Beyond one-word metaphors, the middle-ground position, saying it depends

Part IV of Living Responsibly and Gracefully with our Technologies

Now that we have shown the inadequacy of one-word metaphors, the middle-ground position, and faith assumptions regarding incompleteness (that people are incomplete and that either a turn to technology or a return to nature will complete us) to provide us counsel for how to live with technology, I want to quickly demonstrate why the advice “it depends” is nonsensical from the perspective of adiaphora. The phrase “it depends” is nonsensical simply because the question it answers, “is technology good or bad?” is nonsensical from the perspective of adiaphora. This is because technology is not good or bad, but an indifferent, an adiaphora. Only things in our own control, such as our attitudes and actions are good or bad. So the correct question would be, “are our activities and attitudes surrounding technologies good or bad, responsible or irresponsible?”

One might be tempted to say in response, then, well whether we are responsible or not with our technologies ‘depends.’ But the whole point of the Stoic ethical system is that the things in our control do not depend. That which is in our control such as our attitudes and actions are the only things in the world that do not depend on outside circumstances (no amount of misfortune can rob us of our attitudes and actions), and thus these are the only things that give us our independence. It is the things outside of our control that depends. It is our reputations and wealth, our health and fortunes that depend on external circumstances and factors (what the greeks call ‘tyche’). Thus, “it depends” would not be a suitable answer for the Stoics precisely because their whole philosophical system is to differentiate that which depends from that which does not depend.

This position is different from Socrates who did give similar counsel to ‘it depends’ with regards to things like money. For Socrates viewed money as sometimes good and sometimes bad depending on its use. But for the Stoics, mere use of a thing is not enough to change the moral valence of the thing. The thing remains ethically indifferent (but, of course, not neutral) to our uses, while it is our uses that are charged with moral valence. If one wanted to they could state, our uses of technology are good or bad “depending” on our value system, but this would be more of a redundancy than helpful advice. To give an example of this redundancy: “am I using technology responsibly?” one might ask, “it depends on whether you are using it responsibly or not” might come an unhelpful answer, or "it depends on your value system" comes another unhelpful idea.

What would make for preferable advice would be a presentation of cases where technology was used responsibly and irresponsibly, gracefully and gracelessly. One only has to look as far as the nearest traffic jam, or printer malfunction, or computer error in order to find examples of people recieving technology without grace or responsibility. People's attitudes and actions can be heard in the noises their car horns make when they are sitting perfectly still, or in the damage done to computer screens and keyboards at work sites, or in the curses given over to copier machines. Or we can look to the overconfidence exhibited by those who believe their technological appartuses will make them more financially successful, more intellectually stimulated, and more digital savvy than the next guy over. The advice that points to not blaming and yelling at technology for every set back, and likewise not taking credit for all of technology's successes does not come in the form of a one-word metaphor, from taking a middle position somewhere between road rage and overconfidence, nor from saying 'it depends' but comes from a more sophisticated place that I hope to explore in part V.