> If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior.

If you raise your child on media from the last century that is.

Modern childrens television shows emphasize empathy over crude means like surveillance. Bluey is a great example.

Bluey is contemporary entertainment. It's not old enough to be part of culture, which is what GP was talking about. Last century media isn't either. We're talking folk tales and religion here.

Bluey is also one of the handful, perhaps single-digit number of, decent kid shows. Modern children television shows emphasize superstimuli, obnoxious behavior, and/or push merch. I am grateful it exists, because the space of children entertainment is much worse today than it was 30+ years ago.

Which children shows from a century ago emphasized surveillance?

The superstition of just recompense / Karma is fundamentally different, in that it is , in concept, omniscient, even of your thoughts. Also, it’s justice will be meted out by “fate” so the mind automatically equates outcomes with causes based on your moral compass, establishing a state of perceived equilibrium which you are incentivo used to balance in your favor, as “good things come to good people”.

Surveillance is blind to minor transgressions, supporting the idea that you can slight people and be a crappy human without consequences, and it is also far from omniscient, and can be specifically blind under circumstances that you may control. More so it can be wielded against other people by creating “scenes” that promote a narrative that harms them. It is not an judge of character, but rather of appearances.

Of course the fox is to install a strong moral character in the home, by way of teaching rather than training, but unfortunately many parents give similar attention to their children as they would a beloved pet, so that is not at all something that can be expected.

I long ago concluded that karma is bs. Just look at all the crooks and liars who hardly ever get punished and when they do its a slap on the wrist.

It doesn't have to material consequence. Do you think these people are happy or fulfilled? They build their own prisons and make their own beds.

That's the story I was raised to believe in, but similar to GP's realization, I think it's bullshit too. Plenty of crooks and liars look very happy and I doubt they have problems sleeping at night. Hell, our modern world actually glorifies lying and assholery these days, turning such behavior into respected and well-compensated career paths.

You can think it’s BS but the data disagree. Just look at correlated divorce rates, suicide, depression, etc.

Correlated with what? Do we have a measure of crookiness we can correlate with?

Maybe the aggregate, in their unwillingness to act in favor of good/love/empathy/truth - of virtue - is being doled out their own karmic rash by the frequency of misdeeds. Inaction is just as culpable as inaction - failing to hold corporations, politicians, bullies to account breaks the accords on which civilization was founded, and with the heaving of that foundation is it any wonder more and more people are turning to increasingly extreme methods? And as this all is broken asunder is it any wonder that people think these systems are the problem - and who is to say they aren't? So it should come as no shock when someone who is antithetical to these broken norms is allowed success.

I've watched a lot of people who make precarious moral decisions slide into various modes of turmoil over time. And I'm not exclusion. Just because it isn't evident on the face doesn't mean it isn't working.

Yes? People who are bad are usually bad precisely because they are capable of rationalizing bad behavior.

Both Santa and God are accepted because they are considered as greater than humans, or perfect. Whereas modern day surveillance is done by ordinary humans, which no one would consider as superior. In fact, most people would likely consider humans that perform covert or illegal surveillance as inferior or criminals. So there isn't really an equivalence relationship here. Again, people are willing to accept the judgement of a perfect being watching over them, but never humans.

> So is the use of constant, omniscient surveillance actually new to incentivize moral behavior new?

A salient difference is that you can see when the camera is there and when it isn't. You can test the fences and see what behavior is punished and not with a quick feedback loop.

If the only thing keeping you from being a sociopath is getting caught on camera, what do you do as soon as you're not on camera?

Pull out your camera and post your crimes to the internet for clout?

Early memory when I was 7-8 years old was the kids that were being raised under the 'Santa/God/Cosmic Mushroom' is watching you had a poor moral compass and they'd do really shitty things impulsively. And when caught out would make excuses. Kids raised with a sense of personal decency would do that less and tend to be just mortified when they did something shitty.