Comment by smokeyj
15 years ago
I feel 'naughtiness' represents disregard for the status quo, rather than a commitment to immorality. The obedient drone regards law-breaking as immoral, whereas the independent thinker would ask why the law exists.
15 years ago
I feel 'naughtiness' represents disregard for the status quo, rather than a commitment to immorality. The obedient drone regards law-breaking as immoral, whereas the independent thinker would ask why the law exists.
The thing is that both the status quo and immorality often come down to judgment calls.
Is it immoral to gather personal data and then share it on the internet? (Facebook personal profiles going public.)
Is it immoral to pay a PR firm to portray a competitor in a negative light if it means highlighting their questionable practices? (Facebook hiring a PR firm to highlight Google Social.)
Is it immoral to characterize a service you offer one way while leaving important details to fine print or convoluted text? (Zynga's lead gen offers, DropBox security.)
I tend to equate status quo as standing-practices that remain unchallenged. The ethics of defiance would be contingent upon which practices are being violated. Being 'naughty' is an amoral mental state of being, which has no ethical implications until acted upon. Gandhi defied status quo, as well as Hitler. Not much can be drawn from such naughtiness, except that Hitler and Gandhi are both non-conventional and extraordinary.