For Better or Worse

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hey! Nice seeing your name again!!
Kelly

Nice to hear from you! Hope all is well with you and yours.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Glad to hear things are good with you, and congratulations on the exciting engagement news! I am doing well too. I also found a terrific woman. Not engaged yet, but she's definitely my better half.

Ha! My woman, diplomatically, says she "softens my image". Closer to the truth is that she makes me bearable in polite company. Congratulations to you!

Originally posted by JS357
It seems to me that the progress that has been made in this thread can now be applied to the original question of whether the internet is for the better or the worse, to see if it allows an answer.

Perhaps there is something to be said for the ideas that:

(1) A world as it is with the internet, broadens the scope of available experiences by which we can ...[text shortened]... out what is best. That is a good thing, in my thinking. The blue green algae might disagree.

You're right that the internet is a tool; neutral in purpose but for what we make of it. But what about the consequences of the use of the tool on creatures like us? I think the ease with which people can access the internet chills social interaction, messes with human memory, attention and, correspondingly, deliberation, and entrenches the polarization of people due to the ease with which they can find information that supports whatever opinions they already hold. Also, I'm an old fogey and think the kids' 'music' is too loud. So, take this for what it's worth...

Originally posted by bbarr
Nice to hear from you! Hope all is well with you and yours.

Yep, living the dream in Texas now. 🙂
I spent 20 mins trying to dig through our (yours and mine) discssions trying to find
that question I asked you about once a year so I could spring it on you again, but
could not find it, and don't recall what it was outside of having to do with logic. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, living the dream in Texas now. 🙂
I spent 20 mins trying to dig through our (yours and mine) discssions trying to find
that question I asked you about once a year so I could spring it on you again, but
could not find it, and don't recall what it was outside of having to do with logic. 🙂
Kelly

Damn, now I'm trying to remember! When it comes to you, let me know. I'll try my best, but if you've been asking me this for awhile, apparently my answer hasn't been satisfactory. I'm not getting any smarter as I age, just cagier...

Originally posted by bbarr
Damn, now I'm trying to remember! When it comes to you, let me know. I'll try my best, but if you've been asking me this for awhile, apparently my answer hasn't been satisfactory. I'm not getting any smarter as I age, just cagier...

Oh no, I think you gave a great answer and I brainfarted it and hit you with it again.
🙂
I'm trying to remember...it was funny enough to stay with me and we have had
more than a few conversations I have completely forgotten. LOL
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
You're right that the internet is a tool; neutral in purpose but for what we make of it. But what about the consequences of the use of the tool on creatures like us? I think the ease with which people can access the internet chills social interaction, messes with human memory, attention and, correspondingly, deliberation, and entrenches the polarization of p an old fogey and think the kids' 'music' is too loud. So, take this for what it's worth...

We agree that it is a tool. So, what approach is best for judging it's goodness or badness? a consequentialist approach seems popular. But my second point is sort of consequentialism in reverse. What kind of world would we live in if as a consequence of the conditions in that world, the internet never came to be?

I argue that the internet is an example of a long history of technological improvements -- tools -- coming from an inventive species of socially interdependent beings. I will add that they value liberty and security, those two values in a dynamic, unstable balance. I reference this human species at the end of this reply.

In contrast to "lower" animals, whose tools are their bodies, we have technology. (Some animals make or select objects for use as tools.) Many of the tools we make if not all of them have downside potential. Many of the tools implement extensions of natural human abilities and practices, some of them social. Communication, vision, strength, etc. are enhanced and modified. At this time, the general tool-category that enhances and modifies communication is being affected by the internet.

What changes would you make to the human species, to bring about a world where tools that have downside potential are not developed, or a world where such tools are developed but their downside potential is prevented from being actualized? My speculation is that such a world would be inhabited, but not by the aforementioned human species.

Originally posted by JS357
We agree that it is a tool. So, what approach is best for judging it's goodness or badness? a consequentialist approach seems popular. But my second point is sort of consequentialism in reverse. What kind of world would we live in if as a consequence of the conditions in that world, the internet never came to be?

I argue that the internet is an example of ...[text shortened]... ulation is that such a world would be inhabited, but not by the aforementioned human species.

Consequentialism is indeed a popular approach to assessments of value. But 'Consequentialism' specifies the formal structure of such assessments; such an approach is merely committed to looking solely at the effects of something to determine its value. Consequentialism is silent on that which is intrinsically valuable.

I understand your second question. Suppose, counterfactually, the internet never came to be. What must the world, or we as a species, have been like in order to realize that counterfactual world? The problem here, as with most arguments from counterfactuals, is that the scenario is radically under-described. What are we keeping fixed between the actual and counterfactual scenarios? There are innumerable ways the internet could have not come to be. Differences in the laws of nature, or the structure of our solar system, or the geological history of Earth, or of the evolution of species, or changes in our psychology, history or culture could all result in the lack of an internet. In some counterfactual scenarios our world doesn't exist. In some, our world exists but we don't. In some, we exist but are subtly different creatures. In others, we exist and are the same, but have had a much different history. In others, we exist and have substantively the same history, but something small and crucial is changed such that the internet never came to be.

Originally posted by JS357
We agree that it is a tool. So, what approach is best for judging it's goodness or badness? a consequentialist approach seems popular. But my second point is sort of consequentialism in reverse. What kind of world would we live in if as a consequence of the conditions in that world, the internet never came to be?

I argue that the internet is an example of ulation is that such a world would be inhabited, but not by the aforementioned human species.

The world in chess acted like this, before the internet when you played chess
even tournament chess it was just against those players that lived near you,
and those you'd travel to if you had a mind to. You could read books or mags,
but odds are the only chess play was local. You'd know the area chess players
very well and how they played.

With the internet you have the world as a local chess club, everyone's games
who plays on the internet now is exposed to much greater variety and stronger
players so on the whole the quality of play has gotten much better.

So it goes with the good and bad, those people who want to do harm are now
in the living room across the world from all others who believe the same way
every day, and those that do good.

The tool is only going to be good or bad, depending on who is holding it.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Consequentialism is indeed a popular approach to assessments of value. But 'Consequentialism' specifies the formal structure of such assessments; such an approach is merely committed to looking solely at the effects of something to determine its value. Consequentialism is silent on that which is intrinsically valuable.

I understand your second question. ...[text shortened]... history, but something small and crucial is changed such that the internet never came to be.

Yes, consequentialism can process situations against just about any set of prioritized values we want to use.

Your examples of of counterfactuals scenarios vary from the radical to the subtle. A subtle example might be to identify influences which might have made Amish values the predominant ideology WRT "progress."

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, consequentialism can process situations against just about any set of prioritized values we want to use.

Your examples of of counterfactuals scenarios vary from the radical to the subtle. A subtle example might be to identify influences which might have made Amish values the predominant ideology WRT "progress."

Sure, but the point is that there are innumerable 'subtle' examples; innumerable nearby possible worlds. That's a real problem with counterfactual reasoning.

Originally posted by bbarr
Sure, but the point is that there are innumerable 'subtle' examples; innumerable nearby possible worlds. That's a real problem with counterfactual reasoning.

Agreed. And that is why it is problematic to assert that the internet is, on net, a bad thing. How bad might be any possible world that by its characteristics, comes to not have it?

Originally posted by JS357
Agreed. And that is why it is problematic to assert that the internet is, on net, a bad thing. How bad might be any possible world that by its characteristics, comes to not have it?

I am skeptical about that line of reasoning. First, the truth of the claim 'In the actual world, X is bad' is compatible with the claim 'Any possible world wherein ~X would be worse than the actual world'. Second, assessments of goodness and badness of some X in the actual world typically proceed via analysis of how X manifests or functions in the actual world. Third, it's just impossible to non-arbitrarily fix the set of counterfactual worlds wherein ~X such that one can assess the goodness or badness of X in the actual world. You can't justifiably claim that the problem with assertions like "X is bad" is that it's possible that worlds where ~X would be worse. That's because you'd be cherry-picking worlds. We can also dream up worlds where ~X that are super awesome and way better than the actual world. So what? The real work of moral or evaluative assessment begins with paying very close attention to the actual world, and to the things we are disposed to care about very deeply.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am skeptical about that line of reasoning. First, the truth of the claim 'In the actual world, X is bad' is compatible with the claim 'Any possible world wherein ~X would be worse than the actual world'. Second, assessments of goodness and badness of some X in the actual world typically proceed via analysis of how X manifests or functions in the actual wor ion to the actual world, and to the things we are disposed to care about very deeply.

"The real work of moral or evaluative assessment begins with paying very close attention to the actual world, and to the things we are disposed to care about very deeply."

And to the possible world that might be created by how we act upon our assessments and cares. For example, what would you do about the negative aspects of the internet? Without this, it's academic.

Originally posted by JS357
"The real work of moral or evaluative assessment begins with paying very close attention to the actual world, and to the things we are disposed to care about very deeply."

And to the possible world that might be created by how we act upon our assessments and cares. For example, what would you do about the negative aspects of the internet?

Well, you do the best you can. Inasmuch as moral frameworks are things we're supposed to be able to adopt, inhabit and use, to the extent that consequences matter, it's probably only the reasonably foreseeable consequences with which we ought concern ourselves. What would I do? I don't understand that question.