Deliberate harm
This entry comes out of the ongoing RaceFail09, but is not directly connected - I don't want to say inspired by, since 'inspirational' seems a deeply incorrect term, but perhaps 'triggered by' would be appropriate.
Firstly, just in case it needs to be said, I do have a dog in this fight - a small yappy one that doesn't look much like a dog, but still - and those who wonder what it is are welcome to look at my entry on being a clueless white woman. Secondly, I also feel, very strongly, that the two main sides in this debate have not in any way committed the same number of rude and aggressive attacks. In other words, don't talk to me about 'regrettable behaviour on both sides' or anything like that, because if it's not similar and the same amount of behaviour, started simultaneously, the comparison is invalid. If you attack people, they get angry. This does not mean that they are equally to blame for the situation that ensues.
What has made me deeply uncomfortable, though, are the attempts, some successful, to do deliberate harm to others, for example by outing them. Quite apart from that being a breach of normal internet rules, it is an act intended to harm, deliberately committed. Most ethical systems have a name for that. What's more, many ethical, especially religious systems, have a number of ideas about what it does to you, as a person, to do deliberate harm. I am not talking about less than pleasant destinations in the afterlife: I am referring to the harm we do ourselves in the process of doing harm to others.
The harm we do unnecessarily, deliberately, and often with a kind of gloating glee at how clever we are at hurting others, is first of all morally reprehensible because it hurts others. This is not a good thing, not for them and not for others. When we frighten and silence others, we are not only doing them harm, but we are harming everyone who needed or wanted to hear them. We are harming the society in which we live by making it a little harder, a little colder, a little harsher. We are showing everyone that those with power can hurt those without, and that they have friends to back them up when they choose to do so. This is not a society in which I much care to live.
It also does things to the person doing the harm. Every time we hurt someone else, and are not ashamed and remorseful, we become ourselves a little harder and a little colder. If we have a sneaking suspicion that maybe we acted badly, and we silence that suspicion, it will become progressively easier to silence it. We become smug in our certainty that we are right, and powerful, and strong, and that we are entitled to use these qualities to harm others.
Deliberate harm done to others is always a bad idea. Some people end up having to do that in the line of duty - soldiers, police officers, etc - and if you ask them, they might tell you what becomes of those that cannot regret the necessity of the harm, and cannot feel anything but pleasure in having 'won.' There is no honourable victory in the harm you took pleasure in doing, nor is there joy, or warmth, or love, or community in it.
Firstly, just in case it needs to be said, I do have a dog in this fight - a small yappy one that doesn't look much like a dog, but still - and those who wonder what it is are welcome to look at my entry on being a clueless white woman. Secondly, I also feel, very strongly, that the two main sides in this debate have not in any way committed the same number of rude and aggressive attacks. In other words, don't talk to me about 'regrettable behaviour on both sides' or anything like that, because if it's not similar and the same amount of behaviour, started simultaneously, the comparison is invalid. If you attack people, they get angry. This does not mean that they are equally to blame for the situation that ensues.
What has made me deeply uncomfortable, though, are the attempts, some successful, to do deliberate harm to others, for example by outing them. Quite apart from that being a breach of normal internet rules, it is an act intended to harm, deliberately committed. Most ethical systems have a name for that. What's more, many ethical, especially religious systems, have a number of ideas about what it does to you, as a person, to do deliberate harm. I am not talking about less than pleasant destinations in the afterlife: I am referring to the harm we do ourselves in the process of doing harm to others.
The harm we do unnecessarily, deliberately, and often with a kind of gloating glee at how clever we are at hurting others, is first of all morally reprehensible because it hurts others. This is not a good thing, not for them and not for others. When we frighten and silence others, we are not only doing them harm, but we are harming everyone who needed or wanted to hear them. We are harming the society in which we live by making it a little harder, a little colder, a little harsher. We are showing everyone that those with power can hurt those without, and that they have friends to back them up when they choose to do so. This is not a society in which I much care to live.
It also does things to the person doing the harm. Every time we hurt someone else, and are not ashamed and remorseful, we become ourselves a little harder and a little colder. If we have a sneaking suspicion that maybe we acted badly, and we silence that suspicion, it will become progressively easier to silence it. We become smug in our certainty that we are right, and powerful, and strong, and that we are entitled to use these qualities to harm others.
Deliberate harm done to others is always a bad idea. Some people end up having to do that in the line of duty - soldiers, police officers, etc - and if you ask them, they might tell you what becomes of those that cannot regret the necessity of the harm, and cannot feel anything but pleasure in having 'won.' There is no honourable victory in the harm you took pleasure in doing, nor is there joy, or warmth, or love, or community in it.