will’s mechanism of self-preservation, which is medically apparent in cognitive dissonance and value incongruence, would not permit that anyone should will it into becoming a universal law, because the altering of one’s consciousness deprives one of rationality due to the fact that it necessitates the existence of doublethink. Doublethink is essentially the sacrifice of one’s rationality due to a refusal to consider the implications of one’s thoughts, and the forfeiture of one’s place in Kant’s “Kingdom of Ends”. Because no rational being could will that rationality would vanish, and since being at peace with surroundings one sought to change necessitates the destruction of memory (i.e. doublethink), then it cannot be moral to sacrifice the purpose of humanity by altering their consciousness to obtain utility maximization from the surrounding environment, since that would violate the efficacy of free will in general.
So to answer your question, DJ, YES—it does sound wrong to turn humanity into mere automatons and to “legislate away” the purpose of rational beings in general just to obtain the greatest happiness. To heck with my natural convictions, the convictions that condemn this action as immoral are simply an unavoidable conclusion in the mind and soul of any rational being, and are determined by the preservation of the autonomy of the free will. Doublethink is ALWAYS WRONG because it does not allow us to bring moral worth into the universe; no matter how much of that good, fuzzy feeling you think it gives you, you will only defeat your own purpose and leave the entire universe in the dark.
The government could certain track our progress through the internet. I doubt it would do them any good. I remeber a while back reading this article about Ipods being stolen. It said that apple has the ability to track Ipods and knows if one is stolen or not. Unfortunatley to catch a criminal would cost them more than to give the victim a new ipod. So Ipod theft became such an easy market. You could steal one, and apple would know you stole it, but they wouldn't prosecute you. Things may have changed since then. (i read the article about a year ago) I get the feeling that the government will have this same problem. They can totally see if you are doing omething wrong. But they may not be able to do anything about it because it will cost them more than they will get back. If anything they could only prosecute the big time criminals. I would agree with that idea and be okay with it. Lord of War would also help explain why the government ignores some criminals, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. about 7 years ago organized crime made about twice as much money as Americas largest companies. Organized crime doesn't waste money on desk supplies or capital buildings. They are needed to make America function. Monopoly is a crime, yet ComEd is the only electrical provider. The same with space. There are hundreds of smaller organizations that can afford to send people into spce and bring them back. yet america only lets NASA go into space 9within america).
So while the government could track us and prosecute us, they wont. They need crime. They wont put us in danger, that would just put theselves in danger, but they will not look too far into it.
Post a Comment