Greek Myths and Autonomy based Discrimination

WARNING! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing religious opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.

This post is meant to be read in the context of some of the other posts I have published on this blog [7][8] and I may cover some of the ideas in this post in more detail based on the availability of time. 

The cause of discrimination and can it is justified as a form of deterrence

At the heart of discrimination is our sense of deservingness of another of some resource we have authority over. So like many other social conflicts, discrimination is a matter of distributive justice. Distribution of wealth, power or opportunity.

In the past successful civilizations ruled through autocracy and through the division of the population into classes which self regulated access to resources and opportunity. Deviants to social norms may have been deterred through non-subtle discrimination and subtle discrimination, to be made into public examples (if greek myths and such are taken to have more merit than bed-time stories). The discrimination an ancient man might have faced was certainly far worse (on average) than what we may face in modern times. Access to knowledge on philosophical inquiries into morality and the nature of reality were trapped in silos in various civilizations across time and land in the hands of the great philosophers of the times. So the danger posed by such knowldge would have not been a great concern.

Over the past millennia we have made great progress towards bringing many forms of discrimination to light where we have tackled them them through social change and laws. It is much harder now to discriminate someone based on gender, race, religion or level of nationalism. But we still allow subtle discrimination .

We may use subtle discrimination as a form of deterrence to regulate our communities and at times even our countries. Greek myths (and such) suggests how communities may have used such subtle means to tackle social issues, dissent against social norms and authority. For example, the myths where Athena ties Tiresias for seeing her naked and Artemis turning Siproites into a woman for seeking her naked can be interpreted as symbols of how poverty and shame based denial of reproductive success may have been used as punishment against non conformance to social norms. We still see synonymous situations to such myths in some modern day communities.The problem with such subtle forms of deterrence is its lack of transparency and objectivity with regards to the guilt of the accused. Further, the debate on moral relativism makes the use of this form of punishment even more questionable . This is why when such subtle forms of discrimination against a group or an individual gain country wide or global support that it turns into something that harms all humanity. I am of the opinion that subtle discrimination should not reach the point of bodily harm, dehumanization, or denial of reproductive success or be used to prevent fair access to wealth and opportunity.

What is autonomy?

We usually use the noun “autonomy” in the context of care for differently abled people or the elderly but this concept has been pondered by many philosophers (from Plato to Kant) as a general human  characteristic. It conveys the degree of agency we have over our own minds, bodies and, and lives. To think this concept through analogies, we may be able to understand how an Olympic gymnast has more control over his body than the average abled man, we may also understand how the average abled man has more control over his body than an elderly man using a walker. This is autonomy over the body. We may be able to understand how Sam Harris (a popular western advocate of meditation) has more control over his own mind under the influence of alcohol than an illiterate man who has been consuming alcohol all his life. This is autonomy over the mind.

Autonomy over life must be conceptualized as two distinct parts. The first part easy to observe and comprehend, we may be able to understand how a secretive billionaire has more control over his life choices than an outcast from a lower socio economic background from an undeveloped country.

To understand the second part autonomy over life, we may consider ideas found in religion and philosophy. Both Plato and Aristotle believed in a God and gods. Plato envisioned solving the psychological issue of man and the moral requirement by creating classes of men through the myth of the metals and enforcing the classes with supernatural sanctions. With the highest honors bestowed upon philosophers [1]. Aristotle having bread a Philosopher in this context, saw gods as powerful but pitiful creations to whom the world moves as a total motive of the operations of the world. Much like a gift of a golden necklace moves the heart of the lover [2]. He envisioned the gods as pitiful creations as the gods were seen as objects as opposed to a living things and as they were restrained in their actions. By the time the western civilization had progressed to the time of Francis Bacon, these philosophical concepts had been assimilated into catholicism and possibly into protestant forms of Christianity. Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor is a fictional tale of such a god being allowed to be made in the 16th century era and how it could not be allowed at the time because of the narrative of the church.

Bacon being credited by some as the father of modern science, was able to continue the western pursuits of philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality in a secular manner. Becon writes “For a while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go no further, but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity” [3]. While his reference to Plato’s allegory of the cave is an acknowledgment to the explainability of empirical truths deliverable by science, his choice to justify the need of providence and deity as a means of explanation are contradictory to the analogy that accompany the Idol of the Theatre, one of four idols he went out to identify as hindrances to the pursuit of western philosophical progress. Further, though he is considered a pioneer of science he had repeatedly renounced atheism, such as when he wrote “I rather believe all the fables of legend, the Talmud.. than that this universal frame is without a mind” or “a little philosophy inclineth a man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth man’s minds about to religion”. (the use of the noun philosophy must be put in context of his time). Taking into consideration the influence of classical greek philosophy, his Christian upbringing, and other incidents that took place in his time, I am of the opinion that he was able to comprehend the perspective Aristotle’s gods would have had as they existed among mere men. How such gods caused events around them and how the world to them was at times a metaphor reacting their actions. He may have tried to overtly communicate this insight in the analogy he used in the Idols of the Theatre. I believe if my claim is valid, his intentions were well meaning as not everyone who might have godly insights into reality could handle it, let alone discern insights from the noise or have the moral maturity to not cause harm. This may be why he held the opinion that philosophy should be considered a separate way of expressing and comprehending reality from art and science. That philosophy should direct the course of science.

This idea of causal gods, has some resemblance to the concept of providence and the eastern concept of Karma. A humanist may even speculative if they are conceptualizing the same phenomena at different degrees of accuracy or to cater to social preferences and needs. This how we can understand the second part of autonomy over life using western philosophy.


What is autonomy based discrimination?

Autonomy based discrimination is when someone is discriminated against for having more than the average amount of autonomy over mind or life or seeming to have to have less than the expected amount of autonomy over mind.

Lets first discuss the the side of this spectrum most of us are aware about and want to avoid. Most of us would agree we want to avoid enabling someone like ‘Meursault’, the protagonist of Albert Camus’s the outsider [8]. An able bodied man who’s autonomy over mind may have been compromised who finds himself having committed a murder. Camus’s absurd philosophical inquiry asks us if it is moral to allow the legal system to allow such man the death penalty? And if we are all partially at fault if we fail to comprehend the cause is possible lack of autonomy over mind. I am inclined to believe Camus being a renowned philosopher, was aware of Plato’s view on what distinguishes a man from a beast is his ability to develop the faculties that allows him to keep the beast at bay and exercise it in a civil manner.

But what about the other end of the spectrum? Hypothesize a world where we are living among gods and our actions and even the very world moves for them. Would it be fair to up root our lives, our beliefs, give up on our dignity and possessions for such gods? Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor” looks at this problem from the perspective of the 16th century church. The author conveys why the church would not have allowed such a god to have lived among us as his existence and acceptance would disprove the authority of the church over man. Since the western enlightenment, some of the classical greek philosophical meta-physical explanations that were assimilated into Christianity, have been rediscovered by secular philosophers. But unlike with the church, since there is no central body to regulate access to such information and discourage the misuse, some ideas found in philosophy and speculative fiction (such as the possible hidden meaning in Bacons Idol of the Theatre) are being used in the modern capitalistic system for profit making motives. This may not be categorically wrong, but it can lead to disastrous outcomes (I will cover one such outcome in this post).

One of the philosophical inquiries of Camus’s homage to the greek myth “The Myth of Sisyphus”[6], is the motivation of such a god to keep on living, fighting against the restraints of the rulers of society enforced by classes of people divided by superstitions given supernatural sanctions (myth of the metals). The lowest classes may enforce the restrains out of pure greed or ignorance. The middle classes being more religiously and culturally affluent, require supernatural sanctions and depending on the level of access they have to their version of the sacred, they are given justification on the clondemnation that must befall on Sisyphus. The ones that avoid the philosophical death (as Camus had put it), may go onto become the rules, who may end up justifying the restraints using egalitarian arguments, fear or through supernatural sanctions others have given to their new age beliefs. Speculative fiction such as Philip K. Dicks Minority report, Blade Runner and even some allusionary ideas found in Douglas Adams Dirk Gently series may give insights into some of the means of these sanctions and the motives of such a hypothetical ruling class with regards to portraying a Sisyphus as a Meursault.

The moral danger of autonomy based discrimination

To Plato morality is the effective harmony of the whole [1] and one motive of philosophy is to better understand this whole. As Bacon writes “Nature can’t be commanded, except by being obeyed.”[5] And this is what humans have done over the millenia through beliefs, religion, philosophy and science. Understanding nature and using it in ways that are of benefit to them. Such as discerning the flow of things through the idols of the theater and aligning their lives and businesses with what they have discerned. For example, we see how some companies use subtle means to assist employees who are on the cusp of personal revolutions to have these revolutions, and in turn they profit through the alignment they have made with the natural phenomena behind such situations. But the motivation of the company and the employee needs to be genuine. Both individuals who pretend for their benefit and or insincere or ignorant well wishers who use such individuals for short term profit do so at moral danger to themselves and at the expense of compromising their own autonomy, as nature has its own plans that we may not stray too far away from.

The danger of autonomy based discrimination to others is in the way it is enforced when the discrimination is done at the level of a country or globally. As discussed earlier on in this post, to gain support to discriminate an individual or a group at a systemic level of a country or globally, a social system like the “myth of metals” must be used, and using such a system across a morally relativistic landscape can lead to large number of individuals and groups being pushing into committing immoral acts. Plato has expressed that we are member of each other and as such we carry a moral requirement.[1] This idea of the moral requirement and the repercussions of not meeting it is learned by followers of Abrahamic religions. But such lessons are harder for followers of some forms of Buddhism to learn. The situation is even worse amongst followers of new age religions and beliefs. When members of such belief systems are used to discriminate against an individual or a group, due to their blindness of the eye (allegory of the cave) they are unintentionally failing to uphold the moral requirement and they bring repercussions on themselves and others.

In closing, Profiting off of Sisyphus’s is unsustainable in modern times and we must walk away as suggested by Ursula K Le Guin’s novel “The ones who walk away from Omelas” if we are powerless to change the situations and let the systemic imbalances made by such abuses bring about retribution on those who are at guilt. And in turn modern day Sisyphus’s may educate themselves, from martyrs of the past like Spinoza and possibly Camus, and modern institutions of human flourishing to carve out fulfilling lives among mere mortals.



[1] - The republic as interpreted by Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy.

[2] - Metaphysics as interpreted by Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy.

[3] - Of Atheism as interpreted by Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy.

[4] - New Organon as interpreted by Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy.

[5] - Plan of the work

[7] - https://dumiduh.blogspot.com/2024/02/warning-this-post-may-contain-opinions.html 

[8] - https://dumiduh.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-outsider-first-impressions-on-book.html 

[6]

Why I decided to take action to improve on my online privacy

A couple of years ago I came to the personal conclusion that human rights such as the rights to privacy are fundamental for an individual to thrive. But at the same time, in order for a state to function smoothly and perform its highest function of making citizens, some encroachments of privacy must be allowed.

However, there may be exceptions to the states need for encroachment, where in the act of making citizens, due to limitations of resources or errors in decision making by authorities, harm may fall on the societies the state is bound to protect through the unconcensual breach of privacy it may conduct on individuals. In such situations, it is the moral responsibility of the individuals in question to do what they can to improve their personal privacy. 

Having come to the personal conclusion that it is far too easy to violate and abuse individual privacy in a country like Sri Lanka, and due to my personal academic interests, it would be irresponsible of me to take actions that are available for me to improve my online privacy (as online privacy is an important facet of individual privacy for me). To this end I have decided to use a VPN and improve on the security of my home tech stack.

The idea (until a better solution is found) is to make the VPN and any possible back doors built into the key software be the weak link, trusting anyone who might have access to my content would be responsible with it (e.g. 13 eyes). As the intention is to prevent abuse of my personal privacy to harm me and not allow the possibility of my personal content to unconsensually and indirectly harm others.

My personal stand on religion

WARNING!!! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing religious opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.

 
I am of the opinion that every mature individual should make up their own minds on important social issues and express them so that if anyone cares to know about them they can. But there may be some social issues where sharing your opinion may add noise to a topic that may have been discussed at length. However, if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation where you have no other alternative but to share your opinion as a definitive source, then sharing it in a kind manner can be helpful. 

1. I’m of opinion that religions are created but they are necessary

I have personally come to the conclusion that reality needs creation to explain itself. But religions like Christianity and Buddhism are human constructs that were required to explain certain phenomena in a way that secured the moral requirements of the times they were thought of. Plato may have shared the same sentiment as in the Republic, it is claimed that religions are required to give the moral requirements of a community divine authority. If Plato and Aristotle had heard of the jews exodus out of Egypt and the birth of the 10 commandments, I’m of the opinion that they would say the jewish race, and it's god needed those 10 commandments to thrive in those times.

I’m of the opinion that as different as religions like Buddhism and Christianity may appear on the surface and the stark differences in their explanations of reality, the phenomena that are discussed operate under the same principles in one reality that accommodates them. It’s just that the moral requirement of the jews at the time of the 10 commandments was different from the moral requirement of the Buddha and his followers at the time the religion was thought of.

2. I’m of the opinion that Christianity was a great achievement in human history

I'm of the opinion that Christianity as we know it today was not birthed 2000 years ago but that it gradually evolved, and assimilated over the last 1000 years. As far as religions go, it has one of the lowest barriers of entry, which in my opinion is a good thing. But the growth of the practitioner depends greatly on their own comprehension of the texts, personal revelations, the maturity of the denomination and the leaders whom they belong to.

3. I’m of the opinion that fundamental versions of religions are obsolete

As much as the 10 commandments were needed to keep the jewish community functioning smoothly all those thousand years ago, they are obsolete now. I’m of the opinion that if we had access to those times, and we had investigated the moral requirements of those tribes we might have come up with similar laws and explanations . Then as the religion grew, for the same reasons Plato proposed the need for a governing class (The guardians), the justifications of such commandments and explanations of phenomena were needed to be kept away from the ruling class. This separation helped the religion and its followers to thrive.

Over the past 1000 years the society has radically changed in ways the religions can’t explain without altering the texts which can’t be done in our connected, digital world without drawing unwanted attention. So due to shortcomings of the religious community leaders, more and more of our youth lose hope in religion and fail to find alternatives elsewhere.

4. I'm of the opinion that discrimination and subjugation of people based on religion is wrong.

I have witnessed outdated religious laws being used to exclude individuals and groups. How such laws are used to subjugate and keep individuals captive by deeming them guilty and deserving of punishment (specially converts and the curious). Or justifying discrimination based on non membership. I am of the opinion that it is the religious fundamentalist who discriminate against others in such blatantly obvious ways, and that non fundamentalist religious practitioners, at least for the sake of financial motives, understand how to get along with non members of their religion and their own outcasts. As such they pay the way for a better future.

5. I’m of the opinion that some of us have a moral responsibility towards practitioners of fundamental versions of religions

I have personally known fundamentalist Buddhist in the past whose intentions were misguided and pushed nationalistic agendas in the gais of religious indignation. I don’t personally know any western christian fundamentalists, but through movies I’ve seen I can empathize with individuals who care for fundamentalist Christians who are not Christians in the general sense of the term. You can understand how some of these non-fundamentalists, especially those who are more humanistic and are educated, are looking out for the fundamentalist even when at times it seems they’re out to bite the hand that feeds.

I am of the opinion that if you find you are morally responsible for a religious fundamentalist, you still need to find a way to treat them with respect and dignity. Understand how much you are willing to compromise for that individual and understand your personal limits of compromise. You should not push your beliefs on the individual. It may genuinely be a case where the individual in question is not cognitively capable of changing their beliefs or be able to cope with the complexities or responsibilities of a different belief system. Or they may be socially or financially constrained. In such a situation most would agree an individual that follows the 10 commandments is still more favorable to an animal.

What if an individual tries pushing the 10 commandments on you? Claiming according to the first command he must object to your corrupt definition of God? What if he misunderstands your attempts to avoid discussing the matter with them out of your sense of moral responsibility? These are questions I myself have thought about at dept and if I have concluded the person who is asking me the question is not capable of handling the answer, then it would be immoral for me to answer it honestly and completely. If there was no other alternative, I would tell them of the Allegory of the cave[1]. The prisoners who see the shadows are right to a degree when they make conclusions about reality based on the shadows they see on the walls. The prisoner who breaks his chains and crawls out of the cave would see the objects that casted the shadows inside the cave. The conclusions he makes on reality based on these objects would be even closer to an objective reality than those made by the prisoners who are still chained inside. But this prisoner might understand that those truths other prisoners hold are a subset of his own truths and that they are constricted by the parameters of the cave. This realization should humble him to think that even his truths might be a subset of someone else’s truths. He would realize that the prisoner who is still inside the cave is not completely at fault for not understanding his truths.

I am of the opinion that if the worst comes to worse, you do your best to do justice by fundamentalist, cut ties (if this is an option) and move on yourself. 

      

So in closing, At 37 years of age, I am not religious, I believe religions can be a force for good so I am tolerant of them when they are not used as an excuse for abuse or discriminate. 

[1] -

The Outsider, a first impression on the book and Absurdism

WARNING!!! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing religious opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.   

At 37 years of age, I hold the view that reality constitutes creation and that most people if they are not being forced in some way would at least confess to agonism. Including Camus if you take the translation of Sandra Smith to be loyal to the original and that Camus meant to capitalize and uncapitalize the noun God in the final act between the Christian priest and Meursault.

I found 'The Outsider' extremely interesting and well written. It was short and to the point. I enjoy it when authors take a philosophical position or a question and use a story to investigate it and draw conclusions. This is probably one of the best books I have read.

As I see it the main concept being investigated in this story is moral responsibility and justice.

Salamano and his dog can be a metaphor that investigates how we can fail to comprehend our commitment when we become morally responsible for another. Camus ties Salamanos narrative masterfully with that of Raymonds in the early parts of the story. 

Meursault is the protagonist of the story. He is a young man with low affect, who seems disillusioned by society but showed an interest in life till his end. There are many references to sleep deprivation in Meursault’s narrative. Even at the point where he commits murder Camus brings this point to readers' minds. We learn that he has lost affect possibly since an incident in his youth where he was forced to abandon his educational pursuits. Although it is also a possibility that Meursault was born with low affect as this is not uncommon in some eastern cultures. Regardless of the cause of his affliction, Camus implies that Meursault is unable to rationally manage himself, his emotions and his actions when he is in the diminished capacity brought on by sleep deprivation and is at times portrayed as an observer of his own life. Camus asks the reader if it's moral to hold such a man at guilt? 

Camus fictionaly implies external agency for the acts and situations that brings Meursault to commit murder. He nudges the reader to think Salamano who is likely an elderly ostracized Muslim, the Christian Priest and the Judge who offers him pardon if he repents his sins can understand the cause of his affliction and influence of external agency using their belief systems. 

Camus asks the reader how just can a justice system be when the decision of guilt depends on the beliefs of those who decide on behalf of the accused? I wonder how many of our lawyers, juries and judges have read this book or agree with its message. 

Having read this book, I can understand why in 1942 Camus may have thought life was meaningless and absurd, but if he had lived to our days, inlight of the advances we have made in understanding the human experience, I believe he would have been intelligent enough to have seen enough meaning behind the mess. Too bad automobile safety was not what it is now back then and he was born in a terbulent time in his country. 

Story of Philosophy by Will Durant: Plato

 

Introduction to the series

I have had a passing interest in philosophy for a while and with age and career progression the benefits of knowing the thought process of the great thinkers on Justice became apparent. How do you answer questions like, ‘how do I give my recommendation as a senior to one junior over another for a promotion or what really is at stake in such a decision?’ or ‘what is my moral responsibility if I find myself working with someone who doesn’t have as much autonomy as I have as a senior?’

Since I don't have intentions of pursuing philosophy as a vocation, It doesn’t make much sense for me to study all the prominent schools of thought in philosophy by studying the body of work of the great philosophers who wore those thoughts best throughout history. So for the time being I have decided to pursue self study of the subject relying on the generalized and in most cases summarized opinions of the great philosophers and their contributions as presented by established academics. It is this intention that lead me to pick up Will Durent’s the Story of Philosophy.

What I have learnt from the first chapter 

The first chapter gives the socio-cultural context in which we find Socrates and plato. It made me realize that there were others (sophists) throughout pre-socratic history that questioned the order of things like Socrates, but they had enough wisdom in them not to find themselves in the bad books of the socio-economic system like Socrates did which left him with the end which he chose for himself. 

Plato must be thought of in the context of Socrates' final decision. Some of the claims he makes in his psychological solution seemed to have been influenced by his master’s death. Will Durent captures Plato’s philosophical contributions to ethics, politics and epistemology in the 3 problems and the 3 solutions.

The ethical problem

Ethics, the right conduct according to Plato is a relationship among individuals and so it is the harmony of the whole. It is easier to observe it and correct it at the level of the community than at the individual. Though he hints it ultimately about ethics at the individual level. The ethical problem therefore is the unethical behavior of the individual.

The political problem

Plato paints a picture of an eden-like utopia, where inhabitants live simply but in a state of just. But he claims such a simple utopia can’t come to past because of greed and luxury. (I suspect the ignorant fear of scarcity may have also been in his mind but he may have not stated it outright as it would have not been wise of him). Therefore, the political problem is the inability to control citizens' greed and luxury to a state where it is not detrimental to the whole).

The psychological problem

According to Plato man’s actions are governed by the intrinsic elements. ‘Desire’, ‘Emotion’ and ‘Knowledge’. He claims the more you are driven by either desire or emotion the more you are used by the world. And it is when you develop the element which he identify as ‘Knowledge’ that you can become the master of one’s own soul and stand unused by the world. His saying ‘know your soul’ which has penetrated the popular imagination today is a testament to the claim that this is what is meant. He goes on to say that in all of us lie desires and emotions that are harmful to the whole, but when knowledge is given front seat in one's soul one may substitute harmful desires and emotions to less harmful and live out a better life.

The psychological problem and the root cause for all other problems therefore is the individual's lack of autonomy. And the evils and the offenses that may come to light through the individual due to the lack of ownership of their own lives.  

The psychological solution  

Plato proposes creating better archetypes he calls ‘the guardians’ who will be used to mold the youth until those who are among them who are capable may break free from the archetype to become ‘guardians’ themselves. 

He proposes a mostly self-governing social order and a program that would chisel out the ‘guardians’ and other roles such as ’auxiliaries’ and citizens. Who are as a whole cured from the greed, luxury and other ills that he may have not mentioned. 

The the program consists of harvesting and producing the healthiest children, who for the first 10 years are given a physical foundation that can better stand the forces that wish to drive them through ‘Desire’ and ‘Emotion’. Then they are given an education in music to make their minds receptive to the spirits. He then speaks of the need for a religion to keep the would-be citizens in order that would give the moral requirement one has to another divine authority. He gives a description of the religion.

The growing children face two trails one harder than the other. Based on where they fail, they would become ‘Citizens’ or ‘Auxiliaries’. The moral requirements of the two classes are enforced through the newly established religion and the ‘myth of the metals’. 

Those who pass the second trial, are given an education of philosophy at the age of 30. Plato’s theory of forms is discussed here.Then they are put out into the world to fend for themselves. Those who become self-sufficient at the age of 50 become the ‘guardians’ and the de facto rulers of the state.        

The political solution

Plato claims once the psychology of the classes of the citizens is raised up to a standard that resolves the problem. The political problem can be solved through aristocracy. A description of the ‘guardians’ lifestyle is given. The importance of avoiding war with other groups over population and trade is given. The least cured of the classes plato claims would abandon monopoly of administration as the better cured of the classes abandon monopoly of luxury. 

The ethical solution

Justice to Plato is doing and having one’s own. Justice is what binds society together in harmony. Similarly justice binds the different elements of an individual together in harmony so that the individual may flourish. Plato claims members of a state are members of one another and so morality is the harmony of the whole. 

Personal criticism and final thoughts of Plato’s theories

The proposed solutions seem too generic(based on Will Durent’s writing and not the actual works of Plato). Given the advent of globalization some of his arguments are still potent at the level of the species. The examples of implementation of his theories given in the book prove that over time self-governing social systems become less efficient to the point they become ineffective and fall apart. Would be Implementatiors must take into account the progress made by the human race since then and the aspects that Plato may not call progress that that the ‘brones’ class would require and so should be accommodated to be corrected in cycles.  

My personal stand on LGBTQ+

WARNING!!! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.

I was born male, I am heterosexual, I identify as a male and I express myself as a male.
...

A couple of days ago I learnt that the percentage of people identifying as LGBTQ+ in the US is around 7% and that the global percentage may be as high as 10%. Though you don’t meet as many LGBTQ+ people in Sri Lanka or experience them in the local media as much, it’s important to be aware and to respect their decisions in life and treat them with dignity regardless of our thoughts on the subject.

Gender identity is how you identify yourself with regards to your gender and gender expression is how you choose to express your gender to society. Mastering these two aspects of life takes time and maturity. Ideally, society must wait until individuals are mature enough to make decisions on their own. But sadly, some of our children never reach this level of maturity, and some parts of societies are built in such a way that ignorance and ambiguity in these areas may be used for harm or be used for profit (in most cases to profit a third party).

Gender expression in essence is how we expect society to treat us. So when a person who is mature enough to know themselves but is insincere in their intentional expression of their gender, (e.g. a heterosexuals' man pretending to be gay for profit or promotion through clothing choices and act[1]) that person is trying to deceive society. It is my personal opinion that cases like this should be placed in the right cultural and situational context and be judged as letting such cases pass without consequence sets a bad precedent and takes away someone else's opportunity. But we must not be too harsh with the consequences and leave room for correction.

When it comes to society's end of the agreement made by our expression, we must be patient and empathetic, not because their mistreatment based on your gender is justified, but because of factors such as culture and education. In some cultures (due to lack of education), being seen as LGBTQ+ sympathetic can have real world consequences. But the silver lining is it does look like the world is becoming more welcoming of all humankind.

I have chosen not to cover the legal rights LGBTQ+ people should be given as I am citizen I am not in a position to make such decision. You can find the Kantian justification for this choice here [2]. 

 

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp99wqxLatc 

[2] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ke9RMXlu6T7gG-Ym41GCz0usKEbqp7s-osUUZxqtOA0/edit?usp=sharing 

My personal stand on using AI tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot

I have been dabbling with GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT for a couple of months now and have been blown away by how easy it makes both my professional and personal life. Using Copilot, I was able to make great progress on learning a new test automation tool in a language I had little experience in. With ChatGPT, I have made improvements to many areas of my daily existence. But after some time, like most of us who have come across the latest generation of AI tools, you stop and ask yourself how ethical it is to keep using them?

A front-end engineer in the 90s worked with HTML and maybe CSS but if you only knew those technologies now you wouldn’t be able to find work. Most testers in the early 90’s or the early 00 could have gone on without knowing how to automate test cases, but that’s not the case now. So it’s not out of the ordinary for us engineers to see job descriptions change, but the magnitude of the social change the latest generation of AI tools can bring about is so great that it can radically reshape society for the worse, because in my opinion the technologies and the governance of these technologies are not yet in place.

According to the 5 criteria outlined in this[1] IBM’s short video on the topic a user should check to see if an AI’s responses represent,

1. Fairness in representing all groups in societies around the world.
2. Its explainability in how it arrived at a given response.
3. Its robustness in ensuring fairness.
4. Its data privacy

Taking ChatGPT as an example, my main concern is how an average user can be sure of point 1 and point 3! The training data set of ChatGPT is proprietary, and although there may be papers published on this topic, they are not accessible for the average person. Plus it is my personal opinion that there is far too much bias and noise in some of the likely sources (like internet articles and even research papers) so going by the seemingly overnight adoption, if there’re biases and noise in its training data, they get magnified 100 fold in society faster than we all ran out and bought ourselves mobile phones.

Apart from any damage to society AI poses because of any unfairness of its responses, It seems like there isn’t a clerical job AI can’t do better than the majority of us can (if a few of us are really hellbent on getting the AI through the hurdles like switching between tasks and processes).

Personally, I am of the opinion that until governments and experts come up with regulation and means to control any global societal damage, we the users must exercise restraint and become responsible. How I tackled this problem is by thinking through Kantian ethics and coming up with some conclusions (which I am planning to stick to for the foreseeable future). 

That I should,

• Not use code augmentation tools like GitHub Copilot when I am working with technology I am comfortable with at work and other means of information retrieval is available.
• Use code augmentation tools when I am learning something completely new (like a new programming language). But the fine print being it shouldn’t be unfair on someone else’s potential to earn.
• Use AI like ChatGPT for information retrieval when other means of getting the same information is not practical. But try to compensate by being smarter with my distribution of wealth to others being affected (like how some of us support small businesses).

If you’re interested in the fine print. Find notes on the quick Kantian analysis I did here[2].

[1] - https://youtu.be/aGwYtUzMQUk 

[2] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z1DR4tV1JWvAd9ME1Xflr5yLIJRQLGet75AVWZsT03M/edit?usp=sharing