The Common Tone

As a continuance, of sorts, from the last post I would like to present a problem in the form of an analogy. It is fine to say that free expression exists, a statement that I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with. However, to what extent it exists and under what subtleties freedom is confined is a whole new realm. In What is Enlightenment? Kant showed us that enlightenment can be achieved only if “the public concerned is left in freedom”¹. With freedom a public can awaken itself from its “self incurred immaturity” wherein they are too lazy to use their own reasoning relying instead on being told what to do. As Kant so frighteningly puts it:

It is so convenient to be immature. If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual advisor to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.

Does this not sound familiar? “I need not think, so long as I can pay”, could easily be a capitalist motto. Our entire modern society is built on the idea of convenience – ultimately tying us down to become slaves, not even to other people, but to computers, the internet and other machines we build. We are regressing so seriously from Kant’s definition of social enlightenment that we have to ask: What do we know? It is especially frightening when it comes to morality and ethics. Since we “outsource” almost everything else, even original thought in many cases, it follows that we rely on others to tell us what moral or ethical behavior is. Yet, if we are incapable of challenging these pronouncements, how can we be sure that what our “advisors” say is moral, really is moral? Thankfully there are still many, many people who continue in free thought, though perhaps not in totally free speech. For this reason I offer the following analogy as a question/challenge.

Bob is applying for jobs having completed his first bachelor’s degree. He is passionate about the environment and knows, without a doubt, that he wants to do something to help ensure a green future for following generations. Bob is a smart guy and has a bright future with a shining resume. He applies to a few environmental consulting firms, enjoying the idea of helping businesses and homes alike become more environmentally active.
He soon hears back from one company, EnviroClean, and they offer him a position as an environmental consultant. However, while he was waiting for the companies to get back to him he was able to do some research about each of them. He found out that EnviroClean had a history of Greenwashing, or aiding in Greenwashing, a practice which hits rock bottom on Bob’s ethical thermostat. This is the only offer he got, and he really wants to work in the field. He has no practical experience, and no credit to start his own consulting firm. He is unsure what to do. He knows that if he accepts the job he could get the experience, contacts and funds he needs to start his own group in future. He is also painfully aware that by joining such a group he is directly supporting unethical, immoral practices and promoting a corrupt system. His chances of making any changes within the system are minute, since EnviroClean is a large firm. The documents he has to sign as an employee ensure that his responsibilities lie toward the betterment of the firm, and that his freedom to express any opinions which might harm the firm lie within the judgment of those running the business.

Bob is clearly intelligent and morally sensitive. In the end his question comes down to a question of responsibility. Does Bob have responsibility only to himself and the economy, as capitalism and modern society generally insist? If so, the question is easily answered. Or, does Bob have a responsibility to all life; past, present, future: human and otherwise? If so, the question becomes much more complex and difficult to answer. In other words it becomes inconvenient. We ask for convenience, but at what cost?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Afterthought - In What is Enlightenment Kant says:
“The public use of man’s reason must always be free; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment.”
This is exactly the case in the example I used last post, where the priest could not voice full his convictions in his role as leader of a congregation. Once out of his ministerial role and proclaimed simply as a rational member of society, he can express himself as he wishes. Idealistic? Perhaps. The same could be true for Bob; however, if he were to publicly voice opposition to certain of the company’s actions (e.g. greenwashing) he would most likely be fired, but in addition might face legal action due to the contracts he signed at the beginning. Companies, I assume, take contractual measures to avoid legal action should they react with a dismissal to an employees unfavorable public expression. Unfortunately Canada lags a bit behind in “whistleblower” legislation; even so, companies have enough lawyers to build contractual obligations which avoid major legal ramifications should an employee exercise their freedom of expression ” in the wrong way”. Where is the free in free expression?

Maybe when Kant said: “Have courage to use your own understanding”, the courage was meant for the consequences.
——————————————-
1. Interesting to note that Kant says left in freedom, rather than given freedom or some such. Kant clearly thinks that freedom is the default – the validity of this is a whole new discussion.