{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

Kate Neville and Matthew Hoffmann, two of U of T’s most climate-focused political scientists, have a piece online: So, it’s all just too late, right? Studying climate politics in a time of despair.

It’s a good piece, especially on the necessity for and challenges of “real-time research”. When I was still focused on pipelines, I often worried that I was ‘chasing the news’ with the dissertation research. As we proceed deeper and deeper into the unprecedented, as humanity dominates the operation of the planet with more power than understanding or control, the need to do research on ongoing topics will only grow in importance.

{ 0 comments }

Despite being looked down upon for it by more sophisticated philosophers, I see a lot of value in the utilitarian idea that the right course of action can often be discerned by considering what will produce the greatest good and the least harm among the most people. It’s not a philosophy that answers all ethical questions by itself, but I think it’s healthy to try to focus on the actual life experiences of those involved rather than purely on abstract principles or one’s own preferences and judgment.

My appreciation for utilitarianism is revealed in how I do my photography. If it’s possible to create value for someone, even if it isn’t me and even if I won’t be paid for it, I will nearly always choose to do so when allowed. That’s why my photos are released on Flickr under a Creative Commons license: to empower people to get good quality files and put them to a wide range of non-commercial uses without the need for payment or permission (my usage guide explains how). It’s also why when I am doing a commercial photoshoot I think about what will be valuable and useful to the subjects and others, as well as the client paying me. When taking institutional headshots, for instance, I try to get a variety of shots in different postures and with different backgrounds, even if the client only needs a single consistent look. I then send the collections to the subjects for their own use. It takes more effort from me and probably leads to uncredited use, but it adds to the total amount of value arising from my photographic work. The same goes for sharing photos of events like conferences, rallies, and protests.

I’m somewhat skeptical about the idea of ownership generally, or at least I think people need to remain mindful about how artificial it is. Whether it’s physical or intellectual property, ownership isn’t a fundamental property of the universe, ethics, or human society (though that view is probably most justified with regard to your own physical body). Rather it’s a set of protections states choose to provide, either because it’s consistent with their governing philosophy, because that’s what citizens want or are used to, because they are pressured by other states, or because they think it’s economically efficient or growth-promoting. In my photography I think of myself as a lot like the New Horizons space probe during the one short high-speed flyby of Pluto which was the main justification for the mission. I’m at a particular place and time with instruments that can record what is happening around me. By putting in the effort to document those things effectively (and beautifully if possible) and sharing the data widely I have the potential to be considered a good observer who didn’t squander the opportunities afforded to them. That’s why I especially object when clients want complete control over the pictures I take for them when those pictures (a) don’t reveal anything that’s unproblematic to make public and (b) have some value for other people. Needlessly cutting down the scope of who gets access destroys much of the value that could arise from the photography, and thus much of my motivation and feeling of accomplishment for undertaking it.

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

The popular aphorism ‘charity begins at home’ brings both sets of beliefs to the fore in a lucid way. Taken together, these beliefs work to diminish empathy on the part of the population by stressing the existence of deep and non-contingent differences between wealthy citizens and those living in other parts of the world. They also provide support for the ‘just world assumption’ in international life. According to research from experimental psychology, people have a natural propensity to believe that the world is a just place: one in which virtue is rewarded and in which innocent people do not suffer. When events in the world confound this expectation, and action cannot be taken to address this state of affairs, a common response is to blame the victim for his or her misfortune. In the case of extreme poverty, this propensity sometimes leads people to assert that those living in this condition are lazy, immoral or corrupt. Both moral nationalism and the idea of charity reinforce this impression by giving support to the notion that the material order corresponds to a wider moral hierarchy – one in which those who are worthy succeed, and in which those who are not depend upon the charity or goodwill of others.

Gabriel, Iason. On Affluence and Poverty: Morality, Motivation and Practice in a Global Age. (DPhil thesis) 2013 p. 162

Related:

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }