9 ms·

Long time ago I talked to a friend about cameras in classrooms. I commented about how many problems it prevents. He explained a definition of moral: moral is th

Long time ago I talked to a friend about cameras in classrooms. I commented about how many problems it prevents. He explained a definition of moral: moral is the non physical limitation that bars you from doing something you want but harms another person even if you won't be punished. It was then explained to me that children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral. They will do whatever they want once they are confident that nobody will know. It is the same thing with excess of punishment: if people know something is legal and won't be punished, they won't care about moral. I tried to ask about the good side of having cameras but he said it was not worth the price of growing a generation of amorals.

waynesonfire 3y ago
Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dangling him upside down"
- jprete 3y ago
  What this does is create an entire generation conditioned to believe the camera is the reason they shouldn’t do that.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    People have long been doing whatever no matter whether it is moral or not.
  - csydas 3y ago
    Yes, I think this part is incredibly important to understand; it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want. Same with the idea of persistent surveillance -- it's only as good/useful as those who control the surveillance. In the case of authorities who are willing to abuse their power, surveillance does not make you more safe with these authorities, it just means that there is surveillance data they control, and it works for them, not not for you unless they decide to allow that. Recordings get deleted "accidentally" all the time, and for most regulated businesses, at worst it's a small fine and some forms and mandatory training, none of which would make me feel particularly better if the "accidentally deleted" video was the only proof of the authority figures beating me to a pulp. It's the same reason government backdoors can never be a tool "for the good guys"; once it's there, anyone able to pass a correct secret to the backdoor gets in, regardless of their intent or right to be. Surveillance doesn't make us safer by default; it is a tool like any other, and it has it's legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. I don't feel safer if a stranger runs at me in an alley wielding a claw hammer just because I know that claw hammers are usually for construction work; I'm very much so aware that while a nail might survive the impact, my flesh and bone will not fare as well. Same with any surveillance -- I do not see how it's making _me_ safer, it's instead making someone else's job easier to monitor me, and I have no idea who that might be or why they're monitoring me. This isn't to say it's always morally imperative wrong to have some sort of surveillance; I think a closed circuit recording system in a store is maybe frustrating, but I also don't have to go into that particular store I suppose. This does become a problem though once surveillance is everywhere, and even worse, when it's non-secured surveillance tech, so anyone might get at it.
    - paul_funyun 3y ago
      That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
      - csydas 3y ago
        I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed. In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases. (The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance) What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"? Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases? I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could. That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.
- endominus 3y ago
  On the other hand again, an anecdote from my own middle school; one kid shoved another down as they were running through the halls. The person who got shoved fell and broke a tooth. School refused to punish anyone without evidence of wrongdoing (despite the testimony of everyone around at the time). There was a camera in the hallway but conveniently "it was off" and school refused to investigate further. Seeking justice by apportioning more power to those with the incentive to abuse it does not result in a more just system.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The good side is what? Now we have salient imagery of an extremely rare occurrence so we can breed into our culture more fear of extremely rare occurrences? There are billions of people on this planet, you can pick any atrocious act and find enough footage to convince a tribe-scale monkey brain that once in a million people event is a Big Problem that we need to be solving. I could imagine there being special carve outs for kids who are unlikely to know something bad is happening or to report it. Doesn’t mean every child needs more surveillance around them.
atoav 3y ago
Exactly, you don't want your children to need surveillance. And in the grand scheme of things even if they misbehave when unsurveilled, who gives a damn? The collective damage of them not learning to say "no" to immoral behaviour because they want to is way bigger than anything the surveillance ever could prevent. If the US is really about "freedom" why do you try to educate your kids to be on the receiving end of an authoritarian dictatorship?
- dartos 3y ago
  If the kids had more money, they’d be more free. That’s the American way.
  - caturopath 3y ago
    Can you expound upon this? What's the alternative way, and why are kids free-er in it? How do kids vary in wealth and how does this affect their freedom? (For current kids? For American kids at different times?)
    - Y_Y 3y ago
      Obviously they exchange labour for capital and are rewarded commensurately by the free market.
      - polygamous_bat 3y ago
        Thinking about the freedoms of the chimney sweeping children in the free markets of historical England almost brought a tear to my eyes, thank you.
        suckitsam 3y ago
        They were perfectly free to go work in a textile mill or coal mine if they didn't like being a chimney sweep!
  - mistrial9 3y ago
beebeepka 3y ago
In my experience, there is no one definition of moral. Your own anecdote is a great example of this. Personally, I find it disgusting because it only applies to a "person", which as far as I understand, means a human. Edit: wow, the human superiority crowd doesn't like my comment
- dividedbyzero 3y ago
  I have no idea what you're alluding to. What non-human non-person entities would you expect to find in a classroom?
  - wussboy 3y ago
    ...and would have a moral responsibility...
  - axus 3y ago
    The government!
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    I challenged the stated definition of morals. Didn't say anything about classrooms
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      It's not a useful challenge. Sure, morals are relative to particular brain architecture and causal history of a particular kind of monkeys on a particular ball of dirt spinning in space. But those particular monkeys are also the entire scope of concern. Your objection will become relevant once we build human-level AIs or meet and start mixing with some space aliens.
      - beebeepka 3y ago
        I said that with living things in mind, not AI. Nobody understands me:(
- deleted 3y ago
jprete 3y ago
Knowing you’re always being watched means that you can never figure out who you actually are because you’re continuously putting on a performance for the cameras.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  Social media?
  - newsclues 3y ago
    Yes!
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Difference is, social media is voluntary performance. You can control both what others see, and how much of it.
- halfcat 3y ago
  Seems like a child that believes “god is always watching” might have the same effect?
  - lacrimacida 3y ago
    Somewhat but if that God is not drilled on a daily basis it tends to drift out of the mind, as well as the personal view of how God judges you, how God may ignore some small bad acts. A camera’s physical presence is a constant reminder you’re being watched and everything is being recorded, there’s no escape or respite.
  - indymike 3y ago
    God seems to notice a lot less bad behavior than the school resource officer.
    - suckitsam 3y ago
throwawaysleep 3y ago
> they won't care about moral. Does he believe current generations do? > They will do whatever they want once they are confident that nobody will know. To me, this is just how people tend to behave, no matter their age.
- nvy 3y ago
  I don't litter, even if nobody's watching. Do you?
- vharuck 3y ago
  Counterpoints: 1. Lost and found stations at events. People find stuff, people nearby don't claim it and often don't care if it's taken, but the finder still makes the effort to give it to lost and found or staff. Everytime I've done this, there've been a lot of unclaimed items. Each of those is evidence of, if not altruism, at least morality. 2. The vast majority of people don't shoplift, even at stores that put goods out front with no employees watching. 3. Charities, soup kitchens, anonymous donors. We should be careful to not mistake cynicism as wisdom.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    Nobody's better than a cynic at mistaking cynicism for wisdom.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Counter-counterpoint(?): the difference between high trust society and a low trust society is not the number of 'bad' people, but the number of apathetic people when they witness the actions of the bad actors and do nothing.
  - mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1704313887074488540 https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1704313887074488540
- retrac 3y ago
  > To me, this is just how people tend to behave, no matter their age. One of my favourite studies is just random virtue testing of strangers. Will they return lost property? It's easy, cheap, and frequently replicated. The researchers "lose" a bunch of fairly typical wallets in discreet-but-obvious places, with some cash inside. The people who find the wallet have the opportunity to take the cash in the wallet, or just the whole wallet. In most countries, the majority of wallets are returned to their owners, with the cash intact. In countries like Sweden or Japan, you can reasonably expect your wallet to be returned - rates are over 80%. Most people are good. Or at least, they don't want to be a thief. Given the opportunity to get away with stealing a small amount of money, most people opt to go out of their way, even if it's just a few minutes of their time, to help the person get their wallet back. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-000-wallets-around-the-globe-can-teach-us-about-honesty https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-00...
Viliam1234 3y ago
> children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral Sadly, so do many kids growing up without surveillance. There are many kids bullied in schools, some of them to the point of suicide. Should we feel happy that their suffering provides to bullies the precious opportunity to reflect on their actions, which they would be deprived of in a safer school environment with cameras? What's next? Abolish police, so that the adults can learn to live in peace without the external threats? Sounds great in theory, you probably wouldn't want it to happen in your city today.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though? I don’t think the lack of enforcement around bullying is addressed by cameras, it’s due either to lack of caring by the administration or lack of levers to do much to stop it (kids basically have a right to go to school, it’s very tricky to take that away or to isolate them without taking it away).
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though? I believe the person you are replying to is emphasizing the "~" in your comment. Yes, it's not like half the kids will commit self harm because they are bullied, but a very small percent will. How do we, as a society, weigh their suffering against those who are being surveiled without ever having done anything to trigger it?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Step 1 is just actually punish and/or separate kids who are known to be bullies. Lack of surveillance or of “knowledge” of who the bullies are isn’t the inhibitor. Not to mention obviously cameras won’t successfully police online/out of school behavior, to which also the solution is not more surveillance. Teachers, students, administrators, and often parents already know who the bullies are. The question is what to do about it.
endisneigh 3y ago
sorry but your friend's argument is easily disproven by example. look no further than any inner city school, most of which do not have cameras everywhere.
pfisherman 3y ago
I mean this is a great perspective on the failings of the panopticon. Thanks for writing it. If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior. Santa knows if you’ve been good or bad. God is always watching, and will reward or punish in the afterlife. Your soul will be reborn according to karma. Et cetera. So is the use of constant, omniscient surveillance actually new to incentivize moral behavior new? Or have the methods / technology just gotten better?
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior. If you raise your child on media from the last century that is. Modern childrens television shows emphasize empathy over crude means like surveillance. Bluey is a great example.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Bluey is contemporary entertainment. It's not old enough to be part of culture, which is what GP was talking about. Last century media isn't either. We're talking folk tales and religion here. Bluey is also one of the handful, perhaps single-digit number of, decent kid shows. Modern children television shows emphasize superstimuli, obnoxious behavior, and/or push merch. I am grateful it exists, because the space of children entertainment is much worse today than it was 30+ years ago.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Which children shows from a century ago emphasized surveillance?
- K0balt 3y ago
  The superstition of just recompense / Karma is fundamentally different, in that it is , in concept, omniscient, even of your thoughts. Also, it’s justice will be meted out by “fate” so the mind automatically equates outcomes with causes based on your moral compass, establishing a state of perceived equilibrium which you are incentivo used to balance in your favor, as “good things come to good people”. Surveillance is blind to minor transgressions, supporting the idea that you can slight people and be a crappy human without consequences, and it is also far from omniscient, and can be specifically blind under circumstances that you may control. More so it can be wielded against other people by creating “scenes” that promote a narrative that harms them. It is not an judge of character, but rather of appearances. Of course the fox is to install a strong moral character in the home, by way of teaching rather than training, but unfortunately many parents give similar attention to their children as they would a beloved pet, so that is not at all something that can be expected.
kardianos 3y ago
My children are minors. They need their time curated. I would rather instruction not have ANY access to the internet (I'm fine with using computers as a tool). I see zero legitimate reason to access the internet to learn a predefined curriculum. Your moral problem you pose, has no bearing on the legitimate needs of education. I would encurage reading "The Power of Culture" by Birbalsingh who runs a school in the UK that topped the "Progress 8" charts recently. That school works, the reason is they truly teach and they don't give in to these silly "moral" arguments. The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future. End of story.
- beej71 3y ago
  I haven't read the book, but the synopsis talks about high expectations and teaching responsibility, which I completely agree with. Limiting what students can do and forcing them into rigid, limited curricula seems contrary to these goals...?
- logicchains 3y ago
  >The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future How much of what students learn in school actually helps them in future? Personally the only thing I learned in high school that I ever actually use is mathematics. I didn't learn anything about how to manage my finances, how to handle emotionally challenging situations, how the economy works, how to start a business, how to avoid toxic people/relationships, how to drive a car, how to eat healthy, how to exercise with good form, how to pay (or minimise) taxes, how to invest, how to save money, how to cook healthy food, how to sell/market products or myself, how to analyse ethical issues from multiple perspectives/philosophies, how to negotiate, how to wear a tie. The vast majority of things that actually contribute to someone having a healthy, happy and productive life are not taught in schools (or at least the schools I'm familiar with), although they certainly could be.
  - c22 3y ago
    Do you have kids? I once felt as you, that school was pointless and uninformative, but watching my kids develop key skills that we all take for granted from the focused instruction and practice provided to them by the public K-12 program changed my mind. I've been able to spend my time with them teaching those topics you laid out (some of which are quite opinionated) and not drilling the basics.
pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
A moral is a teaching you obtain from reading a story. That’s what the noun means.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
omoikane 3y ago
A related concept is shame versus guilt cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...
philwelch 3y ago
It depends on the school but I would argue that public schools are not in the business of instilling morals. Maybe religious schools or boarding schools can instill morals, but a public school is not going to overcome whatever bad influences a child has at home. On the other hand, public schools can and should take measures to control the specific behaviors that happen inside that school.

waynesonfire 3y ago

Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dangling him upside down"

jprete 3y ago
What this does is create an entire generation conditioned to believe the camera is the reason they shouldn’t do that.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  People have long been doing whatever no matter whether it is moral or not.
- csydas 3y ago
  Yes, I think this part is incredibly important to understand; it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want. Same with the idea of persistent surveillance -- it's only as good/useful as those who control the surveillance. In the case of authorities who are willing to abuse their power, surveillance does not make you more safe with these authorities, it just means that there is surveillance data they control, and it works for them, not not for you unless they decide to allow that. Recordings get deleted "accidentally" all the time, and for most regulated businesses, at worst it's a small fine and some forms and mandatory training, none of which would make me feel particularly better if the "accidentally deleted" video was the only proof of the authority figures beating me to a pulp. It's the same reason government backdoors can never be a tool "for the good guys"; once it's there, anyone able to pass a correct secret to the backdoor gets in, regardless of their intent or right to be. Surveillance doesn't make us safer by default; it is a tool like any other, and it has it's legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. I don't feel safer if a stranger runs at me in an alley wielding a claw hammer just because I know that claw hammers are usually for construction work; I'm very much so aware that while a nail might survive the impact, my flesh and bone will not fare as well. Same with any surveillance -- I do not see how it's making _me_ safer, it's instead making someone else's job easier to monitor me, and I have no idea who that might be or why they're monitoring me. This isn't to say it's always morally imperative wrong to have some sort of surveillance; I think a closed circuit recording system in a store is maybe frustrating, but I also don't have to go into that particular store I suppose. This does become a problem though once surveillance is everywhere, and even worse, when it's non-secured surveillance tech, so anyone might get at it.
  - paul_funyun 3y ago
    That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
    - csydas 3y ago
      I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed. In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases. (The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance) What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"? Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases? I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could. That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.
endominus 3y ago
On the other hand again, an anecdote from my own middle school; one kid shoved another down as they were running through the halls. The person who got shoved fell and broke a tooth. School refused to punish anyone without evidence of wrongdoing (despite the testimony of everyone around at the time). There was a camera in the hallway but conveniently "it was off" and school refused to investigate further. Seeking justice by apportioning more power to those with the incentive to abuse it does not result in a more just system.
ethanbond 3y ago
The good side is what? Now we have salient imagery of an extremely rare occurrence so we can breed into our culture more fear of extremely rare occurrences? There are billions of people on this planet, you can pick any atrocious act and find enough footage to convince a tribe-scale monkey brain that once in a million people event is a Big Problem that we need to be solving. I could imagine there being special carve outs for kids who are unlikely to know something bad is happening or to report it. Doesn’t mean every child needs more surveillance around them.

atoav 3y ago

Exactly, you don't want your children to need surveillance. And in the grand scheme of things even if they misbehave when unsurveilled, who gives a damn? The collective damage of them not learning to say "no" to immoral behaviour because they want to is way bigger than anything the surveillance ever could prevent. If the US is really about "freedom" why do you try to educate your kids to be on the receiving end of an authoritarian dictatorship?

dartos 3y ago
If the kids had more money, they’d be more free. That’s the American way.
- caturopath 3y ago
  Can you expound upon this? What's the alternative way, and why are kids free-er in it? How do kids vary in wealth and how does this affect their freedom? (For current kids? For American kids at different times?)
  - Y_Y 3y ago
    Obviously they exchange labour for capital and are rewarded commensurately by the free market.
    - polygamous_bat 3y ago
      Thinking about the freedoms of the chimney sweeping children in the free markets of historical England almost brought a tear to my eyes, thank you.
      - suckitsam 3y ago
        They were perfectly free to go work in a textile mill or coal mine if they didn't like being a chimney sweep!
- mistrial9 3y ago

beebeepka 3y ago

In my experience, there is no one definition of moral. Your own anecdote is a great example of this. Personally, I find it disgusting because it only applies to a "person", which as far as I understand, means a human. Edit: wow, the human superiority crowd doesn't like my comment

dividedbyzero 3y ago
I have no idea what you're alluding to. What non-human non-person entities would you expect to find in a classroom?
- wussboy 3y ago
  ...and would have a moral responsibility...
- axus 3y ago
  The government!
- beebeepka 3y ago
  I challenged the stated definition of morals. Didn't say anything about classrooms
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    It's not a useful challenge. Sure, morals are relative to particular brain architecture and causal history of a particular kind of monkeys on a particular ball of dirt spinning in space. But those particular monkeys are also the entire scope of concern. Your objection will become relevant once we build human-level AIs or meet and start mixing with some space aliens.
    - beebeepka 3y ago
      I said that with living things in mind, not AI. Nobody understands me:(
deleted 3y ago

jprete 3y ago

Knowing you’re always being watched means that you can never figure out who you actually are because you’re continuously putting on a performance for the cameras.

chaostheory 3y ago
Social media?
- newsclues 3y ago
  Yes!
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Difference is, social media is voluntary performance. You can control both what others see, and how much of it.
halfcat 3y ago
Seems like a child that believes “god is always watching” might have the same effect?
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  Somewhat but if that God is not drilled on a daily basis it tends to drift out of the mind, as well as the personal view of how God judges you, how God may ignore some small bad acts. A camera’s physical presence is a constant reminder you’re being watched and everything is being recorded, there’s no escape or respite.
- indymike 3y ago
  God seems to notice a lot less bad behavior than the school resource officer.
  - suckitsam 3y ago

throwawaysleep 3y ago

> they won't care about moral. Does he believe current generations do? > They will do whatever they want once they are confident that nobody will know. To me, this is just how people tend to behave, no matter their age.

nvy 3y ago
I don't litter, even if nobody's watching. Do you?
vharuck 3y ago
Counterpoints: 1. Lost and found stations at events. People find stuff, people nearby don't claim it and often don't care if it's taken, but the finder still makes the effort to give it to lost and found or staff. Everytime I've done this, there've been a lot of unclaimed items. Each of those is evidence of, if not altruism, at least morality. 2. The vast majority of people don't shoplift, even at stores that put goods out front with no employees watching. 3. Charities, soup kitchens, anonymous donors. We should be careful to not mistake cynicism as wisdom.
- throwanem 3y ago
  Nobody's better than a cynic at mistaking cynicism for wisdom.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Counter-counterpoint(?): the difference between high trust society and a low trust society is not the number of 'bad' people, but the number of apathetic people when they witness the actions of the bad actors and do nothing.
- mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
  https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1704313887074488540 https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/1704313887074488540
retrac 3y ago
> To me, this is just how people tend to behave, no matter their age. One of my favourite studies is just random virtue testing of strangers. Will they return lost property? It's easy, cheap, and frequently replicated. The researchers "lose" a bunch of fairly typical wallets in discreet-but-obvious places, with some cash inside. The people who find the wallet have the opportunity to take the cash in the wallet, or just the whole wallet. In most countries, the majority of wallets are returned to their owners, with the cash intact. In countries like Sweden or Japan, you can reasonably expect your wallet to be returned - rates are over 80%. Most people are good. Or at least, they don't want to be a thief. Given the opportunity to get away with stealing a small amount of money, most people opt to go out of their way, even if it's just a few minutes of their time, to help the person get their wallet back. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-000-wallets-around-the-globe-can-teach-us-about-honesty https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-00...

Viliam1234 3y ago

> children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral Sadly, so do many kids growing up without surveillance. There are many kids bullied in schools, some of them to the point of suicide. Should we feel happy that their suffering provides to bullies the precious opportunity to reflect on their actions, which they would be deprived of in a safer school environment with cameras? What's next? Abolish police, so that the adults can learn to live in peace without the external threats? Sounds great in theory, you probably wouldn't want it to happen in your city today.

ethanbond 3y ago
Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though? I don’t think the lack of enforcement around bullying is addressed by cameras, it’s due either to lack of caring by the administration or lack of levers to do much to stop it (kids basically have a right to go to school, it’s very tricky to take that away or to isolate them without taking it away).
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though? I believe the person you are replying to is emphasizing the "~" in your comment. Yes, it's not like half the kids will commit self harm because they are bullied, but a very small percent will. How do we, as a society, weigh their suffering against those who are being surveiled without ever having done anything to trigger it?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Step 1 is just actually punish and/or separate kids who are known to be bullies. Lack of surveillance or of “knowledge” of who the bullies are isn’t the inhibitor. Not to mention obviously cameras won’t successfully police online/out of school behavior, to which also the solution is not more surveillance. Teachers, students, administrators, and often parents already know who the bullies are. The question is what to do about it.

endisneigh 3y ago

sorry but your friend's argument is easily disproven by example. look no further than any inner city school, most of which do not have cameras everywhere.

pfisherman 3y ago

I mean this is a great perspective on the failings of the panopticon. Thanks for writing it. If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior. Santa knows if you’ve been good or bad. God is always watching, and will reward or punish in the afterlife. Your soul will be reborn according to karma. Et cetera. So is the use of constant, omniscient surveillance actually new to incentivize moral behavior new? Or have the methods / technology just gotten better?

awesomeMilou 3y ago
> If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior. If you raise your child on media from the last century that is. Modern childrens television shows emphasize empathy over crude means like surveillance. Bluey is a great example.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Bluey is contemporary entertainment. It's not old enough to be part of culture, which is what GP was talking about. Last century media isn't either. We're talking folk tales and religion here. Bluey is also one of the handful, perhaps single-digit number of, decent kid shows. Modern children television shows emphasize superstimuli, obnoxious behavior, and/or push merch. I am grateful it exists, because the space of children entertainment is much worse today than it was 30+ years ago.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Which children shows from a century ago emphasized surveillance?
K0balt 3y ago
The superstition of just recompense / Karma is fundamentally different, in that it is , in concept, omniscient, even of your thoughts. Also, it’s justice will be meted out by “fate” so the mind automatically equates outcomes with causes based on your moral compass, establishing a state of perceived equilibrium which you are incentivo used to balance in your favor, as “good things come to good people”. Surveillance is blind to minor transgressions, supporting the idea that you can slight people and be a crappy human without consequences, and it is also far from omniscient, and can be specifically blind under circumstances that you may control. More so it can be wielded against other people by creating “scenes” that promote a narrative that harms them. It is not an judge of character, but rather of appearances. Of course the fox is to install a strong moral character in the home, by way of teaching rather than training, but unfortunately many parents give similar attention to their children as they would a beloved pet, so that is not at all something that can be expected.

kardianos 3y ago

My children are minors. They need their time curated. I would rather instruction not have ANY access to the internet (I'm fine with using computers as a tool). I see zero legitimate reason to access the internet to learn a predefined curriculum. Your moral problem you pose, has no bearing on the legitimate needs of education. I would encurage reading "The Power of Culture" by Birbalsingh who runs a school in the UK that topped the "Progress 8" charts recently. That school works, the reason is they truly teach and they don't give in to these silly "moral" arguments. The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future. End of story.

beej71 3y ago
I haven't read the book, but the synopsis talks about high expectations and teaching responsibility, which I completely agree with. Limiting what students can do and forcing them into rigid, limited curricula seems contrary to these goals...?
logicchains 3y ago
>The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future How much of what students learn in school actually helps them in future? Personally the only thing I learned in high school that I ever actually use is mathematics. I didn't learn anything about how to manage my finances, how to handle emotionally challenging situations, how the economy works, how to start a business, how to avoid toxic people/relationships, how to drive a car, how to eat healthy, how to exercise with good form, how to pay (or minimise) taxes, how to invest, how to save money, how to cook healthy food, how to sell/market products or myself, how to analyse ethical issues from multiple perspectives/philosophies, how to negotiate, how to wear a tie. The vast majority of things that actually contribute to someone having a healthy, happy and productive life are not taught in schools (or at least the schools I'm familiar with), although they certainly could be.
- c22 3y ago
  Do you have kids? I once felt as you, that school was pointless and uninformative, but watching my kids develop key skills that we all take for granted from the focused instruction and practice provided to them by the public K-12 program changed my mind. I've been able to spend my time with them teaching those topics you laid out (some of which are quite opinionated) and not drilling the basics.

pwdisswordfishc 3y ago

A moral is a teaching you obtain from reading a story. That’s what the noun means.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

omoikane 3y ago

A related concept is shame versus guilt cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...

philwelch 3y ago

It depends on the school but I would argue that public schools are not in the business of instilling morals. Maybe religious schools or boarding schools can instill morals, but a public school is not going to overcome whatever bad influences a child has at home. On the other hand, public schools can and should take measures to control the specific behaviors that happen inside that school.