Too much. Since we cannot judge on a case by case basis, we establish habits that "pre- screen" for appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Depending upon settings, some things are clearly out of bounds, some things within bounds, with an area of decision for those cases not readily assignable. Thus, those of us who are more austere will look at naked ladies in acknowledged art works, but will not go to a strip joint, unless operating under a narrow exception, like sociological research. We change settings gradually by the series of decisions we make. One exception will not change settings. Although we might regret it in itself, it does not alter our basic character. Thus you might have a good person who becomes a murderer under extreme conditions. He may need to be punished for the offense, but he will not necessarily have "become a murderer" in a fundamental sense.
Anyway, we do not establish our habits purely on moral principles, but are also affected by other prudential considerations and extenuating circumstances. Most people, for example, would drink more if they were assured that they would not run the risk of automotive accident or awakening with a hang- over. Similarly, a young man is more prone to bed someone of loose reputation, figuring he can do little harm to her, than someone who is regarded as wholesome. People are more likely to do dubious things when they have been drinking, even when not seriously drunk, because the idea of impairment provides a mitigation of responsibility.
On the Internet, various contributory inhibitions are broken down, and some mitigating points are offered. One might be anonymous, and therefore escape direct opprobrium. One might say:" I have to peek into a hardcore porn site, to understand what is going on in cyberspace." Thus, by a gradual process of setting the bar lower, at least within this environment, it would not be that unusual for men to indulge in hardcore porn that they would eschew in "3-D", thus saturating themselves in dubious imagery and story lines, and wallowing in excess. It would not be that unusual for married people to pursue flirtations to the point of virtual affairs, and sometimes beyond. Similarly with gambling: people who would not spend the rent money in Vegas might lose substantial amounts in on-line casinos, because it starts out seeming like a lark.
In the case of Diogenes, even granting the premium he placed on honesty, and the deceptiveness of the Ring of Gyges, the situation I postulated is too analogous to coming upon a group of young women bathing at a river, and being struck by their loveliness, and reluctant to turn away, even while declining to disturb and embarrass them by making oneself known. One can argue that it is dishonest, but one is not always obligated to volunteer information. One can argue that it is a violation of privacy, but there is a real question about whether the violation, which is momentary, and does not involve deep secrets, is trivial or not. One can wonder about the arousal of lust, but in such a situation, there is an innocence which tends to keep titillation mild, and focus the interest on aesthetics, mainly. Thus, it is possible to doubt that much harm is done, and to be enticed by the ease and safety of the venture to seek out young women in "the locker room", under cover of the ring of Gyges. The clincher, it seems to me, is that little harm is done the first time, and expiation would not be so hard, so if one decided that what was done was over the line, one could engage in a little self- flagellation and be done with it........ |
