The Ethics of Cities
Perhaps at some point in human history, all of the human race lived together in a relatively small area. At this time, perhaps there was no such thing as "culture," as there really only was one culture. Then, we started to fan out across the planet. Before there was mass globalization and McDonalds, groups of people lived in separate areas, developing their own unique ways of life. Languages started to separate. Perhaps this is why today we have several different languages around the globe. Sometimes we can even see the similarities in languages which can be deduced from land proximity. For example, there is the Dutch language of the Netherlands and parts of Belgium which sounds like a combination of French and German. Also, there are the several varieties of Spanish which seem to sound more like French when you get to Eastern Spain, and more like Portuguese when you get to the West. Finally of course, there is the English language which has its own quarks. One can notice the differences between English spoken in the UK and English in the U.S.A. In fact, you can even notice accent and vocabulary differences between the Irish, English, and Scottish, even between parts of the USA.
Besides language differences though, there are cultural differences. One aspect of the cultural differences are the value systems associated with various parts of the world. After visiting Europe, one can begin to see how the different laws evolved perhaps in the same ways that the languages did. For example, in Barcelona, I saw two topless women on the beach. What I found to be more shocking than this itself was the fact that nearby, there was a group of about five Spanish teenagers just sitting idly by, paying no mind to the spectacle. If it were five American boys, I am quite certain there would have been much staring and talking about it. In fact, there were two American males in their 20s enthralled and talking about it (my friend and I). The only other person with any sort of reaction about the issue seemed to be an older lady. I could assume she wasn't from around there. It seems that at least in this part of the world, nudity isn't really associated with sex as much. It is as if it is no big deal at all-free breasts of a female are like free breasts of a male.
In London, nudity is also less proscribed than it is in the USA. Occasionally on television there is a topless woman, for whatever reason. One of the first things I noticed when I came to London was how liberal it was compared to the United States in the domain of sex. For the first time ever I saw nude pictures advertising phone sex in almost every phone booth. At night, I could watch soft pornography on network television. You could get condoms in most pub lavatories. The general opinion about sex was that it wasn't a big deal-or at least not as big a deal as in the USA. There, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was the main headline. It was much talked about in London also, but the focus was more on the U.S. reaction to the scandal, rather than the scandal itself. It was almost as if Britons were saying, "What's the big deal? So they fooled around a little..." It all made me think that the U.S.A. was a little too conservative when it came to sex.
I believe that this European attitude towards sex and nudity is different from the USA's simply because of a matter of social evolution. We were separated long enough to develop different attitudes towards the subject. Perhaps our attitudes developed from the early Puritanism days, but why Puritanism started, I could only guess at, as I am not an historian. At any rate, I personally like the European attitudes better, but I suppose that is a matter of personal taste. I believe that there is no harm in nudity and sex; in fact, openly displaying it and discussing it is far more productive than repressing it. I once read that the worst crime in Barcelona is pick-pocketing. Based on the nudity and the American philosophy, one might think that it is rape. I would not be surprised to find that the USA has a higher percentage of rapes than any European country. However, also I suppose that this may be due to the definition of rape being different, but this is yet another can of worms.
In London, nudity is also less proscribed than it is in the USA. Occasionally on television there is a topless woman, for whatever reason. One of the first things I noticed when I came to London was how liberal it was compared to the United States in the domain of sex. For the first time ever I saw nude pictures advertising phone sex in almost every phone booth. At night, I could watch soft pornography on network television. You could get condoms in most pub lavatories. The general opinion about sex was that it wasn't a big deal-or at least not as big a deal as in the USA. There, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was the main headline. It was much talked about in London also, but the focus was more on the U.S. reaction to the scandal, rather than the scandal itself. It was almost as if Britons were saying, "What's the big deal? So they fooled around a little..." It all made me think that the U.S.A. was a little too conservative when it came to sex.
I believe that this European attitude towards sex and nudity is different from the USA's simply because of a matter of social evolution. We were separated long enough to develop different attitudes towards the subject. Perhaps our attitudes developed from the early Puritanism days, but why Puritanism started, I could only guess at, as I am not an historian. At any rate, I personally like the European attitudes better, but I suppose that is a matter of personal taste. I believe that there is no harm in nudity and sex; in fact, openly displaying it and discussing it is far more productive than repressing it. I once read that the worst crime in Barcelona is pick-pocketing. Based on the nudity and the American philosophy, one might think that it is rape. I would not be surprised to find that the USA has a higher percentage of rapes than any European country. However, also I suppose that this may be due to the definition of rape being different, but this is yet another can of worms.
My favourite museum that I've been to in Europe (and I've been to the Louvre), has to be the Sex Museum of Amsterdam. In the USA, sex is something you do in the privacy of your own home and something that isn't really openly discussed. Often, porn shops are frowned upon and nudey bars are protested. Men who go to these places are either sick or dirty old men. In Amsterdam, sex is art. The sex museum portrays sex in a way that is much more artistic than in nudey magazines. There are statues and paintings that show sex as sensual, erotic pleasure. There are also many pictures that show the humorous side of sex. There is a birdfeeder whose rim is made up of several penises. There are several comical paintings exaggerating sexual organs or portraying them as objects in everyday life. I find this approach to sex to be far more enlightening and entertaining than the simple repression of it all, like in the United States. In Amsterdam, sex can be discussed and explored openly, without any social stigma.
I feel that in London, sex falls somewhere in between the two extremes of the spectrum. There is still the generally accepted risqué parts of Soho where strip clubs are legal and hookers (though not legal) can probably be found (and are probably more tolerated than they are in most of the USA). Also, as I mentioned earlier, soft pornography can be found on network television, showing sex and women's breasts (and occasional buttocks). At home, you need to get pay per view to see the same level of porn. However, even in London, there is still a hint of apprehension, as the law dictates. It is certainly not as liberal as it is in Amsterdam.
I feel that in London, sex falls somewhere in between the two extremes of the spectrum. There is still the generally accepted risqué parts of Soho where strip clubs are legal and hookers (though not legal) can probably be found (and are probably more tolerated than they are in most of the USA). Also, as I mentioned earlier, soft pornography can be found on network television, showing sex and women's breasts (and occasional buttocks). At home, you need to get pay per view to see the same level of porn. However, even in London, there is still a hint of apprehension, as the law dictates. It is certainly not as liberal as it is in Amsterdam.
Television in Amsterdam is another means of exploring the depths of possibilities and thought. Besides being overtly sexual (one car commercial showed a man getting sexual pleasure by getting in his car and having the lady in the passenger seat buckle his seatbelt), Amsterdam television deals with many other social issues. There was a man who had to pull the plug on his own daughter after a convenience store robber shot her. The man wanted revenge (which I felt he deserved), so he went after the robber. The problem was that the robber was being protected by the F.B.I. because he was a witness who could put an even "bigger" criminal (a drug lord...this story took place in the USA) behind bars, so he couldn't even be prosecuted. It was quite an ethical dilemma...which is what most of the contrast between the different Western countries comes down to-ethics.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle puts forth a theory that draws a line between pleasures that make one happy in the short term (apparent goods) verses pleasures that make one happy in the long term (real goods). What we are searching for, of course, is long term happiness. For example, if we drink a large amount of alcohol, we may feel immediate pleasure (apparent good), but over time, excess drinking causes problems. The key to being happy in the long term is often moderation. The question then becomes, "What is moderation?" In London, moderation in terms of drinking alcohol borders on what Americans might deem excessive. Pubs are like a national pastime here.
I once received one of those mail surveys that asks you 500 questions in order to figure out what types of products to sell you, and one of the questions was about hobbies. I've seen this type of survey in the U.S. before, but here, a hobby listed was "going to pubs." In the U.S., we call someone whose main hobby is going to bars an alcoholic. Drinking here is looked at quite differently. Although it is not quite like Munich, where I saw several people drinking pints of beer with breakfast, alcoholic beverages are still a part of a normal person's diet. The general acceptance can be seen in the off-licenses, where almost anyone can get alcohol.
However, it still comes down to a matter of moderation. With this freedom comes the responsibility to decide what moderation is for yourself. It seems to me that culture dictates where this line is more than one might think. When the laws and everyone around you tell you that something is wrong, it is hard to think otherwise. In the eyes of an American, the Spaniards might be considered a bunch of hedonists. Smoking is much more generally accepted in Spain, and people do it everywhere (including coach rides across the country...imagine getting stuck in one of those buses). While England puts the line of moderation in alcohol more toward excess than the USA, I would have to say that with smoking, this is not the case. First of all, smoking is so heavily taxed in the UK, it is reason enough to quit. A pack of cigarettes costs almost $6 here, this is largely due to taxes. Secondly, while the US has its "Surgeon General's warning" on cigarette adverts, here the ads just plainly say "SMOKING KILLS" in big bold letters. In fact, I would almost say that smoking is looked down upon as much here than it is the USA, and that is a bold statement, considering the recent events in the USA.
I believe that the reason for this is largely economic. The tobacco companies have such a colossal influence in congress, and they also generate considerable revenue for the country. If not for this, the generally conservative beliefs and laws toward drugs in the USA would have probably led to the banning of smoking a long time ago. In England, the economic reasons are not there (except for the money generated from taxes). When you combine this with the fact that the attitudes towards drugs in Europe are generally more liberal than in the USA, the attitude toward cigarette smoking in England ends up being similar to the current one in the USA.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle puts forth a theory that draws a line between pleasures that make one happy in the short term (apparent goods) verses pleasures that make one happy in the long term (real goods). What we are searching for, of course, is long term happiness. For example, if we drink a large amount of alcohol, we may feel immediate pleasure (apparent good), but over time, excess drinking causes problems. The key to being happy in the long term is often moderation. The question then becomes, "What is moderation?" In London, moderation in terms of drinking alcohol borders on what Americans might deem excessive. Pubs are like a national pastime here.
I once received one of those mail surveys that asks you 500 questions in order to figure out what types of products to sell you, and one of the questions was about hobbies. I've seen this type of survey in the U.S. before, but here, a hobby listed was "going to pubs." In the U.S., we call someone whose main hobby is going to bars an alcoholic. Drinking here is looked at quite differently. Although it is not quite like Munich, where I saw several people drinking pints of beer with breakfast, alcoholic beverages are still a part of a normal person's diet. The general acceptance can be seen in the off-licenses, where almost anyone can get alcohol.
However, it still comes down to a matter of moderation. With this freedom comes the responsibility to decide what moderation is for yourself. It seems to me that culture dictates where this line is more than one might think. When the laws and everyone around you tell you that something is wrong, it is hard to think otherwise. In the eyes of an American, the Spaniards might be considered a bunch of hedonists. Smoking is much more generally accepted in Spain, and people do it everywhere (including coach rides across the country...imagine getting stuck in one of those buses). While England puts the line of moderation in alcohol more toward excess than the USA, I would have to say that with smoking, this is not the case. First of all, smoking is so heavily taxed in the UK, it is reason enough to quit. A pack of cigarettes costs almost $6 here, this is largely due to taxes. Secondly, while the US has its "Surgeon General's warning" on cigarette adverts, here the ads just plainly say "SMOKING KILLS" in big bold letters. In fact, I would almost say that smoking is looked down upon as much here than it is the USA, and that is a bold statement, considering the recent events in the USA.
I believe that the reason for this is largely economic. The tobacco companies have such a colossal influence in congress, and they also generate considerable revenue for the country. If not for this, the generally conservative beliefs and laws toward drugs in the USA would have probably led to the banning of smoking a long time ago. In England, the economic reasons are not there (except for the money generated from taxes). When you combine this with the fact that the attitudes towards drugs in Europe are generally more liberal than in the USA, the attitude toward cigarette smoking in England ends up being similar to the current one in the USA.
In the USA, it is ethically wrong (or at least illegal...so if you believe that law is based on ethics, than what is illegal is unethical) for you to smoke marijuana. In Amsterdam, you can smoke it coffee shops legally, and people freely smoke in the streets. It seems that this approach hasn't caused too many problems, and in fact, once per year, marijuana is openly sold on the streets during a sort of festival. So what is wrong with this? What is the problem? Amsterdam is doing quite fine despite the drugs. It is too bad every drug isn't legalised because right now, you can get any drug from in one way or another-either from a coffee shop, a mushroom store, or a guy on the street. At least complete legalisation means some sort of standardisation. At any rate, the toleration of such drugs by the government has actually led to a drop in the number of drug users in Holland (See Kevin Williamson's Drugs and the Party Line). So why isn't the USA doing it?
Besides the economic reasons (such as the loss in profits of tobacco and alcohol companies), perhaps the U.S.A. isn't ready for such steps. I don't think our population is smart enough to deal with the freedom. We have been spoon-fed for so long now that the freedom to ingest drugs will lead to people thinking, "Uhhh, if the government says it's OK to do drugs, then I can do all the drugs I want." We don't realise that with freedom comes responsibility. Since the creation of the USA, (or at least in the last century) it seems that our government has felt the need to think for us and draw Aristotle's line between real goods and apparent goods for us. Perhaps Americans put so much more credence in what the government tells them because of our government's relative stability. In the last century, European governments have been far more unstable than the USA's. Therefore, perhaps people have leaned more toward thinking for themselves.
I think Europe (and Amsterdam in particular) caters to the upper I.Q. population. In Amsterdam, you must always be aware of your surroundings. You have to watch out for people on the street and have sense enough not to buy drugs from them; however, you still have the choice to do so if you please, and you have to weigh the benefits and consequences yourself. Amsterdam also often forces you to think about ethical issues. While someone may watch a woman get raped by her husband (as I saw on a TV melodrama) and feel the desire to do the same, many will be appalled and think more about how often that sort of thing happens, and how it is wrong, and how we can prevent it. One movie showed a black child being lured into a life of guns and drugs and money. While some may say, "hey that is cool, that is the good life," many will realise that life is not that simple, and these sort of things are ethically reprehensible-not because the government tells you so, but because you can use your life experiences to decide for yourself. That is what I like most about the city of Amsterdam, you are free to think for yourself and decide whether or not you want to smoke pot in the coffee shop, or get a hooker from the red light district. You can use your own judgement of what is ethically right and wrong and come to your own conclusions.
Pretty much in general I feel that you have more freedom to act on your own conclusions in Europe. You have a lot more opportunity to become a hedonist here, but you should know for yourself that you shouldn't be one (and you are also more free to decide where that hedonism line lies because in European society it lies more toward the liberal end than in the USA). However, if you want to be a hedonist and an alcoholic or cigarette addict, you have that right, and it is a wonderful privilege. Who is to say that alcoholism isn't right for you? In fact, who is to say what alcoholism really is? Is it going to the pub several times a week? In America, perhaps, but in England, I doubt it. Who is to say that occasional pot smoking is unethical? The US government and the hypocritical Bill Clinton (who didn't inhale), or you? Is it wrong to get an all-over tan, even if it means exposing your breasts to the public? Is it wrong to elicit communication between people about sex, drugs, and violence by portraying it on television? Is it better to repress it all and let it manifest like an ever-growing disease that only shows its head when its too late and somebody is raped or murdered? What is a hedonist? Should you be one? In Europe, you decide.
Besides the economic reasons (such as the loss in profits of tobacco and alcohol companies), perhaps the U.S.A. isn't ready for such steps. I don't think our population is smart enough to deal with the freedom. We have been spoon-fed for so long now that the freedom to ingest drugs will lead to people thinking, "Uhhh, if the government says it's OK to do drugs, then I can do all the drugs I want." We don't realise that with freedom comes responsibility. Since the creation of the USA, (or at least in the last century) it seems that our government has felt the need to think for us and draw Aristotle's line between real goods and apparent goods for us. Perhaps Americans put so much more credence in what the government tells them because of our government's relative stability. In the last century, European governments have been far more unstable than the USA's. Therefore, perhaps people have leaned more toward thinking for themselves.
I think Europe (and Amsterdam in particular) caters to the upper I.Q. population. In Amsterdam, you must always be aware of your surroundings. You have to watch out for people on the street and have sense enough not to buy drugs from them; however, you still have the choice to do so if you please, and you have to weigh the benefits and consequences yourself. Amsterdam also often forces you to think about ethical issues. While someone may watch a woman get raped by her husband (as I saw on a TV melodrama) and feel the desire to do the same, many will be appalled and think more about how often that sort of thing happens, and how it is wrong, and how we can prevent it. One movie showed a black child being lured into a life of guns and drugs and money. While some may say, "hey that is cool, that is the good life," many will realise that life is not that simple, and these sort of things are ethically reprehensible-not because the government tells you so, but because you can use your life experiences to decide for yourself. That is what I like most about the city of Amsterdam, you are free to think for yourself and decide whether or not you want to smoke pot in the coffee shop, or get a hooker from the red light district. You can use your own judgement of what is ethically right and wrong and come to your own conclusions.
Pretty much in general I feel that you have more freedom to act on your own conclusions in Europe. You have a lot more opportunity to become a hedonist here, but you should know for yourself that you shouldn't be one (and you are also more free to decide where that hedonism line lies because in European society it lies more toward the liberal end than in the USA). However, if you want to be a hedonist and an alcoholic or cigarette addict, you have that right, and it is a wonderful privilege. Who is to say that alcoholism isn't right for you? In fact, who is to say what alcoholism really is? Is it going to the pub several times a week? In America, perhaps, but in England, I doubt it. Who is to say that occasional pot smoking is unethical? The US government and the hypocritical Bill Clinton (who didn't inhale), or you? Is it wrong to get an all-over tan, even if it means exposing your breasts to the public? Is it wrong to elicit communication between people about sex, drugs, and violence by portraying it on television? Is it better to repress it all and let it manifest like an ever-growing disease that only shows its head when its too late and somebody is raped or murdered? What is a hedonist? Should you be one? In Europe, you decide.
Copyright © 2013 Russell