Any advertising campaign is social engineering. You want people to buy your stuff? You have to make a change in society, even if it is a small one.
It does help to educate people to recognize propaganda when they see it. Critical thinking is an important skill that seems in short supply.
I did not put "it's an unavoidable/necessary aspect of having a society at all" because that does not speak to evil. That is, while I agree with that part of the choice, that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes evil.
I put "it depends". It depends on three things:
1) What techniques are used. The ends can justify some means, I suppose, but only within appropriate limits. We have theories of techniques which make something evil even if there is a good intention, like torture. You draw your own lines here. Is "The Big Lie" automatically evil?
2) What the motives are. Theories of fault, legally, are at least partly based on intentions. If someone dies, it could be irrelevant, self-defense, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder. I'm sure there are more choices. Evil intentions suggest that consequent actions be considered evil no matter what the outcome.
3) The outcome. This was not one of the available choices, thus requiring this comment. There is nothing like hindsight to see effects which may not have been anticipated. It may not be even nearly 20/20, though.
People do very evil things sometimes from what they tell themselves are the best of motives. This must be applied carefully since the ideas of blame and evil are separate. You might decide someone is blameless but the result is nevertheless evil.
If evil consequences are in fact predicted, but the perpetrators refused to listen, this seems to me to increase the weight of a charge of evil. Who to blame? The people who didn't do a good enough job of forestalling the evil, or the ones who actually did the evil if they were deluded that they were doing good?
Also, you have to consider the alternatives. The least evil of several alternatives may not be properly considered evil at all, but a mitigation of evil, and therefore good. The word 'evil' is being used in several different ways here.
The recent tsunami was not evil, by my definition; it was an incredibly unfortunate natural disaster. Trying to prevent notification of the coming wave would have been evil; that would be an action by humans that would have been intended to make (and might well have made) the outcome even worse than otherwise.
I don't like the choices, it depends on who does it or whether I agree with them. As a society, we are supposed to have moved beyond this, having discredited Guilt by Association and requiring a jury of our peers to evaluate whether a wrong was committed.
Certain organizations are proscribed in some circles, like Hamas, but since some of the work they do is seen as good, this proscription doesn't help the credibility of the proscribers. Better to denounce specific doctrines and actions as evil. The devil is a construct, an abstraction, not someone you are likely to meet.
I have to disagree with you concept on Social Engineering.
First lets look at the defination of Social Engineering:
Main Entry: social engineering Function: noun : management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science - social engineer noun
Now there are ways that changes in society happen. One way is time and speech and people interact and talk the society changes.. this is a natural process that involves all people. Another means is for a select group to decided that everyone else should embrace a change. That is social domination by a minority. Press aids are only free speech. The government making rules that require teaching certain value judgements is domination by a minority unless the general population agrees in which case in is a oppression of a minority. In either case it is just wrong.
Well the definition I supplied to introduce this poll, "attempting to cause deliberate changes in society", fits the second of those: "applied social science". The first is a bit restrictive in this context.
You've described free speech and government mandated speech as examples of good and bad routes of social change. (BTW, are you including anti-drug PSAs on television and radio in "require teaching certain value judgements"? My guess is that you are, but I wouldn't mind a clarification in case you were narrowing the focus to schools.) What about (as twistedchick pointed out) taxes and subsidies? What about (as others have pointed out) housing and employment antidiscrimination laws (which do not regulate what you may think; only some of the actions you're allowed to take based on your thoughts)? What about NDSL? CAFE? None of those mandate speech.
What about non-governmental action? The promulgation of lawn-and-garden clubs in suburbia ? The TruthOut ad campaign -- it's free speech, but isn't it also social engineering? Earth Day? The entire hippie movement? Turning Christmas into a capitalist greedfest and encouraging people to go into debt? The civil rights movement when the government was still pretty much opposed to it? MADD? Mothers Day, Fathers Day, and Secretaries Day? Changing "used" to "pre-owned"? Any "visibility" campaign? "Take back the streets" nights? The marketing of Utilikilts and Amerikilts? Campaigns opposing cartoon violence? Are any of these good? Are any of these bad?
Society changes as people interact, this is natural. As you talk to another person with the hopes of altering their views you (by your defination) are doing social engineering. There is a very real differance between private groups argueing with each other with press and debate and the government telling you what you are or are not to think.
There are seperate issues that we are discussing here. One is providing for a open field in which all can prosper. The other is the making people like, accept, include, or voice their thoughts. Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read "you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work") are mostly of the open field arguement and partly of the preventing you the right to not associate. While bussing it create diversity is mostly about changeing peoples thoughts and very little about creating a open field.
I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens. For which we already have laws. Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about.
Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement.
"There is a very real differance between private groups argueing with each other with press and debate and the government telling you what you are or are not to think."
Does this mean you're changing your poll answer to "it depends who is doing it" and/or "it depends on what methods are used", Or have I misunderstood? So far what I get from your arguments is "the government instituting thought police is bad", which is not a very controversial statement, but also doesn't really say much about the larger question of social engineering.
It seems that you are opposed to other forms of social engineering as well, but so far your supporting arguments for that position seem to be just "government thought-police are bad" and a couple of bits that sound as though you're talking about mind-control. So I am confused.
"Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read 'you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work') [...]"
Since that aspect, whether well or poorly implemented, was a shift from previous cultural attitudes that failed to censure (note: "censure", not "censor") statements such as, "I'm not going to hire a Jew," even the way you think antidiscrimination laws should have been written constitute intentional change to society. So I remain puzzled by your inconsistency and am still hoping to have the pattern made clear to me.
"I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens."
Which wasn't what I asked. What I asked was "What about government-funded anti-drug public service announcements?"
And, taking a later snippet out-of-order:
"Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement."
This appears to both answer and not-answer what I'm asking, since you narrowed it to "the school system" at the end. Am I to construe this as meaning that any government-paid PSAs on television and radio are bad because they're government interference (even if they're encouraging, perhaps for funny reasons, compliance with the government's laws), or that they're okay as long as they're not for a captive audience such as students in school?
I suppose another way of getting at what I'm trying to understand would be: is it okay for the government to sponsor PSAs that discourage speeding and drunk driving, or must the government limit itself to passing and enforcing laws and not talking about them? And if the latter is okay, how can the existence of some types of laws (designed to discourage certain behaviours, be they safety matters or patterns of homebuying or attracting doctors to rural areas) not constitute social engineering itself?
"Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about."
*nod* The classic libertarian phrasing being, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". So far, antidiscrimination law and busing can be portrayed as "conflict of rights" issues, but unless we diverge into a tangent on taxes being slavery (I'd rather not right now), what about the NDSL program? Or market-altering subsidies in general? (I'm assuming you'll argue that CAFE is interference in free enterprise, which would be consistent with your reasoning regarding antidiscrimination laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
Is it safe for me to assume that all my third-paragraph examples (lawn-and-garden clubs, TruthOut, Earth Day, hippies, Christmas as a commercial event, the civil rights movement, MADD, Mothers Day, Fathers Day, Secretaries Day, "pre-owned", visibility campaigns, "take back the streets", creating an American kilt market, anti- cartoon-violence) are all acceptable forms of social engineering because they're not government-originated?
Can you at least see why I'm confused by what you've said so far?
"Any advertising campaign is social engineering. You want people to buy your stuff? You have to make a change in society, even if it is a small one."
I have a quibble with that. I would agree that most modern advertising involves some degree of social engineering, but it is not an absolutely required aspect of advertising.
Simply advertising, "I have this for sale," is not social engineering; nor, I think, is, "I have this more cheaply than so-and-so," and maybe not even, "Mine's better made."
OTOH, any advertising that attempts to create a market where there wasn't one, or expand demand for something (such as television commercials designed to make people way more self-conscious about body odor in order to sell more deodorant) is clearly social engineering. Likewise attempts to attach "coolness" to a product or brand. And I'll give you "most" on those grounds.
"I did not put 'it's an unavoidable/necessary aspect of having a society at all' because that does not speak to evil. That is, while I agree with that part of the choice, that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes evil."
Perhaps I should have either added another answer or found a better way to phrase that one. "Necessary" implies -- or at least suggests -- that the tool is not inherently evil, though yes, it leaves open the possibility that it can be misused, as most tools can. I myself personally feel that it is inevitable, necessary, and is sometimes used for evil as well as for good. A couple of days after posting the poll, I'm wishing I'd written it slightly differently to make that a clearer option.
" It depends on three [...] The outcome. This was not one of the available choices, thus requiring this comment."
Okay, that one I probably would not have come up with to add on my own, and thank you for pointing it out. (In the unlikely event that I ever try a poll like this again for a different audience, I'll add that option.)
"The word 'evil' is being used in several different ways here."
A valid complaint of ambiguity on my part. (In my defense, I wanted gut reactions more than a quiz at the end of a long essay... But yeah, "evil" is ambiguous.)
"I don't like the choices, it depends on who does it or whether I agree with them."
I didn't expect anyone who didn't pick those to like them. ;-) Actually, the reason for the "depends on who does it" option was to see whether anyone would list "the government" as either an acceptable or unacceptable group.
(no subject)
It does help to educate people to recognize propaganda when they see it. Critical thinking is an important skill that seems in short supply.
I did not put "it's an unavoidable/necessary aspect of having a society at all" because that does not speak to evil. That is, while I agree with that part of the choice, that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes evil.
I put "it depends". It depends on three things:
1) What techniques are used. The ends can justify some means, I suppose, but only within appropriate limits. We have theories of techniques which make something evil even if there is a good intention, like torture. You draw your own lines here. Is "The Big Lie" automatically evil?
2) What the motives are. Theories of fault, legally, are at least partly based on intentions. If someone dies, it could be irrelevant, self-defense, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder. I'm sure there are more choices. Evil intentions suggest that consequent actions be considered evil no matter what the outcome.
3) The outcome. This was not one of the available choices, thus requiring this comment. There is nothing like hindsight to see effects which may not have been anticipated. It may not be even nearly 20/20, though.
People do very evil things sometimes from what they tell themselves are the best of motives. This must be applied carefully since the ideas of blame and evil are separate. You might decide someone is blameless but the result is nevertheless evil.
If evil consequences are in fact predicted, but the perpetrators refused to listen, this seems to me to increase the weight of a charge of evil. Who to blame? The people who didn't do a good enough job of forestalling the evil, or the ones who actually did the evil if they were deluded that they were doing good?
Also, you have to consider the alternatives. The least evil of several alternatives may not be properly considered evil at all, but a mitigation of evil, and therefore good. The word 'evil' is being used in several different ways here.
The recent tsunami was not evil, by my definition; it was an incredibly unfortunate natural disaster. Trying to prevent notification of the coming wave would have been evil; that would be an action by humans that would have been intended to make (and might well have made) the outcome even worse than otherwise.
I don't like the choices, it depends on who does it or whether I agree with them. As a society, we are supposed to have moved beyond this, having discredited Guilt by Association and requiring a jury of our peers to evaluate whether a wrong was committed.
Certain organizations are proscribed in some circles, like Hamas, but since some of the work they do is seen as good, this proscription doesn't help the credibility of the proscribers. Better to denounce specific doctrines and actions as evil. The devil is a construct, an abstraction, not someone you are likely to meet.
(no subject)
First lets look at the defination of Social Engineering:
Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science - social engineer noun
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=social+engineering&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT
Now there are ways that changes in society happen. One way is time and speech and people interact and talk the society changes.. this is a natural process that involves all people. Another means is for a select group to decided that everyone else should embrace a change. That is social domination by a minority. Press aids are only free speech. The government making rules that require teaching certain value judgements is domination by a minority unless the general population agrees in which case in is a oppression of a minority. In either case it is just wrong.
(no subject)
You've described free speech and government mandated speech as examples of good and bad routes of social change. (BTW, are you including anti-drug PSAs on television and radio in "require teaching certain value judgements"? My guess is that you are, but I wouldn't mind a clarification in case you were narrowing the focus to schools.) What about (as
What about non-governmental action? The promulgation of lawn-and-garden clubs in suburbia ? The TruthOut ad campaign -- it's free speech, but isn't it also social engineering? Earth Day? The entire hippie movement? Turning Christmas into a capitalist greedfest and encouraging people to go into debt? The civil rights movement when the government was still pretty much opposed to it? MADD? Mothers Day, Fathers Day, and Secretaries Day? Changing "used" to "pre-owned"? Any "visibility" campaign? "Take back the streets" nights? The marketing of Utilikilts and Amerikilts? Campaigns opposing cartoon violence? Are any of these good? Are any of these bad?
(no subject)
There are seperate issues that we are discussing here. One is providing for a open field in which all can prosper. The other is the making people like, accept, include, or voice their thoughts. Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read "you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work") are mostly of the open field arguement and partly of the preventing you the right to not associate. While bussing it create diversity is mostly about changeing peoples thoughts and very little about creating a open field.
I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens. For which we already have laws. Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about.
Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement.
and so on.
(no subject)
"There is a very real differance between
private groups argueing with each other with press
and debate and the government telling you what you
are or are not to think."
Does this mean you're changing your poll answer
to "it depends who is doing it" and/or "it depends
on what methods are used", Or have I
misunderstood? So far what I get from your
arguments is "the government instituting thought
police is bad", which is not a very controversial
statement, but also doesn't really say much about
the larger question of social engineering.
It seems that you are opposed to other forms of
social engineering as well, but so far your
supporting arguments for that position seem to be
just "government thought-police are bad" and a
couple of bits that sound as though you're talking
about mind-control. So I am confused.
"Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I
think are poorly written and should read 'you can
not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated
to the work') [...]"
Since that aspect, whether well or poorly
implemented, was a shift from previous
cultural attitudes that failed to censure (note:
"censure", not "censor") statements such as, "I'm
not going to hire a Jew," even the way you think
antidiscrimination laws should have been
written constitute intentional change to society.
So I remain puzzled by your inconsistency and am
still hoping to have the pattern made clear to
me.
"I think drugs are fine as long as you don't
drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting
the lives of others happens."
Which wasn't what I asked. What I asked was
"What about government-funded anti-drug public
service announcements?"
And, taking a later snippet
out-of-order:
"Private campiagns are fine. Government
campaigns are not. I have no problem with the
government saying no drugs allowed in school since
it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the
school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement."
This appears to both answer and not-answer what
I'm asking, since you narrowed it to "the school
system" at the end. Am I to construe this as
meaning that any government-paid PSAs on
television and radio are bad because they're
government interference (even if they're
encouraging, perhaps for funny reasons, compliance
with the government's laws), or that they're okay
as long as they're not for a captive audience such
as students in school?
I suppose another way of getting at what I'm
trying to understand would be: is it okay for the
government to sponsor PSAs that discourage
speeding and drunk driving, or must the government
limit itself to passing and enforcing laws and not
talking about them? And if the latter is okay,
how can the existence of some types of laws
(designed to discourage certain behaviours, be
they safety matters or patterns of homebuying or
attracting doctors to rural areas) not constitute
social engineering itself?
"Remember the old saying that your rights
end at my rights? That is what I am talking
about."
*nod* The classic libertarian phrasing being,
"your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
So far, antidiscrimination law and busing can be
portrayed as "conflict of rights" issues, but
unless we diverge into a tangent on taxes being
slavery (I'd rather not right now), what about the NDSL
program? Or market-altering subsidies in general?
(I'm assuming you'll argue that CAFE is
interference in free enterprise, which would be
consistent with your reasoning regarding
antidiscrimination laws. Feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong about that.)
Is it safe for me to assume that all my
third-paragraph examples (lawn-and-garden
clubs, TruthOut, Earth Day, hippies, Christmas as
a commercial event, the civil rights movement,
MADD, Mothers Day, Fathers Day, Secretaries Day,
"pre-owned", visibility campaigns, "take back the
streets", creating an American kilt market, anti-
cartoon-violence) are all acceptable forms
of social engineering because they're not
government-originated?
Can you at least see why I'm confused by what
you've said so far?
(no subject)
I have a quibble with that. I would agree that most modern advertising involves some degree of social engineering, but it is not an absolutely required aspect of advertising.
Simply advertising, "I have this for sale," is not social engineering; nor, I think, is, "I have this more cheaply than so-and-so," and maybe not even, "Mine's better made."
OTOH, any advertising that attempts to create a market where there wasn't one, or expand demand for something (such as television commercials designed to make people way more self-conscious about body odor in order to sell more deodorant) is clearly social engineering. Likewise attempts to attach "coolness" to a product or brand. And I'll give you "most" on those grounds.
"I did not put 'it's an unavoidable/necessary aspect of having a society at all' because that does not speak to evil. That is, while I agree with that part of the choice, that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes evil."
Perhaps I should have either added another answer or found a better way to phrase that one. "Necessary" implies -- or at least suggests -- that the tool is not inherently evil, though yes, it leaves open the possibility that it can be misused, as most tools can. I myself personally feel that it is inevitable, necessary, and is sometimes used for evil as well as for good. A couple of days after posting the poll, I'm wishing I'd written it slightly differently to make that a clearer option.
" It depends on three [...] The outcome. This was not one of the available choices, thus requiring this comment."
Okay, that one I probably would not have come up with to add on my own, and thank you for pointing it out. (In the unlikely event that I ever try a poll like this again for a different audience, I'll add that option.)
"The word 'evil' is being used in several different ways here."
A valid complaint of ambiguity on my part. (In my defense, I wanted gut reactions more than a quiz at the end of a long essay... But yeah, "evil" is ambiguous.)
"I don't like the choices, it depends on who does it or whether I agree with them."
I didn't expect anyone who didn't pick those to like them. ;-) Actually, the reason for the "depends on who does it" option was to see whether anyone would list "the government" as either an acceptable or unacceptable group.