Social Ethics Revisited: Freeloading as a Virtue of Egalitarianism?
In a previous piece, I argued that while the public can serve the purpose of monitoring any unethical behavior, the lack of concrete structure of the volunteering public means that its monitoring power is not nearly as effective in maintaining high level of ethics as well-developed government agencies. How complete the government monitoring system is often the difference marker between a developed country with stable socio-economic conditions and a developing country with a "wild wild west" feel.
Of course, being subjected to a constant social fluidity based on affinity to illegal activities can seriously hurt a country's long-term development, but in the short-term, is such fluidity completely negative? I would argue that the answer is not entirely a flat "no" in the developing world. In fact, often the illegal distribution of certain ideas, goods, and services is the only way to make them cheap enough and widespread enough to be trickled down to many outlying, isolated communities.
In other words, by violating social ethics in the short term, we can more rapidly bring into modern civilization many people who are not exposed to it even a few months and years ago. The most common example these days is the illegal distribution of digital contents over the Internet. By pirating free music, movies, and even TV programming, many websites and individuals are making the contents affordable and acquirable for even the poorest members of society.
Of course, such actions will slowly squeeze the profit margins of the content producers, but if only the cultural values are looked at, the producers are indeed able to spread their media to a much wider audience that they can otherwise do with limited sales of their legal DVDs and CDs. By turning a blind eyes to violation of social ethics in this case, they are making a strong contribution to globalization and increasing influence of modern popular culture.
In essence, the modern definition of "social ethics" as we know it in everyday lingo should not and cannot be simply seen from a legal and social standpoint. While it is certainly true that its continued and widespread violation lead to increased inability to protect certain economic rights, but its violation has the very effect of spreading the modern way of thinking, which, ironically, include the very ideas of "social ethics" and "protection of economic rights."
Thus, the need for violating "social ethics" in the short term in developing countries is largely based on the need to establish the idea of "social ethics" in the same developing countries. By allowing it to be violated now, we are slowly generating an environment in which it is more understood by the local populace, and in the future, more likely to be recognized as something that needs to be protected. As such ideas gradually take hold, the monitoring systems, both by the private public and the government, will be demanded and then generated.
And eventually, greater egalitarianism, at least from a perspective of culture and philosophy, will take hold. The ideal would be like a scenario I saw on TV the other day: a professional teenage singer with a beautiful voice growing up in a beautiful rural school with a student population of 18. Surely, building such a well-stocked school for music in such an isolated part of the country requires outstanding "national wealth," but at least the idea of a rural girl debuting as a popular music artist should not be that far-fetched in any country.
It is fundamentally all thanks of violation of social ethics, and more specifically, illegally free passage of ideas and cultures in different geographic areas. By tying ideas with law and money, we can only restricted its blossoming in different parts of the world. Instead, by overlooking certain legal constraints, it is possible to create much more mental equality among people growing and living in completely different environments, indirectly contributing to greater social mobility.
Of course, being subjected to a constant social fluidity based on affinity to illegal activities can seriously hurt a country's long-term development, but in the short-term, is such fluidity completely negative? I would argue that the answer is not entirely a flat "no" in the developing world. In fact, often the illegal distribution of certain ideas, goods, and services is the only way to make them cheap enough and widespread enough to be trickled down to many outlying, isolated communities.
In other words, by violating social ethics in the short term, we can more rapidly bring into modern civilization many people who are not exposed to it even a few months and years ago. The most common example these days is the illegal distribution of digital contents over the Internet. By pirating free music, movies, and even TV programming, many websites and individuals are making the contents affordable and acquirable for even the poorest members of society.
Of course, such actions will slowly squeeze the profit margins of the content producers, but if only the cultural values are looked at, the producers are indeed able to spread their media to a much wider audience that they can otherwise do with limited sales of their legal DVDs and CDs. By turning a blind eyes to violation of social ethics in this case, they are making a strong contribution to globalization and increasing influence of modern popular culture.
In essence, the modern definition of "social ethics" as we know it in everyday lingo should not and cannot be simply seen from a legal and social standpoint. While it is certainly true that its continued and widespread violation lead to increased inability to protect certain economic rights, but its violation has the very effect of spreading the modern way of thinking, which, ironically, include the very ideas of "social ethics" and "protection of economic rights."
Thus, the need for violating "social ethics" in the short term in developing countries is largely based on the need to establish the idea of "social ethics" in the same developing countries. By allowing it to be violated now, we are slowly generating an environment in which it is more understood by the local populace, and in the future, more likely to be recognized as something that needs to be protected. As such ideas gradually take hold, the monitoring systems, both by the private public and the government, will be demanded and then generated.
And eventually, greater egalitarianism, at least from a perspective of culture and philosophy, will take hold. The ideal would be like a scenario I saw on TV the other day: a professional teenage singer with a beautiful voice growing up in a beautiful rural school with a student population of 18. Surely, building such a well-stocked school for music in such an isolated part of the country requires outstanding "national wealth," but at least the idea of a rural girl debuting as a popular music artist should not be that far-fetched in any country.
It is fundamentally all thanks of violation of social ethics, and more specifically, illegally free passage of ideas and cultures in different geographic areas. By tying ideas with law and money, we can only restricted its blossoming in different parts of the world. Instead, by overlooking certain legal constraints, it is possible to create much more mental equality among people growing and living in completely different environments, indirectly contributing to greater social mobility.
Comments
Post a Comment