Do computers offer greater promise for thoughtful and reflective communication than
television? Emphatically, yes. After all, media such as email and the Web are interactive by
design. And the opportunity for two-way communication enhances the chances of meaningful
and thoughtful communication. Yet their potential begs the question: Do these media in fact
serve those ends? It is tempting to hasten that the answer is "yes" with respect to email; after
are, we’ve all heard stories about how email has facilitated reunions of families and old friends,
and new long-distance friendships and romances. Moreover, it would seem that two-way
written communication requires far more thought and reflection than verbal conversation.
Nevertheless, email is often used to avoid face-to-face encounters, and in practice is used as
a means of distributing quick memos. Thus on balance it appears that email serves as an
impediment, not an aide, to thoughtful and reflective communication.
With respect to Web-based communication, the myriad of educational sites, interactive and
otherwise, is strong evidence that the Web tends to enhance, rather than prevent, meaningful
communication. Distance learning courses made possible by the Web lend further credence to
this assertion. Nonetheless, by all accounts it appears that the Web will ultimately devolve into
a mass medium for entertainment and for e-commerce, just like traditional television.
Meaningful personal interactivity is already yielding to advertising, requests for product
information, buy-seU orders, and titillating adult-oriented content.
Thus, on balance these high-speed electronic media do indeed tend to prevent rather than
facilitate meaningful and thoughtful communication. In the final analysis, any mass medium
carries the potential for uplifting us, enlightening us, and helping us to communicate with and
understand one another. However, by all accounts, television has not fulfilled that potential;
and whether the Web will serve us any better is ultimately up to us as a society.
Issue 65
72
"No amount of information can eliminate prejudice because prejudice is rooted in emotion, not
reason."
The speaker actually raises two distinct issues here: (1) whether information can eliminate,
or at least help reduce, prejudice; and (2) if not, whether this is because prejudice is rooted in
emotion rather than reason. Despite the evidence to the contrary, I fundamentally agree with
the speaker’s essential claim that prejudice is here to stay because it is firmly rooted in
emotion rather than reason.
Regarding the first issue, it would appear at first glance that prejudice is declining as a result
of our becoming a more enlightened, or better informed, society. During the past
quarter-decade, more so than any other period in human history, various voices of reason
have been informing us that racial, sexual, and other forms of prejudice are unfounded in
reason, morally wrong, and harmful to any society. During the 1960s and 1970s such
information came from civil-rights and feminist activists; more recently the primary source of
this information has been mainstream media, which now affirmatively touts the rights of
various racial groups, women, and homosexuals. Moreover, increasing mobility and cultural
awareness surely serve to inform people the world over that we are all essentially alike.
It would seem that, as a result of this flood of information, we would be making clear
progress toward eliminating prejudice. However, much of this so-called progress is forced
upon us legislatively--in the form of anti-discrimination laws in the areas of employment,
housing, and education, which now protect all significant minority groups. Without these laws,
would we voluntarily refrain from the discriminatory behavior and other forms of prejudice that
the laws prevent? Perhaps not.Moreover, signs of prejudice are all around us today. Extreme factions still rally around
bigoted demagogues; the number of "hate crimes" is increasing alarmingly; and the cultural
gap between white Americans and African-Americans seems to be widening as the level of
mutual distrust heightens. Besides, what appears to be respect for one another’s differences
may in fact be an increasing global homogeneity--that is, we are becoming more and more
alike. In short, on a societal level an apparent decline of prejudice is actually legislated morality
and increasing homogeneity. Accordingly, I find the speaker’s threshold assertion--that no
amount of information can eliminate prejudice-- compelling indeed.
The second issue that the statement raises is whether prejudice is learned or instinctive. If it
were learned, then it would seem that by obtaining certain information, or by purging one’s
mind of certain dis-information, one could learn to not be prejudiced. Despite popular notions
that this is possible, I have my doubts because these are age-old theories but we see little
evidence that prejudice is on the wane. Thus it seems that the root of prejudice lies more in an
instinctive, almost primal, sense of fear than in the sort of distrust that is learned and can
therefore be "unlearned." Accordingly, I also find the speaker’s second assertion--that
prejudice is rooted in emotion---compelling as well.
In sum, despite a deluge of information debunking our false notions about people who are
different than us, as a society it appears we have not reversed our inclination toward prejudice.
Therefore, I find convincing the speaker’s claim that prejudice is rooted in the sort of emotion
that reason cannot override.
73
Issue 66
"The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make
as much money as possible for their companies."
Should the only responsibility of a business executive be to maximize business profits, within
the bounds of the law? In several respects this position has considerable merit; yet it ignores
certain compelling arguments for imposing on businesses additional obligations to the society
in which they operate.
On the one hand are two convincing arguments that profit maximization within the bounds of
the law should be a business executive’s sole responsibility. First, imposing on businesses
additional duties to the society in which they operate can, paradoxically, harm that society.
Compliance with higher ethical standards than the law requires--m such areas as
environmental impact and workplace conditions--adds to business expenses and lowers
immediate profits. In turn, lower profits can prevent the socially conscious business from
creating more jobs, and from keeping its prices low and the quality of its products and services
high. Thus ifbusinesses go further than their legal duties in serving their communities the end
result might be a net disservice to those communities.
Secondly, by affirming that profit maximization within legal bounds is the most ethical
behavior possible for business, we encourage private enterprise, and more individuals enter
the marketplace in the quest of profits. The inevitable result of increased competition is lower
prices and better products, both of which serve the interests of consumers. Moreover, since
maximizing profits enhances the wealth of a company’s stakeholders, broad participation in
private enterprise raises the wealth of a nation, expands its economy, and raises its overall
standard of living and quality of life.On the other hand are three compelling arguments for holding business executives to
certain responsibilities m addition to profit maximization and to compliance with the letter of the
law. First, a growing percentage of businesses are related to technology, and haws often lag
behind advances in technology. As a result, new technology-based products and services
might pose potential harm to consumers even though they conform to current laws. For
example, Intemet commerce is still largely unregulated because our lawmakers are slow to
react to the paradigm shift from brick-and-mortar commerce to e-commerce. As a result,
unethical marketing practices, privacy invasion, and violations of intellectual-property rights
are going unchecked for lack of regulations that would clearly prohibit them.
Secondly, since a nation’s laws do not extend beyond its borders, compliance with those
laws does not prevent a business from doing harm elsewhere. Consider, for example, the
trend among U.S. businesses in exploiting workers in countries where labor laws are virtuaUy
non-existent in order to avoid the costs of complying with U.S. labor laws.
Thirdly, a philosophical argument can be made that every business enters into an implied
social contract with the community that permits it to do business, and that this social contract,
although not legally enforceable, places a moral duty on the business to refrain from acting in
ways that will harm that community.
In sum, I agree with the statement insofar as in seeking to maximize profits a business
serves not only itself but also its employees, customers, and the overall economy. Yet today’s
rapidly changing business environment and increasing globalization call for certain affirmative
74
obligations beyond the pursuit of profit and mere compliance with enforceable rules and
regulations. Moreover, in the final analysis any business is indebted to the society in which it
operates for its very existence, and thus has a moral duty, regardless of any legal obligations,
to pay that debt.
Issue 67
"Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what
they are taught instead of accepting it passively."
The speaker contends that students should be skeptical in their studies, and should not
accept passively whatever they are taught. In my view, although undue skepticism might be
counterproductive for a young child’s education, I strongly agree with the speaker otherwise.
Ifwe were all to accept on blind faith all that we are taught, our society would never progress or
evolve.
Skepticism is perhaps most important in the physical sciences. Passive acceptance of
prevailing principles quells innovation, invention, and discovery. In fact, the very notion of
scientific progress is predicated on rigorous scientific inquiry--in other words, skepticism. And
history is replete with examples of students of science who challenged what they had been
taught, thereby paving the way for scientific progress. For example, in challenging the notion
that the Earth was in a fixed position at the center of the universe, Copernicus paved the way
for the corroborating observations of Galileo a century later, and ultimately for Newton’s
principles of gravity upon which all modern science is based. The staggering cumulative
impact of Copernicus’ rejection of what he had been taught is proof enough of the value of
skepticism.
The value of skepticism is not limited to the physical sciences, of course. In the fields of
sociology and political science, students must think critically about the assumptions underlying
the status quo; otherwise, oppression, tyranny and prejudice go unchecked. Similarly, while
students of the law must learn to appreciate timeless legal doctrines and principles, they must
continually question the fairness and relevance of current laws. Otherwise, our laws would not
evolve to reflect changing societal values and to address new legal issues arising from our
ever-evolving technologies.