Many people think that one of the best things about the internet is how it can bring together people with similar interests from all over the world - people who can relate to one another but who would never be able to interact in real life. At the same time, though, this allows people to avoid interacting with those who are different - and that can be dangerous in the long run.

In issue 23 of The Philosophers’ Magazine, Jeremy Stangroom writes about the controversy surrounding Nonuglies, a web community devoted to only the most beautiful people:

The members of the Nonuglies community have been criticised for their cruelty. It has been pointed out that many of the people who are judged to be ugly are very young, possibly vulnerable, and quite likely to be hurt by the criticism and abuse which comes their way. The response to this criticism tends to be that people know what the community is for before they post their pictures, so if they don’t want to have their looks criticised, they shouldn’t get involved.

However, the problem with this response is that it just isn’t clear that the fact that a person accepts the possibility that they might be hurt justifies the act of hurting them. For example, many people will consider a wager which involves a toss of a coin and a fifty-fifty chance that a person will either receive £1,000 or be electrocuted to be morally suspect, especially if the person taking on the wager has a strong need for the money.

It’s legitimate to criticize a person who is participating in something likely to get them hurt, but that doesn’t absolve everyone else involved. Just because a person voluntarily takes the risk of being hurt by you doesn’t mean that you therefore do nothing immoral if you do hurt them. Even if there was nothing else troublesome about the Nonuglies group, this would be sufficient say that they crossed a basic moral line.

Nonetheless, there is something much more important to be learned from this situation:

But what is significant about closed communities on the internet, such as Nonuglies, is that there is no real possibility that dissenting voices will be heard. Gordon Graham makes this point in his book, The Internet: a philosophical enquiry. He argues that the internet encourages the formation of pure confluences of interest. “Surfers have the opportunity to seek out kindred spirits and to pass over the sort of reforming and refining influences that operate in the normal processes of learning.”

There is something almost incestuous about what Graham describes here: when everyone is the same, it’s more difficult for people to learn and to grow. Intellectual, emotional, personal, and psychological development requires variation and diversity.

On the other hand, it’s possible that Graham is overstating his case a bit. What he says may be correct when it comes to people who join a single online community and only ever participate in that. If someone participates in several communities, though, doesn’t this at least minimize the problems which Graham describes? It may not be as good as a genuinely diverse community in the real world, but it surely has some advantages for itself.

 

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Critical Thinking