
The Form Is Never Neutral - cetera
https://tinyletter.com/lmsacasas/letters/the-convivial-society-no-18-the-form-is-never-neutral
======
microcolonel
I know you make some effort a few paragraphs in, but if you could provide the
slightest context for what this page is, right at the top, that would be very
helpful. I still have no idea what I'm reading.

> _I 'd describe what I'm doing as wrestling with the question of the meaning
> of technology as way of getting at the moral significance of our tools._

Tools have no moral (as in _morality_ ) significance, I'd be prone to say; at
least not any more than other organs.

~~~
dwaltrip
Tools have to have other moral significance. If they didn't, no one would ever
make a value judgment or propose a law regarding a tool.

The moral significance of a tool may be complicated, multi-faceted, highly
controversial, or heavily dependent on subtle specifics of the context. In the
midst of such complexity, I think it is very tempting to say that the tool
itself has no bearing on the conflict and all that matters is the humans who
wield it. But I don't think we can get away with this simplification.

So what then? How should we treat our tools? How _can_ we treat them? It seems
this thread goes quite deep... Sigh, I should really get into the habit of
trying to write out my thoughts in a personal notebook.

~~~
thethirdone
>Tools have to have other moral significance. If they didn't, no one would
ever make a value judgment or propose a law regarding a tool.

I object to this kind of reasoning.

Does a rock have moral significance?

Isn't it illegal to hit someone with a rock and kill them? So by giving
thought to that possibility, I have shown that a rock does have moral
significance?

Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. And
fundamentally something that only enhances cannot be be morally bad because it
can simply not be used.

~~~
dwaltrip
The moral significance of a rock might be minor. It isn't most people's first
choice for a murder weapon. If I saw someone carrying a weapon-sized rock, I
might somewhat suspicious, but I wouldn't be seriously alarmed, like I would
if they were holding a gun or knife.

> Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them.

Some tools are very general. It's hard to imagine faulting the tool, as it is
so useful that it isn't an serious option to abandon it, even if some people
use it for bad purposes.

Other tools are not so general. A straight-forward example may be high-
explosives. They can used for good, but those situations are very specific and
easily recognizable. If high-explosives are found outside of those contexts,
the moral significance is obvious. There is a decent chance that someone has
bad intentions. A very clear and compelling explanation would be needed to
resolve the matter.

Most tools are fairly benign. Or the beneficial usage significantly outnumbers
any malicious examples, especially in common contexts. But I don't think means
that all tools are by default neutral.

At risk of belaboring the point, here are two more examples:

* Utility knife: (1) When camping: good (2) In an elementary school: bad

* Cameras: (1) 99% of the time: good (2) In the public showers or changing room: bad

In the above "bad" scenarios, I would say the tool itself takes on a negative
moral significance. Obviously, there can be caveats -- e.g. you might be
filming a movie -- but you get the idea. I'm curious what you think of this.

