I was not a very active child when I was young, and it showed through my weight. My mom and my brother wanted me to work out, so they kept scheduling these jogs around the entire neighborhood. And, like the lazy killjoy I was, I refused to run. So, two blocks away from our house, my mom and my brother pretended to go run ahead and abandon me.

There’s this small park in the neighborhood a block away from our house. It’s basically just a large square of green grass bordered on three sides by dirt paths and metal benches covered in dried bird poop. Our neighborhood was a giant slope, and our house was at the top. My brother and I, with friends, had a game where we’d take a scooter, go as fast as we could down the sidewalk, and then jump onto the patch of grass that some real estate idiot called a park.

When my mom and brother “left” me, I walked all the way to the top of the hill on the side where the park was located. Then I faced down the slope and started running. Once I reached the park, I launched my chubby eight-year-old body onto the park and tumbled across the grass like a runaway barrel.

Then I just laid there, unmoving. I was pretending that I hit my head and died. My mom and my brother came up to me a couple minutes later, when they realised that I wasn’t getting up. As soon as they came close enough, I jumped on them like it was Halloween and I was a person who didn’t know the definition of mercy.

The point of this story is: don’t make me work when I don’t want to.

For every grade, I’ve been taught the same lesson in a variety of ways: if you hurt someone, you do irreparable damage onto them. A lesson that is hammered into children repeatedly is bound to leave a mark, and it did for me. Hurting people is wrong, and I should empathise with people who are less fortunate than me. A lack of food and shelter is violence towards people with no such access; it’s just a type of violence that’s less direct than the kind we’re used to seeing. And considering that billionaires have enough money “to end extreme poverty seven times over” (Hagan), it’s hard to see people who have the power to help but not take action as sympathetic; the philosophy that these people have that keeps them from eradicating poverty goes against every bit of my philosophy that I have built with lessons I’ve absorbed from school and gained from personal experiences.

 

Hagan, Shelly. “Study: Billionaires Could End Extreme Poverty 7 Times Over | Money.” Time, Time, 22 Jan. 2018, time.com/money/5112462/billionaires-made-so-much-money-last-year-they-could-end-extreme-poverty-seven-times/.

This is my FEI Summative Assessment, and I’m so proud of it that I’m sharing it with the world! \(*^*)/

 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently approved the end of Net Neutrality in a 3-2 vote (Kastrenakes). The time leading up to this decision has been filled with a lot of support on both sides. But the ethics influencing both arguments seem to be similar to each other regardless of the perspective. From the perspective of advocates of Net Neutrality, they support utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology. However, their opponents who are against Net Neutrality, think they actually support self-interest and egoism. And vice versa. On the other hand, the political ideologies displayed by the two positions are contrastingly different, maybe even polar opposites. Supporters of Net Neutrality tend to be leftist liberals that support some aspects of communism while adversaries tend to be conservative rightists that encourage capitalism.

Net Neutrality means that, as long as the data from the Internet is not illegal according to the government, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all data the same regardless of its content, source, or destination (“Net Neutrality”). An ISP serves only as a middleman between the Internet and the consumer and should not reinforce any agenda of its own onto the consumer by tampering with the speed of the Internet content. What all this means is that consumers have the right to have access to any legal content they wish to view and ISPs cannot and should not interfere with the speed of the content for any reason (Bane). So what is the controversy?

A staunch supporter of the repeal of Net Neutrality is the new Chairman of FCC, Ajit Pai. Pai says that the strict rules of Net Neutrality “[micromanages] business models and preemptively [prohibits] services and applications and products that could be pro-competitive” (White). Ending Net Neutrality would create more competition between ISPs, and competition breeds innovation because the consumers will be deciding what will win in this field, so companies must cater to the consumer’s needs and think of creative methods to get ahead of their rivals. ISPs would gain more freedom and possibly more wealth, while the competition created by the freedom will allow “greater investment in digital infrastructure, which will create jobs, increase competition, and lead to better, faster, and cheaper internet access” (White). From his perspective, both providers and consumers will benefit from the end of Net Neutrality. He seems to support this decision in order to create the maximum amount of happiness and effectivity for the maximum amount of people; in other words, utilitarianism seems to be the main ethical reasoning for his argument. However, there is more to his line of reasoning than utilitarianism. From his argument, he believes that Net Neutrality was simply the government interfering with the virtual market and economy through harsh regulations. Pai believes that the method in which marketing is done should be trusted to private responsibility. Basically, he believes in capitalism, and this is a normal position to take especially since America’s economic system is a capitalist one. Growing up and being surrounded in a nation that fully encourages the continuance of capitalism may be why he also believes in capitalist values. But, as a politician, he has the duty to make sure that his plan won’t backfire on the people he serves. What will stop the ISPs from slowing down all internet content in order to receive more money? Pai “wants internet providers to voluntarily agree to not obstruct or slow consumer access to web content… in their terms of service” (Shepardson). However, terms of service are under the company’s jurisdiction, meaning that even if they first choose to agree to Pai’s wants, they’ll still have the option to completely change their mind and go against this wish with or without the user’s notice (Koepke). So, with the repealment of Net Neutrality, Pai is relying on ISPs to act virtuously and morally. He’s relying on virtue ethics to bind ISPs to a field in which ISPs won’t be able to cheat their consumers.

The second perspective on this issue is from a different nation, Canada. In December of 2017, the largest telecommunications company in Canada is leading a group of broadcasters, movie studios, cinema operators, and other major companies to “put an end to net neutrality, in the name of blocking piracy” (Hiltz). In fact, Bell has started send in proposals that promote “censorship to start blocking content that they don’t want people to have access to” (“Q&A”). In an interview, Laura Tribe, the executive director of Open Media, states that the repealment of Net Neutrality will most likely have an effect in Canada. Not only does it encourage Canadian companies like Bell to start taking a stance against Net Neutrality, sites like Youtube or Spotify that are based in the U.S will be affected by the lack of regulations American ISPs are subjected to, and Canadians will also be targeted for profit alongside American consumers. Lastly, Canadian businesses will not be able to compete on the same playing field as American businesses as companies have to pay to surpass their opponents. According to Tribe, the end of Net Neutrality only benefits “a very small handful of the telecom companies”. The big businesses are only trying to protect their own interests and to try making money off the Internet instead of being contained to just cable. In fact, anyone who aren’t part of the most privileged positions of society will suffer from the end of Net Neutrality because the the impact of this decision will hit every consumer because the content that is available to use will be controlled and that manipulation will affect the discourse communities will have with one another (“Q&A”). From Tribe’s perspective, ISPs and rich CEOs are supporting the end of Net Neutrality to aid their own self-interest.

In my own opinion, I support Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality allows people to gain access to the entirety of the Internet, not just the parts ISPs want us to see. Like Tribe said, the information available to us affects what we discuss in our community. If ISPs don’t want their consumers to see or listen to certain information, they have the power to block access to that information. The restrainment of information is the first step towards fascism. ISPs would have the ability to strangle free speech and influence public perception on a topic. While having the ability to do so may not directly that ISPs will, but there is nothing to stop them and the fact that they will have that authority is frightening, especially since the CEOs of internet providers are most likely rich, white men who mainly get their money from the labor of poor people. Secondly, around 70% of teachers in America assign homework that requires the Internet, yet more than 50 million students have no access to the virtual resource (Branam). If we take away Net Neutrality now, imagine what would happen to the children who need access to a website but do not have the money to obtain the information on that site. Thirdly, there’s nothing that legally binds ISPs to not slow down Internet speed for higher monetary gains. This relates to my first point, but it still matters regardless. While ending Net Neutrality may lead to competition, ISPs can ignore the prospect of competition and continue to maintain and increase the amount of power they hold over the Internet. That would mean that competition would, in fact, not breed and U.S would fall behind in economic growth and technological development on the world stage. The larger corporations will also decrease the chances of success for small independent companies that want to get onto the economic playing field. So, if Pai’s plans were to go into action, ISPs would have full control over the Internet and be able to manipulate U.S perception on all issues.

Citations:

Bane, John, director. Net Neutrality Explained and Why It Matters. YouTube, YouTube, 11 July 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=K88BU3kjZ-c.

Branam, John. “OPINION: Online Homework Is a Problem for 5 Million Families without Internet at Home.” The Hechinger Report, 27 Oct. 2017, hechingerreport.org/opinion-more-and-more-homework-requires-web-access-but-what-about-kids-without-internet-at-home/.

Chung, Alex, and Chi Xing. Ethics of Net Neutrality. UC Davis, 2011, pp. 211–218, Ethics of Net Neutrality.

Denisenko, Sergey. “The Implications of the End of Net Neutrality.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 20 Feb. 2017, techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/the-implications-of-the-end-of-net-neutrality/.

Finley, Klint. “The FCC Just Killed Net Neutrality. Now What?” Wired, Conde Nast, 14 Dec. 2017, www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/.

Hiltz, Robert. “Inside Bell’s Push To End Net Neutrality In Canada.” CANADALAND, CANADALAND, 4 Dec. 2017, www.canadalandshow.com/bell-pushing-end-to-net-neutrality-in-canada/.

Kastrenakes, Jacob. “The FCC Just Killed Net Neutrality.” The Verge, The Verge, 14 Dec. 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed.

Koepke, Logan. “‘We Can Change These Terms at Anytime’: The Detritus of Terms of Service Agreements.” Medium, Medium, 18 Jan. 2015, medium.com/@jlkoepke/we-can-change-these-terms-at-anytime-the-detritus-of-terms-of-service-agreements-712409e2d0f1.

McCartney, Steve, and Rick Parent. “Ethics in Law Enforcement.” 2.1 Major Ethical Systems | Ethics in Law Enforcement, opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/2-1-major-ethical-systems/.

“Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO).” Performance by John Oliver, YouTube, YouTube, 7 May 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak.

“Net Neutrality” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2018. Thurs. 18 January 2018.

“POLITICS AND LAW.” Political Ideologies, www.quick-facts.co.uk/politics/ideologies.html.

Q&A: What Would a U.S. Repeal of Net Neutrality Mean for Canadians? CBC Radio, 8 Dec. 2017, www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-december-08-2017-the-current-1.4437902/q-a-what-would-a-u-s-repeal-of-net-neutrality-mean-for-canadians-1.4437993.

Savov, Vlad. “The US Net Neutrality Fight Affects the Whole World.” The Verge, The Verge, 23 Nov. 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693840/net-neutrality-us-fcc-global-effect.

Shepardson, David. “U.S. FCC Chairman Plans Fast-Track Repeal of Net Neutrality: Sources.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 7 Apr. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/u-s-fcc-chairman-plans-fast-track-repeal-of-net-neutrality-sources-idUSKBN1790AP.

White, Jeremy B. “Net Neutrality: Why Trump’s Top Internet Official Wants to Repeal the Internet Law, in His Own Words.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 21 Nov. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/net-neutrality-repeal-reasons-ajit-pai-trump-official-article-explanation-a8068091.html.

From what I understood, refugees from Turkey are blackmailed and forced to cross the Aegean Sea to the Greek island of Lesbos despite any conditions that might prove to be harmful to their well-being and life. A coast guard captain is charged to rescue these refugees, to save them from drowning.

I don’t really understand why the smugglers would force refugees to cross. Is it to reduce the chances of being caught? The less time they spend helping out refugees, the less opportunities to be caught smuggling them out? Or is it because if they get rid of refugees faster, they would have more time to smuggle out more refugees?

There was a point in the video, near the end, when someone said “It is up to us to help everyone, then” when he was informed of how the children’s hospital was full of refugee kids with no parents. It might be “altruism” or “virtue ethics” because he says this because he is concerned for the children and the refugees, not for himself. Of course, he may not be one of the people who are going out there to rescue drowning refugees but regardless, he has no definite proof that he will not die in the process or will be compensated for his troubles. He is saying this, probably, without thinking about what he could gain.

I think that the people who went to save the refugees are altruists or act on virtue ethics because they just decided to help and from what I saw in the video, the weather wasn’t suitable for sailing or going on a boat because it was too windy.

There are some points in the video in which people mention God and there is a man praying or making a cross when the refugees come ashore to Lesbos. So, there are some people who believe in God and believe that He will save them. From that, maybe the refugees and the man believe that God sent the coast guards to save them.

Article: The Dilemmas of Trying to Live Ethically

Question: How does this article relate to your decisions and lifestyle?

I agree with the author that people can’t live ethically all the time; there will be moments in which people will choose to act against their own moral values or perhaps they live in a world where they can never act on their own values. And that goes for me too. Sometimes I’ll just act unethical. If the best people can do for now is to be just “good enough”, then let them be “good enough”. Maybe the “good enough” will become “good” or “better” or maybe it won’t. And I agree with that.

It relates to me because it talks about some of the issues I face with trying to live ethically and it tries to answer those dilemmas. And it’s nice to have some kind of basis on what I should do if I face an ethical decision in the future. And I also relate to the fact that whenever I’m not living ethically and other people are and then I feel the “silent judgment” even though I know that they aren’t judging me but I still feel it anyways. It’s nice to know that there are other people out there who feel the same discomforting feeling and guilt.

It’s also nice to know the seedy/ darker side of the story, even if you won’t be able to forget. At least you’ll know and not stay ignorant.

However, there are always things that you can change. If you find out a daily action of yours causes harm or goes against your moral values, you have the opportunity and choice to stop and find a better option. That is the only thing I disagree with. People can be “good enough” but within that “good enough” they can be a better brand of “good enough”. The author of the article didn’t try that hard. Small things to make yourself feel “morally good”.

If I find out that a website that I order from uses slaves, then I have a choice to stop using that website. And I probably will. Because my comfort and smaller usage of money on this site does not justify me using it. I am just one person, but if I stop using this site, the site will lose one customer and it’ll show to the other customers also have the choice to stop and it stops the excuse that they can’t stop using the site for whatever reason.

The author could’ve also done the same. Maybe embracing one’s limits is important in self-acceptance and the first step in being slightly ethical, but that doesn’t mean you can stop there. I feel like people should try to stretch those limits, find ways around them, break through them. If everyone just does “good enough” then the world will never become better. Maybe knowing how crappy we are as humans and people is indeed an important realisation to have, but we should always try to be better. It doesn’t have to be drastic.

However, sometimes it’s just really hard to do that and while people should try, if they fail, then that’s okay too.

It’s a really confusing thing to think about and to understand and to explain.

To what extent is the knowledge we employ to justify ethical decisions influenced by culture and emotion?

Knowledge determines what we think as right or wrong, what we learn (whether in school or from our parents and friends), and what we gain from personal experiences. It sets the boundary of our perspective on the world, what we believe to be common sense. The values that we are taught is a part of our cultural background and this shapes how we feel about certain concepts. However, emotions also influences what we feel about what we learn. We may decide that some values taught to us are not “correct” or worth having as a part of our personal morals. We use emotions to choose what knowledge we arm ourselves with when making decisions. With our knowledge, we can decide on our own personal logic. But logic isn’t a stable or constant rule, similar to morality. We use different logic for different situations. In some cases, we may care more for the group than for an individual. In other cases, it may be personal and we care more of our wellbeing than for society. Similar to how a person is not always an individualist or a collectivist all the time, the way we think logically does not remain the same for every ethical case we face. The group also agreed that when making a split-second decisions, especially on one that is personal, emotions will win out because there is simply no time to think about anything else. However, from our past we are taught the values that we should uphold and treasure, so our culture may influence our emotions when making that split-second decision. That is just for when we are making a choice. We must also think about the consequences. Emotions may lead us to disregard the consequences or think more of the consequences. In the example used in class on whether to kill seven kids or your own mother, both choices would ultimately be your fault and would create backlash. However, in the case of the seven kids, most of the backlash would come from people you have never met before. In the case with the death of your mother, the backlash would most certainly come from people personal to you: family and friends. Emotions and our cultural background/values may lead us to choose to kill seven kids because backlash from strangers are not as strong or hurtful as disappointment and anger from close family members. Or maybe our emotions and past history compels us to choose to kill the mother because the anger from strangers is more heavy to bear. Our logic and emotions differ from every situation. Personal choices may include more emotional responses than choices made from a third-person viewpoint. Speculations made about past decisions from/about people unrelated to you may have more cultural influences than emotional ones. Morality and logic is never purely black and white. They are grey and shifting to mould into whatever situation currently presented.

Audio of discussion:

https://drive.google.com/a/gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg/file/d/0BzP4IbA0_t3paXhnMmpVMlByQWM/view?usp=sharing