I‛ve been considering anarchism and utilitarianism as separate systems, since they represent larger oppositional ethical systems: deontology and consequentialism. However, the more I think about it the more I keep coming back to their root logic. Don‛t both stem from the claim of creating the greater good for as many people as possible? Things diverge from there, since they certainly don't seem to agree on tactics or economics or beneficence.

William Godwin proposed a utilitarian anarchism, and I haven‛t had time to read up on that yet. Perhaps I‛ll get around to that in the next few weeks.

Posted at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the cool things about the 75-minute presentation/discussion assignment in Ethics is that you get to write the web discussion questions for the week. Then the assigned respondant(s) write a 750-word essay answering one of them. (My Aristotle on the Place of Emotion in Argument and Levinas and the Commons posts were written under these assignment parameters.)

I ended up shortening my original reading list in order to get the pagecount right. We read Bollier's Why We Must Talk About the Information Commons, "The Gift Community" from Hyde's The Gift, and What Utilitarianism Is by John Stuart Mill. Here are the questions I offered to the class:

1. Apply the categorical imperative (using the Humanity formulation) to the problem of responsibility to the academic commons.
2. Apply the basic precepts of happiness in Mill's Utilitarianism to the academic commons.
3. Compare Levinas' conception of responsibility with that put forth by Mill.
4. It can be argued that Levinas would say using another's ideas for one's own purposes is not sufficiently honoring the Other's alterity*. Extend this argument to its logical conclusion.
5. Anarchism has been closely related to 'copyfight' movements (i.e., groups who agitate against current intellectual property legislation.) It has been applied both metaphorically (through the notions of piracy and sharing) and literally (through moral arguments against owning intellectual property). Hyde and other gift theorists also often align themselves with it. Does alignment with anarchism constitute an effective rhetorical strategy for copyfighters? Why or why not?
6. Buber suggests that our ethical responsibility lies in the true, open exchange between two individuals. Is this idea applicable to exchanges within a commons? Is it applicable to gift theory in general?

*This one is drawn from my Ethics professor's response to my short essay on Levinas and the Commons.

Posted at 8:59 AM | Permalink

Following is the proposal I wrote for my final project in Ethics class. We were asked to limit our source list to five - otherwise, mine would be much longer. I had originally hoped that this paper might do something useful, but it looks to me like it's turned into a purely academic exercise. Constructive commentary and advice are welcome.

Title
Anarchy and Utility: Toward an Ethics of the Information Commons

Rationale
Contemporary proponents of the information commons have always inhabited a border space in the intellectual property landscape, a space that is home to both scholars and street preachers. While all "free culture" rhetoric is oppositional to the current intellectual property policy structure to some degree, the last five years have seen significant parts of this opposition adopt the more extreme stance of techno-anarchism. Recent works by John Logie and Siva Vaidyhanathan have critiqued, respectively, the anarchist rhetoric of Napster's defense and the real-world role of techno-anarchism. While both offer critiques of these anarchistic stances and suggest that this alignment creates an oppositional and ultimately damaging rhetoric, neither have suggested an alternative ethical system that might frame our discussions of the future of the copyfight movement.

Continue reading "Ethics Final Project Prospectus" »

Posted at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Currently researching anarchism as an example of deontological ethics and utilitarianism as an example of consequentialism.

Wikipedia Entry on Anarchism
Wikipedia List of Notable Anarchists
Anarchy Archives: An Online Research Center on the History and Theory of Anarchism
Wikipedia Entry on Emma Goldman
The Emma Goldman Papers (Berkeley)
"Anarchism: What It Really Stands For" by Emma Goldman

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. ... Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth. All Anarchists agree in that, as they also agree in their opposition to the political machinery as a means of bringing about the great social change.

Goldman, Anarchism: What It Really Stands For

Update: Anarcho-Syndicalism 101

Posted at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)