Aleksandr Segal

It is said that for anything to be gained, something of equal value must be lost in exchange. Whether you believe this to be absolutely true in all scenarios does not necessarily mean that you do not use this philosophy in everyday life. People, in general, believe that effort spent will, in time, allow them to reap the rewards. People commit many acts based on similar idealist notions and often base some of their biggest decisions on the quixotic teachings of a religious or spiritual guidance or according to some philosophical canon. Ethics can be considered an exploration of this side of human activity to the fullest degree. If there is indeed a higher good; how one can come to better know the good; and how the good can help resolve the many issues s/he may face throughout his/her life, all of these issues are part of the journey of meditation in ethics. However, are these idealist notions of  a higher good something that should be a decisive agent in our lives?

When someone decided to cheat or lie, are they conscious of the deceitful nature of their actions? Are they ignoring a desire that lives within them, that yearns to be truthful, despite the gut feeling that it may be the “right thing to do”? Are they paying no attention to this hypothetical gesture of hesitation towards the socially vilified act of lying? If it is the former, they believe what they are doing is bad, but choose to commit the act regardless. (This may be due to the possibility of this heinous act resulting in a more genuine and altruistic effect.) If it is the latter, they refuse to believe in the idea that good and bad can be conjoined with a behavior.

Consider the possibility of someone being involved in a dilemma in which they truly want to help someone by being honest but may, in turn, cause physical or emotional pain to that very person. In other words, do I follow my belief that I should be honest with my friends despite the almost assured chance of making them unhappy or do I allow them to continue living without knowing the truth that is absolutely relevant to their interests? Does my idealistic subscription to a belief that values genuineness grant me the right to cause someone pain and suffering?

To return to a previous point, even this example can be argued to nullity. To recap: I may follow my belief that honesty is best or I may allow my friend to continue being happily ignorant; and the question I raised is whether I can use the real emotional states of a person as a means to fulfill the demands of my beliefs. However, is the dilemma here actually that I find that both causing harm to someone and lying to someone are both void of moral worth. Can all of our real-life decisions be based only on ethical arguments? If so, how can we act in any way without rejecting some form of a higher good? Is this not the dilemma that is at the root of ethical debate?

I have recently become a member of an online community of aficionados of  headphones and other sound oriented electronics. This, unsurprisingly, has led me to make several purchases that I would not have made without such inspiration. First, and foremost, are my Sony MDR-v6 headphones that are now in the process of being taken from me by ALliE. So impressed, I immediately bought another pair of headphones and a portable headphone amp – the Audio-Technica AD700 and the small Chinese made M5 amp. The last and most expensive dip into my wallet was the EMU 0404 external sound card for home use.

Why is this relavent? It isn’t. I just thought it was fascinating how one new pair of headphones could make me fall in love with music all over again. Once I had my hands on the Sony’s, I diligently began downloading music in FLAC format rather than in MP3; something that would supposedly heighten the audio quality and eventual listening pleasure. How different is any of this from just listening to simple mp3′s over cheap in-ear buds? To me, the difference is so bold in several different ways that I can’t even imagine going back to what I had previously enjoyed. “Enjoyed” is not even a word I think of when I consider the overall comfort and joy I receive from listening to Pendulum or Radiohead through my new gear.

Over the last few weeks (or maybe months?) I’ve lost all interest in the community that, at some point in the past, led me to where I am now. In fact, I’ve not only lost interest, I have also lost trust in the authenticity of the individuals who visit said community. In fact, I find no distinct difference from this board to a TV or internet commercial that, with enough investment, will eventually grapple more consumers and send them on their way to the nearest headphone supplier. Do I regret my purchases? No in the least but I still feel like some people could be taken advantage of as they know very little about this particular field of products and are willing to take advice from any self-declared expert.

However, this online community, if it is in fact just one big commercial for headphones and sound cards, is freaking genius. What better way to disguise a commercialist approach in the era of Facebook and Myspace and whatever other ridiculous nonsense is out there? One does not even need to own the site itself but merely needs an agent to act as an respectable member and spew relentless praises for a particular brand.

Either way, I’d like to acknowledge the wonder of paying attention to the music one listens to rather than just mindlessly hearing it. Something spectacular comes about when you can take a deeper look into the song not as just a hit of the week but as a piece of art with many complex and beautiful components that take time and effort to uncover.

The New York City Council has voted to amend the city’s law on term limits, allowing representatives to hold their position for a maximum of 12 years as opposed to the previous limit of 8 years. This was the translucent work of New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg who is planning to run for his third term in 2010. I may be one of the few people who actually watched the debates that took place for a few days prior to the vote thanks to the live coverage by NY1. The arguments presented (mostly related to that of the nature of justice and the responsibility of the governing to the governed) were interesting and, I think, deserve to be points of focus.

Some points of evidence presented by “witnesses” (many of whom are very well known in the sector of politics) argued that it would be wrong for the council members to vote for the amendment simply because it would be a detriment to the reputation of both the council as well as to the individual council members. As with the majority of the points given from either side, this was an attempt to imply that democratic principles were aligned with a particular opinion on the matter. This was a reoccurring theme; it was the democratic duty of the council members to allow the people of New York to vote, or it would be entirely dishonest of the council members to vote on a law that directly enforces their own jobs, or it is simply the role of the council to vote on matters such as this one. Almost every point dealt with the integrity of the council as it was and as it will become.

Some witnesses made a predication that could not be avoided and is something that was definitely on the mind of the council members who remained undecided up to that point – the threat of the public. This prediction was that the support for the amendment that would, in a sense, give representatives a chance to be in office for a longer period of time would, ultimately, be a detriment to his/her political career. This is, of course, because the voters will inevitably retaliate if the amendment is passed and this can come from two different ends: first, and foremost, from the New Yorkers who simply are against the amendment and, second, from New Yorkers who are dissatisfied with this issue being handled in the government offices rather than in the form of a referendum. Therefore, if a particular council member did vote for the amendment, it might be the very reason he/she will not have the opportunity to hold office in the future. And, according to some polls here and here, I feel that this may actually be something to be weary of. In some cases, people were in favor of extending the term limits but only if they were the ones to make the decision through a referendum and a slight majority of people were, in fact, opposed to the extension of term limits altogether. Thus, those council members who did vote for the amendment did so knowing that his/her decision on this matter might decide the chances for the next election.

One question proposed during the debates is whether or not it is ethically proper for the council to be the ones to make the final decision. Those were opposed to the amendment declared a conflict of interest to be a major issue since this amendment would directly affect the very people casting the vote. The council members are, in a sense, voting to keep their own jobs. This may be interpreted as a possible ground for asserting that a conflict of interest exists but I would disagree. It is not the case that all representatives (such as the mayor) will necessarily be in office longer due to this vote – the vote merely expands the possibility for someone like the mayor to stay in office by giving him/her the choice to run for a third term. This brings the debate to a main point given by witnesses who are for the amendment: that an increase in the possible term limits expands the freedom of the public. It serves us better to have the option of electing a candidate we feel is most qualified for the job three times in a row rather than to limit the representative to an arbitrary number of years in office that we might fee is too short. And as I have mentioned previously, there is also a danger in voting to extend term limits due to public opinion on the matter. For these reasons, the argument for a referendum due to the conflict of interest of the council members has little motivation.

When Mayor Bloomberg initially called for this amendment, he defended his position and his tactics by pointing out today’s economic crisis. He claims this meltdown must be handled by those who are more experienced – It is the conditions of candidacy that are calling for council members with experience to remain in office to better serve the people. But, I have to ask, aren’t the people who are standing in line to lead this city good enough? How can we trust in the more experienced to endure through these times if we couldn’t trust them to keep us out of this position. New York, like the nation, has an increasing problem debt and house foreclosures are becoming more common in almost every borough, and, after seven years, the World Trade Center has yet to be rebuilt. New York may perhaps be in need of new and younger people to be making decisions. (After all, isn’t that the mindset for the current Democratic nominee for the presidential election?)