I have never burglarized or whatever, but I feel pressured to have one of the Ring surveillance systems for my front porch — 24/7 video recording systems. Looks smart, but friends tell me it’s a bad look. Will it not suit me? Am I just an unreliable, unreliable woman?
-Citizens concerned
Dear Interested,
I’m trying to figure out why, exactly, you believe a Ring will look bad — not because I doubt it, but because there are so many possible reasons to choose from. It is a fact that the systems, whose distinctive blue halo flickers across the residential areas of the United States like Argus’s all-seeing eyes, constitute what is essentially a for-profit business. huge profits. surveillance network, something that law enforcement agencies can access without a warrant or probable cause. It is a fact that technology contributes to the arrest of petty criminals in an age where we are well aware that encounters with the police can be fatal. Has a very realistic, patented ability Amazon registered, that the cameras will soon use biometric sensors to identify people by their skin texture, gait, and smell (this is from a company with facial recognition software notorious for misrepresenting non-white faces). Then there’s the adjacent social app Ring for reporting “suspicious” people, which Amazon has chosen to christen, in a spirit of either Orwellian, “Neighbors.”
But it seems to me that your question falls into a more fundamental dilemma, that you’re not just asking if you should buy one of these systems, but more broadly, become a person. What it means to be a good neighbor in an age of mass surveillance, stigma and police violence. Consider the prevalence of community Facebook pages and social platforms like Nextdoor, which artificially connect people to their communities but often serve as reporting tools and forums criminals give all kinds of conjecture about “suspicious people,” one might argue that a good neighbor is a kind of detective, a citizen willing to track down intruders, gather evidence, and coordinate Work with law enforcement to keep the neighborhood safe.
Many faith traditions teach that we should love our neighbors — that we should love them as we love ourselves. In America, this principle has long lived in tension with the virtues of individualism and the sanctity of private property, and often refers to the “good hedge” wisdom for which Benjamin Franklin is famous. prescribed (“Love your neighbor, but do not pull down your fence”). It seems that loving your neighbor is an act best done within the bounds of a law, which outlines the perimeters, enforces boundaries, and makes clear distinctions between what is yours. and what belongs to others. If you think this logic makes sense, you’re in good company. It has become undisputed in popular culture that self-preservation is the foundation of any possible altruism; You cannot properly care for others until your own needs are met. Some might even argue that religious sanctions endorse one’s attempt to strengthen one’s home. After all, loving your neighbor “as yourself” implies that self-love is also virtuous, so you can consider the protection of your property and your safety under the protection of your own. of that command.
However, I will point out that this is not the only way to interpret spiritual maxims. For a completely different perspective, you can watch “Works of love,” One of the most uncompromising meditations on the command to love one’s neighbor. The existentialist philosopher argues that the commandment offers a much more radical proposition, one that asks us to give up our commitment to justice, equity, and private property. Just as major crises—revolutions, wars, earthquakes—blur the lines between “yours” and “mines,” forcing people to give up their material things and take care of themselves. Given the more immediate needs of their community, true love for neighbor is essentially a practice break for eliminating petty questions of ownership. Kierkegaard points out that thieves also disregard the distinction between me and theirs, and that love is the paradox of theft, willingly surrendering what belongs to you for the sake of your brother. This advice may seem lofty, or even absurd, although as far as I can tell, Kierkegaard meant that it had to be taken literally, just as he did by radical Christian affirmation. If someone steals your coat, you should give it to them. same thing—or, to update the analogy: If a pirate swaggers your Amazon package, throw in your FedEx package to kick it off.
To truly love in this way, Kierkegaard argues, it is necessary to relinquish the role of a crime detective who is “the servant of justice in the pursuit of guilt and crime”. This is the urge inherent in each of us, to want to investigate the behavior of others, unearth their sins, find clues to potential wrongdoing. Instead, those who truly love their neighbor must think for the best. Investigative thinking can even become a good motivator if it is taken in a more positive direction, towards finding charitable explanations for other people’s behavior and interpreting it in the best way. maybe. Perhaps the stranger roaming the hallways of your building is babysitting one of your neighbours. Perhaps a stranger who approaches your porch is simply returning a piece of mail that was sent wrongly. If there is no explanation, Kierkegaard advises, we must simply forgive the person. Finally, he offers a firm warning to citizens caught up in the fascinating drama of the neighborhood digital clock: It is the duty of public officials to track down criminals and misconduct. “The rest of us are not called to be judges or judicial officers, but on the contrary, we are called… to love, therefore with the aid of extenuating explanation, to cover up our innocence. number of sins.”
Perhaps this is obvious, but Kierkegaard is not going to adopt the contemporary self-care motto that health, like the oxygen mask on an airplane, is a measure of protection that you must ensure for yourself. body before coming into contact with others. In fact, he argues, the imperative to love one’s neighbor “as thyself” does not require moral symmetry but is based on “growing inequality,” since it requires us to be patient. roses for others. It may be a good thing to respond generously to the limitations of others, but we shouldn’t apply this same optimistic view of ourselves. We should not assume that we are our best selves, that our motives are completely pure. Instead, one should practice vigilance and “treat oneself as a suspicious character,” as he puts it. In other words, with one’s own conscience, a criminal detective’s procedure becomes virtuous.
With that in mind, I encourage you to look inward, exercising your ability to morally monitor not the strange actions of those around you but the dark corners of your heart. Does your anxiety about intrusion make you suspect that you yourself are an intruder in this community? Does your fear of being seen as an enemy reveal that you treated your neighbors that way? The fact that you worry that you are “an unreliable, untrustworthy woman” shows that you have understood the recursive logic that underlies many religious virtues: that we do exactly the wrong things. what we fear most in others. Untrustworthy people tend to be unreliable; Those who are afraid must be properly feared. Ethics is not a digital loophole that allows you to peer into others while yourself remaining protected and undetected. The ripples created by our actions flow in both directions.
To be honest,
Cloud
If you buy something using the links in our stories, we may earn a commission. This helps support our journalism. looking for more information.
This article appeared in the March 2022 issue. Follow now.
Let us know what you think about this article. Send a letter to the editor at [email protected].
Stories with WIRED are more amazing
