I'm watching you...

Emrys Westacott believes that having surveillance does not make the morals of people any different. She believes that it will cause some people to do the right thing but not necessarily change what they think is right and wrong. I agree with this because her point of view is supported through her specific examples, her knowledgable tone and concession, and a solid historic example.

Westacott starts off her article with the example of Adam and God, from the book Genesis in the Bible. God specifically told Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge but he was easily persuaded by Eve to eat the apple. Westacott suggests that if God had placed a surveillance camera directed on the tree, it would have led to “no sin, no Fall, no expulsion from paradise.” She thinks that if God had a camera directed at the tree and Eve noticed it, she would not have eaten from the tree. However, she points out that even though Eve probably wouldn't have eaten from the tree, it doesn't mean she did not want too. She probably still would have wanted to eat the apple, so it didn't make her any more morally right. This first example sets the idea for her whole article.

She leads into talking about different ideas that different philosophers would agree with and uses them to move into proving her point. “Kantian ethics. On this view, increased surveillance may carry certain utilitarian benefits, but the price we pay is a diminution of our moral character.” Westacott uses this to counter with the “stages” she previously wrote about. The tone she used while explaining the stages was sincere and knowledgable, showing she knew what she was talking about and had done her research on it. Instead of changing her tone to accusative and condescending, she continues with the same tone to illustrate how the stages were wrong, and that the Kantian ethics were more realistic. This helps her to connect with the readers by using concession. She recognizes the “opponents” view but then uses her's more strongly but in the same manner.

Finally, Westacott uses specific examples that are easy to relate to. She uses the example of cheating; if someone knows they are being watched, they will be more likely not to complete the action, but that does not mean they do not want too. This directly connects with her first example of Adam and Eve. The fact that people are being watched does not make them better people on the whole. She also states that people are going to perform actions that are considered morally wrong far less when they know they are being watched, for the sole reason of not wanting to get caught or taking the blame; not because they don't want too. Through the examples that the readers can relate through or think about, Westacott is making a connection with them, making her point of view on the subject more easy for the audience to understand.