My husband and I are Democrats, and we live in a large left-leaning city. Considering the current political climate in the United States and deepening concerns that it will only get worse, my husband wants to purchase a gun for safety reasons. To be clear, we don’t have general safety concerns. We live in the heart of the city, and I feel safe. He is concerned about political or ideologically motivated violence.
A gun would make my husband feel some control over our safety, and we would be responsible gun owners. I know that, statistically, having a gun increases the chance that one of us is harmed, and I can’t fathom a situation in which we would truly need to be armed in our own home.
I think guns are evil, and I believe that the world would be a better place without weapons. But I would hate to regret not having a gun if things get so chaotic that people need to protect themselves. Should I go against my own beliefs because of a possible future threat? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
In a country with more guns than people (there were some 393 million firearms in civilian hands alone in 2017, according to the Small Arms Survey), it’s easy to see why your husband might feel that owning one himself could give him some control, some shield against chaos. But your instincts are sound. As you’re aware, bringing a gun into our homes doesn’t seem to tip the odds in our favor. Studies show little evidence that guns protect against injury or loss during a crime. Instead, they raise the risk of harm within the household, through accidents, impulsive actions or suicide.
You’re imagining your regret were civic life to unravel, and you had failed to prepare. Maybe there’s a “Last of Us” scenario flickering in your heads, where bandoliered bad guys roam a collapsed society, but even then, I doubt that whatever firearm your husband is contemplating would help. In a world where some are armed to the teeth, being armed to your toes seems unlikely to do anything but escalate the dangers for you. What’s more to the point is that you feel safe in your city. Your recognition that guns bring more harm than good isn’t naïve. Real control lies in holding fast to your reasoned beliefs, not in giving way to fear.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who used A.I. to create photos for her social media accounts. She wrote: “The program asked me to upload several pictures of myself and select clothing choices and background locales. It then spit out a number of A.I.-created photos. I was pleased with the results. The A.I. photos looked like me, just slightly improved — fuller hair, fewer wrinkles, etc. I uploaded the best one to my social media accounts and, within minutes, over-the-top compliments started rolling in. … My husband thinks I’m being dishonest by not disclosing that my headshot was generated by A.I. I disagree. Individuals and magazines publish photoshopped pictures all the time without disclosure. So I ask you: As a private individual, do I have an obligation to mark my profile picture on social media as A.I.-generated?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “People typically use their self-representation on social media — in images as much as in words — to put themselves in a good light. … It sounds as though this picture looks like a realistic portrait of you after a visit to your hairdresser (applying subtle extensions) and a makeup artist — it’s your Vogue version. … It’s also worth zooming out and acknowledging that nearly every photo of ourselves today is already highly mediated by technology. With a newer iPhone, a simple shot uses machine-learning algorithms to decide how to light your face, smooth shadows, boost colors and so on. … Still, you’re taking things a big step further. When old friends greet you IRL, you want to see them lighting up with fondness, not suppressing a wince because their mental image has just crashed into reality.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
Whether we acknowledge it or not, we each contribute to online culture with our individual actions. I find it incredibly depressing how normalized retouched images have become as everyday portraits. Using A.I. creates unrealistic expectations that are particularly damaging to the self-esteem of people in younger generations. We can all be positive role models for young people with our online presence. — Em
⬥
There is a difference between Photoshop, airbrush and A.I., which are all different degrees of alteration. Using A.I. creates a new animal. Do the fakery if you must, but disclose. The argument that everyone is “doing it” sounds like something I tried with my parents decades ago. It didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now. — Kim
⬥
My significant other is also currently basking in the social media praise of new A.I. created headshots (false body, clothing and background, with face heavily edited). Responding to the comments with “thanks!” makes it worse, because it’s proactively taking credit for something you didn’t do. But I suppose there is unacknowledged shame if folks do not say, “Look at these awesome A.I.-generated headshots!” — Beryl
⬥
There’s another ethical component worth considering: the significant costs to the world of the A.I. service itself. I’ll refrain from a recitation of the environmental impacts and intellectual property thefts inherent in most of today’s A.I. systems, but will note that these harms are usually hidden from the user. Using one of these services and then concealing its use from one’s peers seems doubly irresponsible. — Ben
⬥
Long before Adobe Photoshop and A.I., photos were doctored in the photo studio, retouched in the darkroom and they often were altered by using soft focus or wide-angle lenses during photography. So this is nothing new. Regardless, I agree with the Ethicist that images that are significantly different than reality may lead to shock in person. — Linda
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post My Husband Fears Political Violence. Should We Buy a Gun? appeared first on New York Times.
