The dark side of Dubai — Johann Hari, published in The Independent on 7 April 2009.

The scenario might as well be sketched hypothetically:

• Consider a society and an economy that is built on the backs of what effectively seems to be slave labour. If an economy is built on something morally reprehensible, to what degree are we culpable, should we choose to have a vacation there? Or just go shopping for a day? Or even just fly the airline? Is contributing money to a morally reprehensible economy an act of aiding and abetting?
• To what extent does knowledge or lack of knowledge of the underlying reprehensible acts influence the ethics of our actions? (To what extent is ignorance a valid defence?)

In the case of Dubai and its airline: I have never even flown Emirates. It seems they are often the cheapest option for Europe-Africa flights and I know many people that fly Emirates. The reason I chose against that airline in the past was probably because the flight time is longer, though I got to feel good about my choice by only making it after checking CheapTickets.ch which claims BA, KLM and SAA are all more ecologically friendly (probably also because those flights are shorter).

BTW, Dubai is also in serious economic trouble. If you would like to visit and are thus looking for some noble reason to rationalise going, that might be of use.

Is this blog evil?

I know there are differences of opinion on this question. Anyone, feel free to speak your mind (when staying on-topic) — I distinguish between the blog, its contents and role, and myself the author, so I will not take it personally. (If speaking your mind involves calling me evil too, I have no problem with that. I’m just mentioning I won’t make that connection unless you do it for me.)

The reason I ask this is because I’m interested in discussing the problem. I mean this blog to be as positive and good a contribution as it could possibly be, but I’m unable to accurately represent opinions-not-my-own in the debates I have with myself when trying to figure out how to make the blog as wholesome as possible. There will always be differences of opinion due to the nature of the subject matter this blog discusses, but I’m seeking a decent compromise, a fair way to discuss such subject matter.

Over the past 2.5 years of this blog’s existence, I learned a lot about how to handle and how not to handle certain issues. I will continue to learn, but I can learn faster with your direct input. Any method welcome, comments below, emails, waves, phone calls… (leave your address with a comment below then I’ll contact you for further arrangements).

I already have some ideas I will implement. The first idea will be the next blog post: a warning to newcomers with regards to what they will find here. Other ideas will take longer to implement, aiming to enable people to direct their own paths with regards to what they are interested in and what they would rather avoid.

I suppose I should point out: “completely stop blogging, delete the blog, and stop talking to people about anything world-view related” is not an option. Additionally, my “primary case-study” remains an integral part of this blog, unless I find better or more important case studies — feel free to contribute ideas! With those restraints, things that can be improved include the way in which I present the topics I tackle, the ways in which I organise, make accessible, encourage or present (or not present) any comments or feedback the posts receive.

For example, an old idea of mine is to conceptually separate two “regions” for conversations: a “pub” and a “dark back-alley”. The pub should always remain as friendly a place as possible, anyone seeking to engage in interactions based on what’s considered to be questionable morals, fist-fights for example, can be kicked out into the dark back-alley. The “please take it outside” option can then remain in order to support free speech. (Any thoughts on the limits of free speech? Discuss below!) This way we can avoid having any anti-social behaviour inside “my pub”. The pub’s dream is to encourage diversity in socialising: meet those that are different from you and engage in friendly mutually-horizon-broadening conversations.

Things to think about and/or discuss:

• Is this blog evil? In what ways could this blog be considered evil?
• At the same time, what is good about this blog? What is the flip-side of the coin?
• How can we encourage and emphasize the good in order to make it out-weigh any bad as much as is humanly possible?
• What are the limits of free speech? What should be the limits of free speech?

The discussion touched on:

• Can something in the universe be considered inherently “evil”, or is evil rather a human construct, just our way of seeing things?
• If cats aren’t considered evil, can humans be considered evil?
• The differences between being evil and doing evil
• Is it evil to wonder if someone is evil? Maybe it is better to just talk about what people do, rather than about their “identity”.
• The role of knowledge of the consequences of one’s actions. Does it make a difference if the cat is unaware of the pain and suffering it is causing, versus having full knowledge?

Summarising it all proved beyond me, feel free to read the discussions on the original post and Facebook updates if you can see those. It seems quite clear to me that the question of “evil?” is more relevant once it comes to human behaviour. So, let’s move on to the next question:

There are many kinds of lies. Which kinds can you think of? When are lies evil… or bad? Are lies sometimes good, and if so, when?

Feel free to talk about “bad” and “good” instead, to avoid semantic discussions about what constitutes “evil”.

Just like last time, there is not supposed to be a right and wrong answer, this is an opinion question. I consider all answers to be correct, and differences of opinion particularly interesting.

Are Cats Evil?

That question is actually too broad, take it more limited in scope: is the way they play with mice evil? …encouraging a mouse to try and run away again, giving them (false?) hope, only to pounce on them moments before they get away, successively wounding them more and more, driving them to exhaustion, torturing them, making them suffer…

Please motivate your answer.

There is not supposed to be a right and wrong answer, this is an opinion question, I consider all answers to be correct. Hence, I don’t consider debate interesting — the interesting part is supposed to be the further exploring of other questions within the light of our chosen answers to this one.

Some discussion took place below. Two comments were dropped on the imported Facebook note, good discussion took place on a Facebook status message.