3 ms·
First, I acknowledge that your given observations are accurate. We just evidently view them in light of different set of principles. I've also been family tech
by User23 5y ago
First, I acknowledge that your given observations are accurate. We just evidently view them in light of different set of principles.
I've also been family tech support and as often as not the problem is that some app or other stopped working properly or altogether after a system update. I often get complaints along the lines of "I used to do X this way and now I can't, can you put it back?" And I pretty much just have to say "no, I can't. You need to now do X in this new way," supposing it's still possible at all.
More generally, I believe that the West, and perhaps the world, has been sliding toward ever greater heteronomy for several generations now. Not so long ago most drivers did replace their own spark plugs. Not so long ago virtually all computer software did respect the user's autonomy. And it's not like we're talking about the dark ages, this is all comfortably within living memory. On a similar note, the right to repair tractors is another big autonomy issue for farmers, especially smaller ones that are operating on razor thin margins.
Another example is cooking. Also in living memory, virtually all food was cooked from scratch in the home. People had autonomy over what they put in their bodies. The submission to the heteronomy of a mostly processed food diet may well be responsible for a number of serious public health issues from endocrine disruption to obesity.
I agree that many would be uncomfortable with having more autonomy. Nevertheless, we as a culture should value freedom and autonomy and hold them up as values to aspire to. As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others, but I just don't believe anyone truly benefits from having their autonomy taken away.
By the way, I appreciate your spirit of pragmatism. I also try to be pragmatic. I recognize that in some matters heteronomy is socially beneficial. I simply believe we're striking a considerably suboptimal balance skewed ever further toward heteronomy. I think our social structures will become considerably less fragile if we work to encourage a culture of autonomy.
Thank you for this exchange. I think you've laid out your position clearly and distinctly and I appreciate it.
- shadowgovt 5y ago> As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others... I think that actually sugar-coats a truly cruel approach. It's not "some benefit more than others," it's "some benefit while others suffer." Pushing the autonomy slider to its limit is just breaking governance and letting the strong rule. Maximum freedom is nature red in tooth and claw. We build heteronomous structures to escape that chaos. Of course, pushing the slider all the way towards heteronomy is also terrible. But given these two thought experiments, I fail to see how one passes moral judgement on someone who likes the slider tweaked a bit further towards either extreme than I do... "Moral judgment," to my mind, implies an absolute virtue that is absent from the equation. It's a struggle for balance, not for supremacy.