Philosophy 101 Unit 1

In honor that people will be going to the polls in close to 8 hours, I thought I would write a lovely little post that ties in voter fraud to our discussions on Tech.

According to Gehlen, he believes that technology is in and of itself neutral. I would normally disagree with that statement. Afterall, I always argue that yes, the gun may not kill people, but it makes killing people much easier, and hence can make murders out of those who wouldn’t normally be. However, on this occasion I shall take a different approach.

We are all firmilliar with voting machines, either from the media or by actually using one. When one stops to think about, such machines were really designed to simplify the voting process. The ballots would no longer need to be hand counted, delaying election results. All one would need to do is talley up the ballots from each canidate. I worked as a judge of election during the primaries in Chicago. Their were two types of ballots, the electronic machine which would print out a copy of the ballot for you to check to make sure everything was ok, and a paper ballot which you would connect a line with a special pen. While the electronic machines is obviously…electric, the paper ballot would be run through a machine, which kept tabs on the votes and the number of ballots. At the end all the scores would be tabulated. The point I am really getting at is, this process in theory, makes things extremely simple.

But of course, even if the technology is indead neutral, people seem to like to like to fuck the system. Companies it would seem, have a vested interest in who wins. So then, is the technology neutral? In this case, I would say probably so. People have been trying to steal elections for years. Hell I should know, I’m from Chicago, the city where the dead vote! Voter fraud has been going on for generations. It is all about paying the right people. It just happens to have gotten much easier. All one needs to do is make sure that there is no paper trail, and that the machines are programmed correctly so that say a canidate doesn’t start out with 0 votes, but negative votes. But I digress.

Essentially I can this being interpreted either way. Yes, electronic voting had obviously been designed to easy the stress that comes along with counting ballots. They were invented with the idea of simplifying peoples lives. Unfortunately, greedy and corrupt people seem to not think that was good enough. So is this technology neutral or not? Have elections been getting stolen for years and this is just the new generation of it, or has this made it so much easier that it cannot be thought up as neutral? As much as I hate ending posts with questions, I feel it will at least generate discussion.

So today in class, when Daniel asked us where we all stand on the views of Gehlen and Heidegger, no one really responded.  When the difference between their opinions was made more clear, more people answered, but obviously not with a lot of conviction.  I’m writing this blog to discuss about this issue on technology so as to maybe end up at some solid opinion by the end of it.  And if I’m really lucky, it’ll help you guys as well.  Then our debate will be just as violent as the previous ones.

So let’s talk about Heidegger first.  He says that technology changes perspective.  I can’t deny that.  If I never had a jacket before and I just happened to get one this year for my birthday, I would see the outside world in a new light.  I wouldn’t be as adverse to going out, because now I have something that keeps me warm.  So that’s true.  So now let’s say I get a gun.  I’ve never had one of those either (for real this time), so it’s a bit of a change for me to have something that has the capability to kill.  Still, I don’t think people are just going to start looking like targets to me.  I’m not going to go around shooting anything that dissatisfies me.  In fact, I won’t be shooting anything probably.  Having that gun might change my perspective, I might think to myself “I could kill someone right now if I wanted to.”  But as it is now, I’m not so into the idea, and no presence of a gun is going to change that.  When it comes down to it, technology might have some sway over my opinions, but it couldn’t change my values so easily, if at all.

But since it’s safe to say that technology does indeed effect perspective, even if it does not effect values quite the same way, can it be said that technology is entirely neutral?  Probably not.  The capabilities of a certain item are changing certain things about the way I think and see things.  If there is any change, it can’t be neutral, right?  I would say so.  I still don’t agree with the example of “having a hammer makes everyone looks like nails.” Technology can certainly change perspective, but not to such a great extent, not to the point where my very values are changing as quickly as it takes for me to pick up a gun.

Overall then, I guess I would fall on Heidegger’s side, though I wouldn’t want to assosciate myself entirely with it.  I’m not sure I agree with some of the other things he’s said, but in terms of technology’s “charge,” I don’t see how it could be entirely neutral.