What does it mean to restrict the definition of “doing” to acts in the physical realm?
Doing clearly includes direct physical action with the intent to affect another. The example cited previously of giving food to the hungry person is direct physical action.
How about telling the hungry person where he can get food? Yes, I think the telling is also a doing.
If directly communicating to another individual is a doing, what does that imply for communications in general? And what do we include in the term “communication”?
There was a time when very few individuals had the ability to communicate with others on a large scale. I might certainly affect my family; my neighbors; those with whom I work or play or study. I might be a member of an ethnic community or political or religious group that provides a forum for me to express views that will be heard by others. But, until recently, most people had little opportunity for their words to affect very large groups of people.
That is no longer the case. The words I write here today are available to any who care to find them and, through social media and other forums, I can “push” them to a very large number of potential readers, essentially at will.
I can’t compel anyone to read my words, however. How does that change my thinking about the impact they might have? Does that change the nature of the communication from a doing to something else?
If I can’t compel anyone to read my words — or to consume my communication in whatever form it might take — does that lessen my responsibility for them? Can I argue that there is no coercion involved in my message if no one is compelled to read it (or to consume it in some other manner)?
Perhaps; but it is also true in such a case that I have little or no control over who might consume my message. If my intention is to limit my communication to a specific audience, I have to take action to effect that limitation.
If I am speaking to a room of individuals gathered to hear a talk on a publicized topic, the audience will be presumably self-selected and aware of both the identity of the speaker and the subject of the address. If my words are unclear to some, there might be an opportunity to clarify them by responding to questions.
But the further removed I am from the consumer of my words and the less homogeneous the potential consuming group, and the less the opportunity given to clarify what is said, the greater the likelihood of unintended, damaging effect.
How else do I engage in doing activities that are in the physical realm but in some way indirect? I’ve previously mentioned giving money to support direct action that will be taken by others in furtherance of a cause or issue I want to affect. I’ve also previously mentioned voting for a candidate for office whose views align with mine.
These are at large scale and sometimes large scale can help to assure the action I intend. For example, if I donate money to an organization that has a long and well-documented history of using donations effectively in support of the issues I specifically want to support, my level of certainty that my action will have my intended effect might be quite high.
In the same way, if I vote for a person who has a strong and substantial record of acting in the political arena in the way that I want to support, my level of confidence in my action can be high.
Donating money and casting a ballot are non-verbal doings that potentially affect many others, but that do so at one step (or more) removed.
There are other physical doings that are non-verbal and non-specific but still consequential and perhaps importantly so. I’m thinking here of the impact of example, for instance. For good or ill, we do not live in a vacuum. We are observed. Our behavior affects those who observe us.
The way I treat another person sends a message to one who observes that treatment. Depending on the observer, it might send multiple messages.
It might say only something about me. For example: that I act either badly or well in a given type of interaction. Maybe I treat a waitress badly or that I appear nervous in talking with a policeman, or that I act dismissively toward my wife. It might say something about the person I am. It might be interpreted against the other person, though. “She’s a bad waitress”. “Cops try to intimidate.” and so forth.
But to another observer, a child for example, it might suggest that my observed behavior is the proper way to treat a waitress, a policeman or a spouse.
If I am observed to be punctual, neatly-dressed and respectful of others; that sends a message. If I am a parent it will matter to me that my child is exposed to good behavior and good example because I know that imitation of authority figures is a powerful influence on children at certain ages.
I will also know that I can convey very strong messages to a child, a spouse, a sibling, a parent, a close friend simply via facial expression and body language. Someone close to me will be able to read my expressions of encouragement, approval, empathy, support, delight and their opposites, Often these expressions are spontaneous reactions to situations. Sometimes, though, they are deliberate signals meant to convey important non-verbal information.
To the extent that any of these means of influencing others is deliberate, I would argue that they represent a doing for the purposes of understanding and evaluating the Ethic implied in any given relationship or situation.
I purposely include in that last statement the modifier “deliberate” because the issue of intent is one that we’ll need to investigate in a serious way in subsequent posts.