“Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?”
By Emrys Westacott
Central Argument: The relationship between surveillance and moral edification is complicated as it can reinforce good habits that become second nature or hinder moral development.
Technology is always improving and at the same time constraining. With our lives being monitored in more ways than before, our behaviors must adapt and change to coincide within the boundaries. Emrys Westacott in an article called, “Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?” writes that the relationship between surveillance and moral edification is complicated as it can reinforce good habits that become second nature or hinder moral development. This statement is true because of personal experience at junior high, the honor pledge, and authority figures.
We are watched constantly. At my junior high school, we had security cameras set up around campus. They were at different locations throughout the school to make sure that if anything serious happened, they would know exactly what happened. However, it was also a reminder to watch our behavior. Most of the time, we forgot there were cameras even there, but time to time you would look up and see the little circular lens at the edge of the ceiling. When you did see the camera, it would make you conscious of what you were doing even if it was nothing special. Even if we never actually knew if the cameras outside were on, it made people think about their actions a little more before actually doing anything.
As easily as surveillance can help consider our actions a little more deeply, it can also make us think less about a matter, like the honor pledge does at Woodstock. When I first learned about the honor pledge at Woodstock, I thought maybe by writing this sentence down and signing it would actually make people stop cheating. You actually felt reliable to that statement because you signed your name. However, as time went by, I realized that for most people it has just turned into a habit. Most students just write and sign the honor pledge because it’s mandatory. The true value of signing a statement and following it has been lost with the honor pledge. The repeated use of the honor pledge has left it almost meaningless to many students. The honor pledge is not so effective in preventing students from cheating, but responsible students refrain from cheating regardless.
Authority figures also affect our moral decisions. They either help or hinder our moral development. If we decide to do something bad, but we know a teacher is watching, then it will probably stop us from doing it. Similar incidents may happen many times, but depending on the person it may have different outcomes. For some, it may induce a better lifestyle because they finally realize that they are doing the wrong thing, or they may perfectly ignore the authoritative figure because they don’t care. Figures with authority may well as make us better people who can decide for ourselves what is good or they can take that ability away by being present at the situation and by telling us what to do.
Westacott’s argument that the relationship between surveillance and moral edification is complicated as it can reinforce good habits that become second nature or hinder moral development is true because of personal experience, the honor pledge, and by authoritative figures in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment