In your #7 (“ It’s also hard because when bad people are scientists or writers, there’s no easy way to punish them without also punishing their ideas.”) I’d expand on ‘writers’ to include all artists — there are lots of examples of exceptional artists that are or were “bad people.”
For sure. Really it's anyone in any field where there's a strong norm that people "own" their ideas. Artists, journalists, academics. Borderline cases would be... comedians? Magicians? Politicians?
IMHO, gossip is evil and should be completely replaced by the justice system. If you don't like what the charming sociopath is doing, generalize a principle out of it and make it a law (sue him for emotional damage?). Otherwise, we get (metaphorical) lynching which is detrimental to the fabric of society.
Yes. I believe in freedom of speech, and I don't see a reason why you should not be allowed to mention/not mention whoever you want. I don't see a point, though. Do you believe it will discourage future philosophers from becoming Nazis (because their names will be memory-wiped)?
I certainly don't claim it makes much difference. But on the margin, I think the collective effect of many people shunning Nazi philosophers creates some small incentive for future intellectuals to not join extremist political movements? But more generally, I was just trying to make the argument that some degree of "gossip" seems good, at least in the current world.
I'm open to the idea that maybe we should try to build a world where gossip no longer has any positive role to play. Maybe through suing? Or maybe through some kind of advanced form of insurance?
It's hard for me to believe that this incentive doesn't round down to zero. If someone has proto-Nazi views, would they really care? I just don't see it, but maybe you're right 🤷 Still, I'm unconvinced by this example that "gossip" could be good.
To be clear, I don't have a good idea for an alternative, just a vague intuition of "let there be laws, courts, and procedures". I just think that in the current world, on the margin, we should push against cancelling people.
I'm curious how do imagine insurance could work? Like, I have insurance against assholes that would pay if I get harassed? Why would assholes participate?
I think we'll have to disagree regarding the merits of being nice to dead Nazis. Regarding insurance, I just thought of the idea! But probably it would have to be mandatory to participate. Unless, of course, we decide to use social coercion to get people to participate...
Maybe social punishment should be different than capitalist punishment-is punishing a bad person's business the same as punishing the person but not the ideas? I certainly have a personal list of places that I will not support with my money [or my labor] because the person/owner at the very top of the business is bad. But this does not reach the level of social punishment [usually] since I may be the only one or one of few punishing the business. It's being internally ethically consistent. And what about education and curricula? How should we teach the idea without social punishment issues?
"On the other hand, I really wish we were all more accountable to the future. So maybe we should lean into this."
As usual, I am glomming onto a tangential point because I have nothing to add to your well-stated main ones...why do you wish this? I don't see why I should change my ethics to conform to those of future generations any more than I should change them to conform to those of past generations. Both groups come from foreign cultures with (probably) some values I don't share, and in the first case I don't even know what they are. Of course, I have more responsibility to help future people (according to *my* values) than past people, because helping future people is not impossible and helping past people is. But that's different from caring about their judgment of my actions (as distinct from how *I* would judge my actions if I could perfectly predict their consequences). I assuredly do not.
Ah, in that particular sentence I didn't mean specifically that I want us to be more more accountable in terms of changing ethics. I also mean even in terms of our own ethics! Our choices have all sorts of "externalities" in the future and broadly speaking it's very hard to internalize them. Posthumous cancellation is an unusual exception to that rule.
I see...but surely most posthumous cancellation is either over differences in values or due to later generations having extra factual information about the consequences of actions? The examples you mentioned certainly seem that way to me. I'd think that not many people are going around deliberately doing stuff they know is bad for future generations, and those who are doing that would not stop merely because they observed a higher frequency of posthumous cancellation over unrelated stuff done by past generations.
I think I actually disagree? At least, I think that most people don't spend that much time thinking about how their actions affect future generations one way or the other.
Maybe what's off here is this assumption that we need to tie ideas to people. Ideas can stand on their own without attribution to a person, I don't think it's too hard but egos get in the way. I'd like to believe that ideas would have happened even if a specific person didn't discover then, ie a counterfactual exists where said good idea/bad person person didn't exist - someone else would have eventually come up with it and then we're less married to the notion of ideas being strongly coupled with individual people.
Also, for anyone who has had interactions with the US justice system - many will find that it sucks and is a lousy mechanism for social punishment.
What stands out to me is points #1-7 are all about excision. Varying degrees of excision but the strategy is the same. Tommy's been bad and he doesn't get to play soccer with the rest of us until he's repented. Now go stand outside the city gates lol. It's like we took all the reverence out of judeochristianity but boy did we keep the rules.
This strategy of surgical removal is very bad. Not only unsuccessful for "society" but also soul-corrotting for the one being punished and also for the one(s) doing the punishing. Nobody nowadays believes the sex registry is doing what it was "meant to do". But we the punishers, want to save our normal daily lives from the fascist/rapist/___. So we pick the easiest option, which is labelling them something ugly and shoving them in prison. Now we are good, superego is satisfied, everything is ok. We won't trouble ourselves with the very painful acknowledgement that we worked with you every step of the way, that there is a fascist also inside us. Whether or not it is "Ok" to enjoy Picasso's work is not the question. The question is why do I feel the need to feel justified when I engage with other people's work? Why do I need to believe that my immediate circle of interest and attention is pure? Because I need to believe that I am pure? That I do not exist within a cultural apparatus that wields and necessitates exploitation?
And why do we so often get it wrong when it comes to punishment? Because we really have no idea what forgiveness is. We see only two options: resignation or vengeance. Forgiveness is neither of those. Forgiveness is not letting it go or being nonconfrontational or keeping the peace. Forgiveness is simply dealing with my own hatred and anger before I deal with the wrongdoer. Not dealing with with my anger and hate through justice. I cannot do justice unless I forgive.
As different as resignation and vengeance appear, what they have in common is a refusal to engage with the wrongdoer. I want nothing to do with you. I am dealing with the person who has hurt me by permanently excluding them. I do not want a relationship with you. I never want a relationship with you. I put you outside the circle of my community forever. Maybe this works with ex gfs but it's no way to run a society, our prisons are already too full.
also, i *do think you should check out the nazi german philosophers (it's hard to guess which one you're referring to, because there are, regrettably, *so* many...) and then write an essay about how the ideas of the German idealists and Lebensphilosophers actually led directly to fascism and genocide, and what use we can derive from philosophy as a field in the wake of such catastrophe. :)
In your #7 (“ It’s also hard because when bad people are scientists or writers, there’s no easy way to punish them without also punishing their ideas.”) I’d expand on ‘writers’ to include all artists — there are lots of examples of exceptional artists that are or were “bad people.”
For sure. Really it's anyone in any field where there's a strong norm that people "own" their ideas. Artists, journalists, academics. Borderline cases would be... comedians? Magicians? Politicians?
IMHO, gossip is evil and should be completely replaced by the justice system. If you don't like what the charming sociopath is doing, generalize a principle out of it and make it a law (sue him for emotional damage?). Otherwise, we get (metaphorical) lynching which is detrimental to the fabric of society.
Should I be allowed to not mention the names of German existentialist Nazis?
Yes. I believe in freedom of speech, and I don't see a reason why you should not be allowed to mention/not mention whoever you want. I don't see a point, though. Do you believe it will discourage future philosophers from becoming Nazis (because their names will be memory-wiped)?
I certainly don't claim it makes much difference. But on the margin, I think the collective effect of many people shunning Nazi philosophers creates some small incentive for future intellectuals to not join extremist political movements? But more generally, I was just trying to make the argument that some degree of "gossip" seems good, at least in the current world.
I'm open to the idea that maybe we should try to build a world where gossip no longer has any positive role to play. Maybe through suing? Or maybe through some kind of advanced form of insurance?
It's hard for me to believe that this incentive doesn't round down to zero. If someone has proto-Nazi views, would they really care? I just don't see it, but maybe you're right 🤷 Still, I'm unconvinced by this example that "gossip" could be good.
To be clear, I don't have a good idea for an alternative, just a vague intuition of "let there be laws, courts, and procedures". I just think that in the current world, on the margin, we should push against cancelling people.
I'm curious how do imagine insurance could work? Like, I have insurance against assholes that would pay if I get harassed? Why would assholes participate?
I think we'll have to disagree regarding the merits of being nice to dead Nazis. Regarding insurance, I just thought of the idea! But probably it would have to be mandatory to participate. Unless, of course, we decide to use social coercion to get people to participate...
no let's do revel in confusion and perversity! i am 100% here for it.
Maybe social punishment should be different than capitalist punishment-is punishing a bad person's business the same as punishing the person but not the ideas? I certainly have a personal list of places that I will not support with my money [or my labor] because the person/owner at the very top of the business is bad. But this does not reach the level of social punishment [usually] since I may be the only one or one of few punishing the business. It's being internally ethically consistent. And what about education and curricula? How should we teach the idea without social punishment issues?
"On the other hand, I really wish we were all more accountable to the future. So maybe we should lean into this."
As usual, I am glomming onto a tangential point because I have nothing to add to your well-stated main ones...why do you wish this? I don't see why I should change my ethics to conform to those of future generations any more than I should change them to conform to those of past generations. Both groups come from foreign cultures with (probably) some values I don't share, and in the first case I don't even know what they are. Of course, I have more responsibility to help future people (according to *my* values) than past people, because helping future people is not impossible and helping past people is. But that's different from caring about their judgment of my actions (as distinct from how *I* would judge my actions if I could perfectly predict their consequences). I assuredly do not.
Ah, in that particular sentence I didn't mean specifically that I want us to be more more accountable in terms of changing ethics. I also mean even in terms of our own ethics! Our choices have all sorts of "externalities" in the future and broadly speaking it's very hard to internalize them. Posthumous cancellation is an unusual exception to that rule.
I see...but surely most posthumous cancellation is either over differences in values or due to later generations having extra factual information about the consequences of actions? The examples you mentioned certainly seem that way to me. I'd think that not many people are going around deliberately doing stuff they know is bad for future generations, and those who are doing that would not stop merely because they observed a higher frequency of posthumous cancellation over unrelated stuff done by past generations.
I think I actually disagree? At least, I think that most people don't spend that much time thinking about how their actions affect future generations one way or the other.
Maybe what's off here is this assumption that we need to tie ideas to people. Ideas can stand on their own without attribution to a person, I don't think it's too hard but egos get in the way. I'd like to believe that ideas would have happened even if a specific person didn't discover then, ie a counterfactual exists where said good idea/bad person person didn't exist - someone else would have eventually come up with it and then we're less married to the notion of ideas being strongly coupled with individual people.
Also, for anyone who has had interactions with the US justice system - many will find that it sucks and is a lousy mechanism for social punishment.
What stands out to me is points #1-7 are all about excision. Varying degrees of excision but the strategy is the same. Tommy's been bad and he doesn't get to play soccer with the rest of us until he's repented. Now go stand outside the city gates lol. It's like we took all the reverence out of judeochristianity but boy did we keep the rules.
This strategy of surgical removal is very bad. Not only unsuccessful for "society" but also soul-corrotting for the one being punished and also for the one(s) doing the punishing. Nobody nowadays believes the sex registry is doing what it was "meant to do". But we the punishers, want to save our normal daily lives from the fascist/rapist/___. So we pick the easiest option, which is labelling them something ugly and shoving them in prison. Now we are good, superego is satisfied, everything is ok. We won't trouble ourselves with the very painful acknowledgement that we worked with you every step of the way, that there is a fascist also inside us. Whether or not it is "Ok" to enjoy Picasso's work is not the question. The question is why do I feel the need to feel justified when I engage with other people's work? Why do I need to believe that my immediate circle of interest and attention is pure? Because I need to believe that I am pure? That I do not exist within a cultural apparatus that wields and necessitates exploitation?
And why do we so often get it wrong when it comes to punishment? Because we really have no idea what forgiveness is. We see only two options: resignation or vengeance. Forgiveness is neither of those. Forgiveness is not letting it go or being nonconfrontational or keeping the peace. Forgiveness is simply dealing with my own hatred and anger before I deal with the wrongdoer. Not dealing with with my anger and hate through justice. I cannot do justice unless I forgive.
As different as resignation and vengeance appear, what they have in common is a refusal to engage with the wrongdoer. I want nothing to do with you. I am dealing with the person who has hurt me by permanently excluding them. I do not want a relationship with you. I never want a relationship with you. I put you outside the circle of my community forever. Maybe this works with ex gfs but it's no way to run a society, our prisons are already too full.
Really neat elegant post as always, thanks.
also, i *do think you should check out the nazi german philosophers (it's hard to guess which one you're referring to, because there are, regrettably, *so* many...) and then write an essay about how the ideas of the German idealists and Lebensphilosophers actually led directly to fascism and genocide, and what use we can derive from philosophy as a field in the wake of such catastrophe. :)