Prostitution is often described as the oldest profession. Not surprisingly, the ethics of prostitution have often been debated. In general, most people claim that it is morally unacceptable. Yet, like all such practices, it continues to thrive-as recent headlines will attest. For example, the young woman pictured below was catapulted from obscurity to infamy for being the prostitute “visited” by formed NY Governor Spitzer.

However, as a philosopher, what interests me is not the last media frenzy about prostitution, but the ethics of the practice itself. Rather than take the usual approach of simply asserting it is immoral, I will consider the various plausible reasons as to why it should be considered immoral and also argue that, under certain conditions, it can be just as morally acceptable as other forms of work.

One reason often given as to why prostitution is immoral is that it tends to involve coercion. In most cases, people do not freely decide to become prostitutes. In some cases, they are driven to the profession by desperation and a lack of other opportunities for employment. In other cases, they are forced into prostitution by others. In some cases, people are enslaved and forced to be prostitutes. For those who are unaware of this fact, slavery (both relating to prostitution and other forms) is alive and well around the world today.

Such coercion is clearly immoral, especially the sort that involves slavery. I agree with John Locke’s view of the matter. Roughly put, Locke argues that a person who would enslave another person should be regarded as a potential threat to the life and liberty of all. Hence, it is right and just to kill slavers. My own addition to this is that the death should be both cruel and unusual, perhaps involving a wood chipper. As you might imagine, there is little that I hate more than slavery and slavers. In light of this, prostitution that involves this sort of coercion must be considered immoral.

However, some people freely and knowingly chose to be prostitutes. In these cases, the coercion argument obviously fails.

It might be argued that no one would freely chose to be a prostitute and that all people are coerced into doing so. For example, feminists often refer to the coercive power of the patriarchy that is so powerful and subtle that women often do not even know they are being coerced. If these feminists are right, then all (or almost all) prostitution in a patriarchal society would be immoral.

Of course, if we accept this sort of view, then it would entail that almost all jobs are immoral. After all, everyone who is not the top of the power and economic hierarchy will be coerced into working by those above them and by the very nature of capitalism. This view has, of course, been argued for by communists, anarchists and others. It seems reasonable, but also shows that certain types of prostitution are just as moral (or immoral) as most other jobs. So, a prostitute who is no more coerced than a professor is thus morally on par in this regards.

If we accept that such coercion is morally acceptable, which is a common view in capitalism, then freely chosen prostitution would be morally acceptable on these grounds. This is, of course, what one would expect from capitalism.

The second main moral concern about prostitution is that it is exploitive. As presented stereotypically in movies, prostitutes typically work for a pimp or a madam who takes a sizable cut of their income. This is exploitive because the prostitute is doing the hard work while the pimp/madam is taking an unfair share of the proceeds.

Of course, almost all other jobs are exploitive in this fashion. Think, for example, of how much the typical worker gets paid and how much profits the industry in question makes. Profit, as Marx argues, typically requires that the worker is paid less than the value she adds. Of course, profit can also be made by exploiting the customer or the supplier of raw materials. But, profit by its very nature seems to require exploitation-someone has to be getting less than what they deserve.

It can be replied that such exploitation is acceptable when it is withing a certain degree. So, for example, the exploitation of the prostitutes by their pimps is exploitive because he takes far too much. The exploitation of the workers by Burger King is acceptable, because they do not exploit their workers as badly (and rarely, if ever, pimp slap them).

Now, if a degree of exploitation is acceptable, then prostitution that involves exploitation in this range would be acceptable. For example, working for a generous pimp or madam would be a morally acceptable job, on par with working for Starbucks. Once again, capitalism and prostitution can be bedfellows (and so often are).

Of course, if all exploitation is wrong, then almost all jobs would be immoral. This seems true-especially on Monday mornings.

A third reason that prostitution is regarded as immoral is that it is supposed to be degrading to the prostitute In most cases, this is true. To treat someone as mere sexual object is to fail to respect their worth as human being. Kant makes a good case for this as do numerous feminists, so I won’t rehash their arguments here.

Of course, many jobs are degrading and are still considered morally acceptable. For example, cleaning people’s toilets or working as a servant can be regarded as degrading. Working in a sweatshop is also degrading. In fact, a case could be made that most employment involves some attack on human dignity. Of course, the degree of degradation varies widely. But, if some degradation is morally acceptable, then prostitution that falls within that range would also be acceptable.

This, obviously enough, raises the question as to whether prostitution can be non-degrading or at least acceptably degrading.

it has been claimed that there are historical precedents for prostitution as a profession that is not degrading. One example is that of the dancers in Medieval Japan. Perhaps the most famous example is that of the hetaera of ancient Greece. These women were typically well educated and apparently enjoyed higher status than most women of the time (of course, women generally had very little status in that time). Based on what I have seen on the news, various “escort” services seem to strive to replicate the myth of the hetaera. For example, the service that provided women to Spitzer claimed to have highly educated and refined “companions.” The unfortunate DC Madam (Ms. Deborah Jane Palfrey) apparently strove to create a high class business: “the women had to be older than 23 with two to four years of college. ‘I was not interested in jaded, hard-core girls of any caliber,’ she said. ‘I wanted women who were strong and independent, who wanted to go on with their lives but they couldn’t get into grad school.’” (Newsweek) According to reports from the women who worked for her, Ms. Palfrey treated the women well and the women themselves certainly seemed to believe they were not being degraded.

It might be argued that having sex with people for money is inherently degrading. There are two replies to this.

First, there is the fact that all jobs involve a person selling himself/herself. A person who does manual labor is selling her body. A person who writes for a living is selling her mind. A person who performs is selling his talent. And so on.

Of course, one might reply, these people are doing something less intimate. Hence, the difference.

An easy reply to this is that people sell very intimate things. A writer sells her intimate thoughts. A therapist is being paid to be a friend (of sorts). If these sorts of jobs are acceptable, then so to is prostitution.

Second, it has long been argued that marriage is long term prostitution. The noted thinker Mary Wollstonecraft made this point. The idea is that women are trading sex for economic security. Dating can be, as the comedians do, looked at the same way:

Q: What’s the difference between going on a date and seeing a prostitute?
A: On a date, you spend money and hope for sex. When you see a prostitute, you spend money and know you’ll get sex.

Crude, yet informative. Many feminists thinkers have, as noted above, taken this view. If dating and marriage are 1) economic & sexual relationships and 2) acceptable, then prostitution would also seem to be acceptable. But, it also follows that if prostitution is unacceptable, then marriage and dating of this sort would also be immoral

Given the above discussion, it seems reasonable to accept that in our current society prostitution can be morally on par with acceptable professions. This says a great deal about our society.

When it comes to relationships, two common questions are: 1) what works in starting one? and 2) what works in maintaining one? Not surprisingly, beauty (or lack thereof) is involved in the answers to both questions.

Intuitively, beautiful people have an easier time starting a relationship. Being attractive, they would obviously tend to attract more people. Also, beauty is a valued quality and hence can be used to get what one wants. Aside from formulaic comedies, you almost never see beautiful people lamenting that they cannot find a date and that no one is interested in them. Quite the opposite is true. So, if you want to increase your relationship chances, then being beautiful is a good place to start.

Intuitively, one would think that beauty would also help maintain a relationship. To use an analogy, just as a person would want to keep a beautiful work of art, she would want to keep a beautiful person. However, to continue the art analogy, a really outstanding work of art is something that would have many potential buyers and hence can be a hard thing to keep. Likewise, a beautiful person will have many options and hence might be inclined to move along if a better deal arises.

As with many things relating to relationships, men and women tend to differ in regards to the role of beauty in maintaining a relationship. This has been recently studied in a limited way and the findings are, roughly, as follows. A man is more likely to stick with a relationship if he is less attractive than the woman. If he is more attractive, then he is more likely to end the relationship.

Intuitively, this seems obvious. Some possible reasons are as follows. First, the is the general tendency of people to want the best they can get. If a guy is aware he is better looking than his current woman, then he will be inclined to seek someone better (assuming he defines value in this manner). Second, there are the qualities attributed to men. Men are said to be more concerned about physical appearance than women and the findings in the study seem to support this: a woman is less likely to leave a less attractive men than a man is to leave a less attractive woman. Those who can’t resist bringing in evolutionary theory almost always claim that men have two basic reproductive strategies. One is to stick around with a mate and help her, thus making it likely that the offspring will survive and pass on his genes. The other is to “mate around” and thus have a higher chance of creating more offspring and thus increasing the odds that at least one will survive to pass on his genes. A man who is not so good looking will have less chances of “mating around” and hence, the reasoning goes, will tend to follow the stick around strategy. A good looking male can make the “mate around” strategy work, and hence will tend to follow that strategy.

Another possibility, long suggested in popular psychology, is that attractive people generally have things easier in life and hence do not tend to get accustomed to having to do things the hard way. To use a stereotype, you can think of the cheerleader who uses her looks to get the smart guys to help her with her schoolwork while the less attractive girls have to do their work themselves. Those who are conditioned to having things easy will be inclined to just give up when things get harder. Hence, they will tend to leave relationships more often than those who are more accustomed to hard work.

As noted above, women tend to be less affected by the beauty of men. They are, however, not blind to it. As common sense and studies indicate, women do look at attractiveness as a major factor. And, like men, they tend to aim for someone they think is in their same “beauty range.”

Why women want attractive men can be explained in terms of the obvious-people value and are attracted to attractive people (which is why they are called “attractive” and not “repulsive”). There are also the usual evolutionary answers-beauty is taken to indicate good genes and we all know that people are basically machines driven to reproduce by their genes (assuming you believe such a thing).

What is much more interesting is the fact that women are more willing than men to stick with some one who is less attractive.

In some cases, the answer is easy and obvious. For example, ugly music stars attract very hot (but often very foolish) women because they have fame. They can do this even when they wear pink tuxes, have giant clocks around their necks and go by the name Flavor Flav.

Ugly guys with power and wealth are attractive because they have, well, power and wealth. Hence, Donald Trump can always find someone young and attractive who is willing to be with him. People, when acting rationally, tend to seek what they value. Since fame, power and wealth are valuable, a rational woman will seek them. Since people generally do not like to just give valuable stuff away, the woman will need to bring something in exchange that the guy will want. The obvious commodity is, of course, beauty. On the downside, beauty fades with time-which is why men like Trump tend to trade their aging wives in for younger models. From an economic standpoint it makes good sense-if your value is the same or increasing and her value is decreasing, it is time to end the merger. Assuming, of course, the relationship is based on those factors.

In other cases, the answer is less obvious. For example, an attractive woman might stick with a guy who is less attractive and is also lacking in power, fame and wealth. In some cases, this might be do to an inferiority complex on the part of the woman or some other psychological factor that might lead her to “settle.” In other cases, it might be because the guy offers something else the woman values other than looks, wealth, fame and power.

It is often claimed that women value loyalty, stability, being supportive and dependability in men. A man who is less good looking and who lacks wealth, fame and power but who has such traits can use them to get a woman who is better looking than he is. He gets a woman that would normally be out of reach for him and she gets those desirable qualities. Some men are also willing to make that sort of exchange, only in reverse, but this is less common.

The standard answer as to why women do this is in evolutionary theory. For women, it is often argued, a good survival and reproductive strategy is to find a male that will stick around and behave in a decent manner (at least most of the time). Hence, more women are willing to stick with less attractive men. Add to this the fact that more attractive men will tend to be less inclined to stick around and it becomes evident why less attractive guys can sometimes get a more attractive woman.

Distilling this all down, the basic idea seems to be that relationships are essentially economic exchanges in which each person assesses his/her value and compares that to what the other person offers in terms of a purchase price. Men tend to value beauty more than women. Hence, wealthy, powerful and famous men are willing to accept attractive woman who are lacking in this traits. Women tend to value security (material and.or emotional) more than men do, hence attractive women are more willing to accept men who will provide such security-even if they are less attractive.

What, then, about love? An excellent question. An excellent question indeed.

Myanmar was recently devastated by a natural disaster, something that is all too common these days. As always, the United States and other countries are pitching in with aid and support. However, there is evidence that the Myanmar military is seizing the aid supplies rather than turning it over to those who are truly in need.

The military junta that now controls Myanmar seems to be acting in this way to limit the number of foreigners in the country and also for other political reasons. It is, sadly, not uncommon for those in power to take actions to maintain their power at the expense of those who are suffering.

This situation reveals many problems, but two problems that stand at the forefront are these: First, the effects of natural disasters are getting increasingly more severe. Part of this is due to the growth in human populations (more people means that more people are hurt and killed). Part of this is due to urbanization and population concentrations. Perhaps part of this is also due to climate changes. Whatever the causes, it is clear that we need to be far more prepared to deal with environmental dangers. Currently, our preparations are inadequate and our defenses are extremely weak. Myanmar is yet another event in a series that includes New Orleans and other devastated cities. Second, political and social factors have a huge impact in such disasters. As just noted, we are poorly prepared and poorly defended. Also, when a disaster hits, there is often interference with the aid attempts and/or it is poorly implemented (as in the case of Katrina). While we cannot control the weather (yet) we can influence the actions of other people. As such, much needs to be done in creating a more effective way of dealing with the human impediments in such disasters. Sadly, the lust for power, greed, stupidity and incompetence are hard foes to fight.

I read an interesting article today about employment and gender. For most people, the economy is not going well. It is especially bad for men. To be specific, 700,000 men lost jobs in the time period between November and April. In marked contrast, American women aged 20 and above gained 300,000 new jobs in the same period.

The main reason is based on sexism, but not in the sense that men are being targeted for termination and women are being recruited for job. The main reason is that men tend to dominate the employment fields that are being hardest hit by the current economic woes while women tend to be in fields that are growing (or at least not being hit as hard). For example, men are the majority in manufacturing jobs and those are not doing well. Women are the majority in health care and that field is doing quite well.

Of course, affirmative action and other gender based factors might also be relevant. However, the media tends to be less enthusiastic about covering sexism against men. Further, as I have noted in other blogs, female students are now the majority in higher education. This will (if it has not done so already) translate into better employment figures for women.

One irony of the current situation is that the professions that are doing well tend to be ones that are traditionally dominated by women. It could be argued that sexism is a factor in this situation, in that men often considered such jobs to be fit for women and not men. Now, this sexism is benefiting women in that they are more likely to be in such jobs and still more likely to seek them.

One possible outcome of this economic trend, if it endures, is that we might see many more men entering into fields that have traditionally been dominated by women.  For example, I have male friends who are going into nursing because they know they can get (and keep) a job in that field. On the plus side, this could help further erase the “gender stigma” attached to some jobs. On the minus side, it might mean that more people will be competing for the same jobs and this won’t help the economy or employment.

On a related note, the American economy is, for most of us, in a rough phase. The very rich, as always, are doing great. Hillary and Obama (both very rich people) promise they will help the rest of us. But one wonders what they can really do.

I saw on the news that Coyotes have been attacking people. To be specific, there have been three recent attacks. This story makes the news because it involves wild animals attacking children-a sure attention grabber.

While the media seems to be trying to create the impression there is some sort of onslaught on mankind by coyotes, it is important to keep the matter in perspective.

From a statistical standpoint, your odds of being hurt by a coyote are extremely low. If you want to worry about being attacked by animals, you should worry most about other humans and dogs.  In the case of dogs, there are about 4.7 million people bitten by dogs each year in the US.  About 800,000 bites per year require medical attention.

Lest anyone think that I don’t like dogs, this is not the case. My family has always had dogs and Isis, my Siberian husky, is my best running buddy. I’m very fond of dogs. The purpose of comparing the coyote attacks to dog attacks is to put matters in perspective in regards to the dangers presented by coyotes. In short, there is little reason to be terrified about a coyote onslaught.

This is not to say that people should simply ignore the dangers presented by coyotes. If you live in an area where there are coyotes, then you should take the appropriate precautions for yourself, others and any pets you might have (coyotes will kill cats and dogs).

The main cause for the alleged “coyote problem” is, of course, us. We have expanded into the natural habitats of many creatures. In the case of coyotes, they are very good at adapting and have learned to fit into a new ecosystem-namely ours’. As the number of coyotes in urban areas continues to increase, we can expect more problems. Like us, they are just trying to survive. And, like many humans, they have found that the cities and towns offer a great deal.

In the past, people have tended to react with violence against intruding animals. Hopefully we can find a better solution for the coyote situation.

The Bush administration talks about how important it is to support our troops and then fails to act on its own advice.

First, there were the problems with the medical treatment of wounded soldiers, especially in regards to the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. After the story made the rounds in the media, some action was taken.

Second, there is the matter of the GI Bill. This bill is best known for its role in helping WWII veterans go to college. This bill played a significant role in creating a highly educated work force and this helped America become a super power after the war. Now, as another generation of American soldiers go off to war, the GI Bill is not what it used to be. Part of the problem is that college tuitions are getting rather expensive. Part of the problem is that nothing is being done to help deal with this problem. President Bush actually opposes improving the Bill. His reason is that it would cost too much. He apparently has no problem with dumping billions into Iraq, but draws the line when it comes to actually doing something positive for the Americans who are fighting and bleeding for America. Shame on you, Mr. President.  Oddly enough, John McCain sides with Bush on this issue, thus making me question his integrity and judgment. Morally, we owe the soldiers a debt and helping them with their futures seems a reasonable way to repay them. Further, being purely practical about it, college educated people contribute more to the economy than those without such education. As such, it can be looked upon as a wise investment in America’s future. Of course, some people argue that if the GI bill is too good, people will not re-enlist. While this has a certain degree of practical merit, it does seem to be a morally dubious argument. In a sense, it seems to be arguing that we should rob the veterans of a hope for a better future so they will have no choice but to stay in and continue to fight Bush and Hillary’s war.

Third, there is the matter of the barracks. After a soldier’s father exposed the horrible conditions in certain barracks, steps were finally taken to fix the problem. Once again, this shows just how concerned this administration really is for our troops. Of course, they do worry about image-as soon as the media got on this, action was taken. It is a good thing that Americans like the soldier’s father still care about this country and have the initiative and the courage to take action. Without such people, such mistreatment of our soldiers would continue.

We have a collective moral debt to the people who serve our country. If someone is willing to risk his or her life in service to the nation, then that person should be treated with decency-at the very least. The military and civilian leadership needs to do a better job of ensuring that problems such as those described above are found and fixed. They should not wait until they are forced to take action by the bad publicity-they should take action because it is the right thing to do.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was once the editor of the Low-End User eZine and there are plans to post the old issues on the web. In order to do this, the old files must be converted to html. This proved surprisingly challenging.

As noted before, I had kept the original files on floppy disks. Back in those ancient days, that was about the only removable medium I could afford. There were other types of removable storage devices such as those made by Syquest and at the end of the LEU’s life, Iomega got into the game with its famous Zip Drive.

As most people have noticed, the majority of modern PCs and all Macs are devoid of floppy disk drives. Fortunately, I still have some old Macs (a Beige Tower G3 and a PowerBook 5300cs) that have floppy drives. So, I was able to get the files onto the Beige G3. Once I got the files there, there was the problem of getting the files into a usable format. Using ResEdit, I was able to determine that some of the files had been compressed with Disk Doubler. I no longer had that software and the newest version of Stuffit did not recognize the file format. Fortunately, I had an old version of the software that did work. Some of the files were in DocMaker format, others in eDoc format and some in Macintosh Wordperfect 3.5 format. Some were even in MacWrite II format-truly an ancient program. Eventually I was able to get most of the files opened and converted.

I was watching the History Channel while doing this and started thinking about the matter from an historical perspective. In my case, I was working with technology I was familiar with as well as old software I had once used.  Yet, it was still a challenge to recover the information. I was even left with one file I simply could not open.

Now, imagine the plight of archeologists in th e future. Most of our information is now kept in electronic form or stored on media that requires a specific sort of machine to read it (such as a Blu-Ray drive).  This presents various problems for those who will be trying to sort out the history of our time.

First, there is the problem of the media surviving. Clay tablets, which are very low tech, can survive hundreds, perhaps thousands of years buried in a tomb. Stone carvings can endure for as long as the rock lasts-quite some time indeed. In contrast, CDs, hard drives and USB keys will not last very long. As such, future archeologists might find little more than worthless plastic and metal. As such, if we want to create records that last, we will need to find a new (or old) way to preserve them.

Second, there is the problem of reading the media. Just a short while ago, the 5.25 floppy disk was standard. These days, it would be all but impossible to find a way to get a modern computer to read such a disk. The 3.5 inch floppy disk is still around, but it is difficult to find a modern computer that has a built in drive for such disks.  Imagine how much technology will change over the next century, two centuries and so on.  If it is difficult finding a way to read media that was standard just a few years ago, imagine how hard it will be in the future. Perhaps future archeologists will build their own custom machines to read such media-assuming they will be able to find out how to do so. As such, this is also a problem we’ll need to deal with to ensure that we can pass on an historical record.

Third, there is the problem of file compatibility.  I have files in a variety of formats that are now long obsolete. For example, I still have MacWrite and MacPaint files. People often complain that the current version of their software cannot open the files created by the previous version. Just imagine what it will be like a century or two from now. Even if the media survives and even if the hardware can be found to read the media, there is still the problem of being able to open the files.

Perhaps, as so often happens in sci-fi, there will be amazing technology that can read any media and translate any file format. For example, on StarGate Atlantis, people are able to plug their laptops into the Ancient systems and just make them work. As another example, aliens on Star Trek were often able to just scan human ships and read all the data in the computer records.

More likely, this won’t happen. As such, we will need to take steps to ensure that our important information is preserved in a format that will be comprehensible and in a media that will survive.  Stone tablets seem to be the ideal medium.

Back in 1993 a group of intrepid Mac users started the Low-End User eZine (LEU).  The eZine was created to serve the needs of low-end Mac users. These were people who couldn’t (or didn’t want to) buy the latest and greatest computers and were often ignored by the major publishers. The LEU also included articles that were somewhat philosophical and addressed some of the moral and political issues relating to technology.

I was the editor of the publication. It lasted a few years and even was mentioned in MacWorld, but then faded away. Recently, Dan Knight (of Low End Mac fame) emailed me about the LEU and asked about putting up some of the old articles on the site. I hadn’t thought about the LEU in years, and went searching for the old disks. Modern Macs, like my iBook G4, don’t have floppy disk drives. I do have a USB floppy drive, but it won’t read 800K (DD) floppy disks. Fortunately, I have an old PowerBook 5300cs with the old style Apple drive, so I was able to transfer the files from the 800K disks to the 1.44MB disks and then to my iBook. All in all, it was a suitably low-end adventure.

I enjoyed being the editor of the LEU and, looking back, I miss the innocent enthusiasm I had in those long ago days.

In honor of the LEU, here is an article I wrote 14 years ago. Interestingly, while the technology has changed, the fundamental issues raised by this essay are still important today.

Computers, Freedom, and Molotov Cocktails (1994)

Although I do not watch all that much television (I have a low tolerance for badness), I have noticed a definite surge in media focus on computers. Some of this focus is highly positive, if not downright over-hyped. However, some of it is negative in character. Some of these negative reports are warranted, while others are actually ominous. One trend that I have noticed is the increase in stories about (or even advocating) placing restrictions on what might be called “electronic freedoms.” The basic idea behind electronic freedoms is that we retain the same rights in the context of the electronic “reality” (such as online services) that we possess in the “real” world (such as freedom speech). Before getting into the issues, I will briefly discuss two groups that seem to be leading the attack.

One group (using the term loosely) that seems enamored of restricting electronic freedom consists of politicians. The Clipper Chip, which was discussed in great detail in an earlier issue) is a prime example of this. Recently, I have observed various politicians express their desire to impose restrictions on the flow of information in the “electronic world.” This desire is hardly surprising, since most politicians are primarily interested in power. Secrecy and control are keys to power, so it is no wonder that an unrestricted exchange of information (such as the Internet) would strike fear into their hearts. However, it should not be assumed that everyone involved in the government is opposed to freedom. Some worthy individuals are clearly advocates of liberty. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer people like this these days.

The second group seems to be as vehement in its attacks, but the identity of this group is a bit of a surprise. This group consists of certain aspects of the mass media. In a recent news show (which will remain anonymous) I observed a reporter who made it quite clear what she (or perhaps her employer) thought about the unrestricted exchange of information via electronic means. In this particular case, the reporter did her best to convince the audience that the unrestricted exchange of information on the computer networks was almost entirely responsible for a series of juvenile crimes. Of course, it might be the case that certain media elements do not have anything against the computer networks as such and that they are simply going along with the “pass the blame” policy that seems to have become enshrined. For example, in the news “report” in question, the reporter was doing all she could to place the blame for the actions of the juveniles (they were building and using bombs) on the BBSs where they acquired the information to construct explosives and the people who uploaded or posted the files. At no point was it even suggested that the juveniles might have been responsible for their own actions.

In one sense, it is surprising that some elements of the media are supporting the position that the flow of information should be restricted. After all, the whole point (in theory) of the media is to provide a free flow of information. Perhaps they fear competition from the nets or perhaps they have simply fallen prey to a poorly considered ideology. But, for whatever reason, it is clear that there is some support for the restriction of freedom among the media elements. Fortunately, there are also clear advocates of electronic  freedom in the media (most notably in the computer press, of course).

The main concern is whether restrictions should be placed on electronic means of communication, such as the Internet, BBSs, email, and so forth. Those who support placing restrictions on the flow of information do have arguments in support of their position. One argument is that since other means of communication (such as phones, television, speech, and print) have restrictions on them, then so should computer based communication. For example, television shows are forced to conform to certain rules, phones can be taped, and there are some limits as to what can be printed and distributed with impunity. Since restrictions exist in these areas, they should also be placed on other means of electronic communication, such as BBSs and such. This argument isn’t particularly good. After all, if you don’t believe that the current restrictions are acceptable, you are certainly not going to accept their extension to new areas.

The best argument that those who wish to place restriction have is a moral one. The argument is this: the unrestricted means of communication allow information to be transmitted that can result in harm. The specific arguments tend to center around the potential harms to children. Two prominent concerns are that children can and have acquired information about how to build explosives (such as pipe bombs and Molotov Cocktails) from BBSs and that children can get access to sexually explicit material via BBSs. Clearly, it is not a good thing for children to have access to this sort of information. For example, some of the children who learned how to make explosives used them to blow up mailboxes and others were seriously injured when they had an accident while trying to produce bombs.

This argument, which I shall call the “harm argument”, is a reasonable one. After all, if it could be shown that the unrestricted exchange of information via electronic means results in clear harm to children, then we should advocate such restrictions.  However, the harm argument is flawed.

In the United States there is an established legal and moral basis for the free exchange of information. The best known legal basis for certain exchanges of information is in the Constitution. The importance of the free exchange of information has been well argued in the past and is an essential part of a  free society. I shall assume that the United States is (in principle, if not in actuality) a free society and that the burden of proof rests on those who intend to restrict freedoms. In order to meet the burden of proof, those who support the harm argument must show that restricting the free exchange of information via electronic means will prevent the perceived harms without creating worse harms. It is my contention that this cannot be done.

First, in order to justify such restrictions, it must be shown that restricting electronic means of communication will significantly curtail such exchanges. After all, if we assume that the exchange of information was harmful, it would still be irrational to waste time, energy and resources trying to restrict a means of exchange when that restriction would have little or no impact. Anyone who is familiar with the way information is exchanged on computers knows that the main virtue of such means is their speed and convenience (in most cases). However, it is also well known that the information exchanged can be acquired via other means. In certain areas, such as scientists exchanging information, the speed and convenience is vital and restricting it would create a significant impact. Now, what about information that is considered potentialy harmful, such as information about bombs? Could the government significantly curtail the flow of such information by restrictions in the realm of computers? Clearly not, because  there are so many alternatives. There are books, movies, television shows, pamphlets, as well as speech. When I was growing up, there were no personal computers, BBSs, modems, or email. However, during that time kids had more than enough information to do all sorts of harmful activities. Unless things have really changed, children probably get most of their information (and misinformation)  from  non computer sources. Thus, the only way to significantly curtail the exchange of such information is to severely restrict all forms of communication. Not only would this be infeasible, it would also run afoul of the nature of a free and open society. Also, if it were the case that computers were a significant source of  harmful information for children, then there would be a clear correlation between computer access and the degree of harmful activities a child engages in. However, it does not appear that this is the case. Hence, it is very unlikely that such restrictions would reduce the flow of information, given these considerations.

Second, to justify such restrictions it must be shown that it is the information that leads to the harm. To be more specific, it must be shown that the information that is considered to be harmful actually has a relevant causal role in bringing about the  perceived harms. To make the discussion more concrete, I will use the example of the bombs. However, this argument can easily be generalized to other situations. It would be foolish to argue that information about bombs does not play a role in the construction and use of bombs. After all, children who know nothing about bombs do not build them. Thus, those who create and distribute such information do have a degree of responsibility for their actions. However, this responsibility is extremely difficult to define. For example, suppose someone posts a warning about a product that turns into a poison gas when exposed to a common household chemical. Now suppose some children kill another child using that chemical. Is that person responsible for the death of that child? If so, he should be punished. However, it would be odd to send him to jail for posting a warning that was misused. Now, suppose he posted it as a fact, without the desire to protect others. In this case, it would still be strange to punish him, since it is not his fault someone misused the information. Now, suppose he advocated that people use this gas to kill others. In this case, he would be encouraging immoral behavior, which would be wrong. Is this individual responsible for those who follow his suggestions? To some degree, but not completely. After all, few people are such robots that they automatically obey every suggestion. People (yes, children are people) have the capacity to make decisions about what they will and will not do. A person who does not have the capacity to make decisions requires someone else to watch out for them. In the case of children, if they are incapable of making decisions properly, then their parents or guardians must assume responsibility for their actions. Thus, if a child is capable of making decisions, her actions are her responsibility. If a child is incapable of making decisions (such that they are mere putty in the hands of others), then the parent must assume full responsibility. So, in the bomb case, if a child makes a bomb, then either it is his responsibility or his parents. If he uses the bomb to harm himself or others, then he or his parents are to blame. If it is his responsibility, then he has failed himself and others and must pay the price. If it is his parents’ responsibility, they have failed the child, themselves, and others. Mere information does not make a person take an action anymore than the mere existence of a gun makes a person a murderer. Without the decision to act, there can be no action. Information does not make decisions or take actions. People do, so people have to take the responsibility for their own actions.

Third, to justify such restrictions, it must be shown that such restrictions will prevent more harm than they create. What harm can be done by imposing restriction on electronic means of communication? In itself, a rule forbidding the posting  and exchange of information about explosives via electronic means might not be particularly harmful. After all, anyone who has a legitimate need for information about explosives can simply get the information from thousands of other sources. The same is true about any other type of information. However, such a restriction would set a dangerous precedent. I will not claim that such a restriction would lead to the death of freedom or some such nonsense. After all, that would be a slippery slope fallacy (an “argument” in which something extreme and often terrible is claimed to inevitably  follow from a first step without any argument for that inevitability). I do argue that such a restriction sets a dangerous precedent. Once a restriction is set on the exchange of information because somebody believes that such a restriction will prevent a possible harm, it becomes increasingly easier to place further restrictions based on whatever political or moral ideology happens to be fashionable at the time. I simply do not have enough faith in the reasoning abilities of those in power to be willing to allow them such control. What might well happen, as has happened in other media, is the gradual erosion of freedom. What is even worse is that such activities also result in an increase in the power over the medium by those who simply do not understand it. It is a dangerous thing to allow the politicians into this electronic realm. After all, look at what they have done to the real world. Should we let them get a foothold in the virtual world?

How do we keep our freedom? The key seems to be responsibility. If we are responsible in our actions as members of an electronic society, we will not give the politicians any excuse to intrude to “protect” us. As creators and distributors of information, we should take responsibility for that information. If you must write about bombs, take the responsibility of warning people about the dangers. If you have to distribute the information about bombs, make sure people know what they (or their kids) are getting into. As receivers of information, we must take responsibility for the actions we take using that information. If you simply must build a bomb, be careful. If you think you simply must blow up your neighbor’s mailbox, get help. If we are responsible for others, such as children, we must take the time to know what they are doing. If you are a parent or a guardian, and your child has access to a computer, take the time to learn about what they are doing. Whether they have access to computers or not, be a responsible parent. If we cannot assume responsibility for our actions, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we lose our freedom.

Philosophers and others have debated the harmful and beneficial effects of art since at least the time of Plato. One of Plato’s arguments has been used, in various forms, throughout history. The gist of the argument is that certain content in art can have a corrupting influence on people. Since such corruption is harmful, such art should be banned. For example, he argued that watching tragedies can cause people to give in to sorrow and thus act in ways that are not fit and proper. As another example, he warned against the harmful influence of comedy: seeing fools on the stage could lead one to play the fool at home. These days, people tend to be far less concerned about the effects of tragedy and comedy. The main concerns today are with sex and violence.

The concern about art has been applied to each new art form. When movies appeared, people worried about them. The same for TV and now the same is true for video games.

Naturally, people tend to be most concerned about video games that are supposed to be harmful. I’ve written about this subject in my book, so I won’t say more about my views on this matter here other than to urge everyone to buy multiple copies for themselves, friends, enemies and pets.

While Plato did argue for censorship, he did leave a way for poetry to be allowed back in the ideal city of the Republic. To generalize the argument, if it can be shown that a work of art is beneficial (or that it is at least harmless) then it should be allowed.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that certain video games are beneficial. Recently Carmen Russoniello of East Carolina University conducted an experiment to assess the impact of non-violent video games.

In his experiment, the participants had four possible computer activities: 1) search the web for articles, 2) play Bejeweled 2, 3) play Bookworm Adventures, or play Peggle. These games are published by PopCap. PopCap also sponsored the research-but Russoniello claims that the company had no role in the design of his experiment or his analysis of the data.

The experiment found that these games seemed to be beneficial to the players-at least relative to searching the web for articles. Naturally, it is important to keep this fact in mind.

Bejeweled 2 was found to be less stressful that searching for articles (as measured by heart rate). All three games were credited with making the players feel better. To specific, the players reported feeling less angry, less fatigued, less depressed, and less tension.

As with many studies about video games, the subjects’ brains were tested. According to the EEG results, Peggle increased the brain activity that is supposed to be linked with “wanting to engage with life” ( Sharon Begley, “This is Your Brain on a Video Game”Newsweek May 5, 2008 page 12). Bejweled 2 apparently has the power to quell the brain activity associated with “avoiding and withdrawing” (Begley). Bookworm seems to have the ability to sync brain waves which is a “state associated with relaxation” (Begley).

These results do, intuitively, make sense. These games are non-violent and involve the player in activities that generally do not cause anxiety or stress. Further, these games are similar in many ways to traditional (that is, non-computer) games that people play to relax. For example, Bookworm is somewhat like Boogle and Peggle is somewhat like Pachinko.

One question that the experiment did not address is the duration of the positive effects. Some mental activities, such as meditation, actually change the way the brain (or mind) works in positive and lasting ways. Of course, this matter can also be studied and the question answered.

As always, there is also the question of whether the games are better than “real world” alternatives, such as reading, sports, playing “physical” games (like a “real” game of Boggle with friends), and so on. There is a tendency for people to think that electronic entertainment is inferior to “real” entertainment. In some cases, there is merit to such concerns. Passively watching bad TV, for example, is inferior to being active in the actual world. However, people should be careful to avoid letting this possible bias sway their judgment in regards to all electronic entertainment. Perhaps some video games are quite good for people.

There are many books, but buying this book will truly change your life.*

*In that that you will 1) have less money and 2) have the book.