 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Every society operates according to some norms. A liberal society operates according to the principle that people are free to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others (Mill's principle). To that end we have constructed a series of rights as a rough guideline as to what is allowed. |
(Side note: I find it incredibly amusing that Agathon is arguing in favor of something because it's "tradition"  ) |
Nope - it's necessity, not tradition.
quote:
If you're going to use Mill, here's a nice quote: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." |
Hey, you've found another example in which a famous philosopher says things which are at odds with his own principles.
quote:
Also: "First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common." |
And Mill is wrong here because, like it or not, at some point someone has to assume that something is right, and something else is wrong. If it turned out that speech was placing his own principle in danger, then Mill would be compelled to shut someone up. That's the issue here, which you have failed to grasp.
When we get students to write essays on Mill, we hope that they will pick up and criticize him for this mistake.
quote:
quote:
Racist speech does harm others, which you would know had you ever been the victim of it. Imagine if you were black and had to work in a place where posters detailing the evils of "niggers" were everywhere. |
So basically, it "hurts their feelings". Well, it hurts MY feelings that I can't say what I want! Or, it hurts MY feelings that the rest of you show disdain for my religion! |
If you don't recognize the difference between the terror suffered by the victims of hate speech and the mild offence that ordinary insults result in, I despair of you.
Words have the power to elevate, inspire, liberate, instruct and awe, they also have the power to denegrate, lie, deflate and terrorize. There are simply some things you should not say to people, like shouting Nazi slogans in front of Holocaust survivors or calling for all "faggots" to be burned.
quote:
quote:
Most people agree that Mill's principle is correct and good arguments can be marshaled for it. It mandates a fair amount of tolerance (which is the central value of liberalism). But there are intolerant people in our society who make it their business to try to undermine Mill's principle. Usually they add a rider to it such as "people are free to do what they want as long as they don't harm others unless those others are blacks, Jews, etc." |
And what would he say on that? Another damning quote:
"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side." |
Here is another problem with Mill. He's waffling. He takes his own principle, that we should never stifle debate as certain, without thinking of those debaters who have the power and desire to stifle debate. What possible commitment can he have to his principle if he is willing to allow people to frustrate it and destroy what he thinks good.
This shows me that you still haven't understood the argument. If we think free speech is a good thing, then we ought to do what we can in the face of threats to it. And one of the threats is that people who despise it may use their right to overthrow it. What value do we place on free speech if we would allow this to happen. Either we shut up the bad people, or we allow them to shut up everyone else. This is how it works in the real world.
quote:
quote:
The secret is that Mill's principle allows for a fair degree of tolerance except in the case of the actions of those who are intolerant of the principle. In that case it mandates intolerance towards those actions. If it didn't what would be the point of the principle in the first place? This applies equally to any society which is organized according to rules (i.e. all of them). A realistically free society will limit certain freedoms in order to preserve others. There is no such thing as an absolutely free society, for there would be no shared norms and hence anarchy. |
See above quote. |
See above response, and please respond to the argument in your own terms.
quote:
quote:
Why would you ban it? Whose rights does it violate? I don't think there is any more reason to ban that book than there is to ban The Wealth of Nations. There's a world of difference between literary works that might lead some people to violate Mill's principle and actions which violate it by being the sort of actions that they are. |
How does racist speech violate his principles, when he supports ABSOLUTE freedom of expression? Only laws against expression - which MAY be produced from racism, but are DEFINITELY produced from laws against racism - would violate his principles. |
Because his principle demands it. Liberty is allowed insofar as it does not harm others. Hate speech harms others, therefore it should not be allowed. It's that simple. Mill lived before the age of mass propaganda, and he was writing in a society in which censorship was a more pressing concern. But his statements about free speech do not necessarily follow either from his principle, or from his utilitarianism.
quote:
quote:
You seem to think that I am legislating my personal taste. That is not true. Every society legislates some norms, or it wouldn't be a society and couldn't function properly. It so happens that most of the time people saying what they like does not harm others, but in some cases it does. |
You have never demonstrated that SPEECH hurts anyone. |
Are you denying that Nazi symbols do not terrorize their former victims? Are you arguing that being called a "nigger" or a "monkey" is just something for black people to shake off? Or that it is conducive to well being for homosexuals to live in a society where everyone else refers to them as "faggots" and "bum ****ers"? What planet do you live on? You're white, male and heterosexual so you don't get treated this way, but to laugh off the effects of this on others is to demonstrate a lack of basic human empathy.
quote:
quote:
No one could reasonably assert that racist speech does not harm its victims, |
Of course one could. I do, in fact. |
But not reasonably, since you seem to live in "little white rich boy land".
quote:
quote:
 That old trick. No one is imposing a belief on religious people. It so happens that society is better off when there is a separation between church and state. People disagree over which religion is the right one. Those people who agitate for religious practices in the public sphere ignore the problem of whose practices we are to adopt (they just think it's theirs). |
That's exactly what you're doing - agitating for people to adopt your point of view. It's called debate, and free expression. |
Way to avoid the point. You said that schools denying prayer were engaged in supporting atheism. That was false, they are supporting neutrality on religious issues and the separation of church and state.
quote:
quote:
If free speech includes the ability to paint a giant swastika on your house so that the holocaust survivors over the road have to see it every time they leave through their front door (this actually happened), then that argument fails. |
You still don't have to look at it. Plus, how does it hurt you, to see the swastika? Can you demonstrate any actual harm? |
Why does the law sanction people for libel or making death threats? After all, it's just free speech. In the second case they do it because death threats terrorize people. But so do egregious forms of hate speech. How is the average gay person going to feel if they have to walk the streets through miles of posters saying that "all fags should be shot".
quote:
quote:
Look, if you are a holocaust survivor or black, and the Klan is conducting cross burnings across the road, you will be scared shitless. Ask gay people how it feels to live in a homophobic society. It's not nice. Just because you are a white guy, you don't suffer this crap. But other people do. So ask yourself whether racists have more rights to be racists than their victims do to live free of racial discrimination. Racism is about harming other people. Preventing racists from committing racist acts prevents that harm - and by Mill's principle is entirely justifiable. |
Racism is about harming other people, but it doesn't mean that advocating it harms other people, except inasmuch as it may sway people to another point of view. |
Utter rubbish. A cross burning is designed to terrorize black people. That's why the clan does it. Just because you as a honky are not the victim of such things does not mean that they don't happen.
quote:
quote:
Not according to Mill's principle it isn't. People can smoke pot without harming others or at least the question of harm to others is debatable. |
No it's not. I think it definately hurts other people. Or, the other way, the question of harm to others from merely expressing racism is debatable. |
It's only debatable if you are a white guy. Homosexuals, Jews blacks and other minorities who actually experience it do not think it is a matter for idle chatter.
One may as well say that the harm caused by death threats is "debatable", but that would be simply ridiculous. Words have power and like weapons can be used to do bad things. It's incumbent upon decent people to make sure they don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
So... Agathon... You're attempting to use Mill to justify limitation upon freedom of expresson? Are you ill pray tell?
quote:
And Mill is wrong here because, like it or not, at some point someone has to assume that something is right, and something else is wrong. If it turned out that speech was placing his own principle in danger, then Mill would be compelled to shut someone up. That's the issue here, which you have failed to grasp.
|
It is my view that Mill was leading towards a version of libertarianism based upon utilitarianism. That concept is something I have taken an interest in as you know. Put simply, it is my view that Mill would oppose limitation of his own free speech principle, on the basis that it crosses a line. We could use your argument to defend the notion that one should not defend oneself when there is a threat to your life, which is plainly ridiculous. Mill would not support that. That is not to say that the speech of one may not "environmentally" impact upon another, but then, I cannot go to the moon merely because I will it thus, or write a 40 minute sonata that can only be played by a Hindu deity because I want to.
If one thinks something is wrong or right, that does not necessarily result in a carte blanche to do something material (as opposed to expressive) about it since we are capable of recognising the views of another with equal validity (your basic moral relativism here). It is perhaps a measure of intellectual dishonesty and a human need to attach excess psychological attachment upon an idea (this is what happens when you are forced to study Being and Nothingness for weeks on end  ) that we become so dogmatic, which as a libertarian, is a pain in the arse for me as some refuse to accept they are wrong, with little or no understanding of that term. You of all people should understand that, so we can assume that your logic is sound there, however, it asks of you whether something is wrong "enough" using sufficient premises to affect another context to a sufficient degree to overcome the Hume gap, in order to take such action (limitation of speech). I may be wide of the mark here since I haven't read the thread... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Nope - it's necessity, not tradition. |
You've been arguing on the basis of something being society's values. Sounds a lot like tradition to me..
quote:
And Mill is wrong here because, like it or not, at some point someone has to assume that something is right, and something else is wrong. If it turned out that speech was placing his own principle in danger, then Mill would be compelled to shut someone up. That's the issue here, which you have failed to grasp. |
I guess your objection is something like this?
quote:
There is no greater assumption of infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error, than in any other thing which is done by public authority on its own judgment and responsibility. Judgment is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not to use it at all? To prohibit what they think pernicious, is not claiming exemption from error, but fulfilling the duty incumbent on them, although fallible, of acting on their conscientious conviction. If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed. An objection which applies to all conduct, can be no valid objection to any conduct in particular. It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right. But when they are sure (such reasoners may say), it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions, and allow doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the welfare of mankind, either in this life or in another, to be scattered abroad without restraint, because other people, in less enlightened times, have persecuted opinions now believed to be true. Let us take care, it may be said, not to make the same mistake: but governments and nations have made mistakes in other things, which are not denied to be fit subjects for the exercise of authority: they have laid on bad taxes, made unjust wars. Ought we therefore to lay on no taxes, and, under whatever provocation, make no wars? Men, and governments, must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct: and it is assuming no more when we forbid bad men to pervert society by the propagation of opinions which we regard as false and pernicious. |
To which Mill replies:
quote:
I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. |
quote:
When we get students to write essays on Mill, we hope that they will pick up and criticize him for this mistake. |
You must be a wonderful teacher - so unbiased.
quote:
If you don't recognize the difference between the terror suffered by the victims of hate speech and the mild offence that ordinary insults result in, I despair of you. |
1) No qualitative difference - only one of quantity.
2) What if I genuinely feel terror at the idea of people preaching there is no god?
quote:
Here is another problem with Mill. He's waffling. He takes his own principle, that we should never stifle debate as certain, without thinking of those debaters who have the power and desire to stifle debate. |
He realizes this quite well, and would probably agree with Voltaire about the difference between agreeing with your opinion and letting you voice it.
quote:
What possible commitment can he have to his principle if he is willing to allow people to frustrate it and destroy what he thinks good. |
What possible commitment can he have to his principle if he destroys it in attempting to preserve it?
quote:
This shows me that you still haven't understood the argument. If we think free speech is a good thing, then we ought to do what we can in the face of threats to it. |
And what seems the greatest threat - because it has the greatest chance of being accepted and adopted by the community (indeed, in many it already has) is you.
quote:
See above response, and please respond to the argument in your own terms. |
Mill is so much better at it than I am.
quote:
Because his principle demands it. |
The principle of absolute liberty of expression demands that we only have contingent liberty of expression?
quote:
Liberty is allowed insofar as it does not harm others. Hate speech harms others, therefore it should not be allowed. |
You have never explained how it "harms" others, except inasmuch as they don't like it to an extreme degree.
quote:
It's that simple. Mill lived before the age of mass propaganda, |
When, pray tell, was this? Before the existance of words?
quote:
Are you denying that Nazi symbols do not terrorize their former victims? |
I'm denying that terror = harm, or at least that terror is somehow more "harmful" than offense.
quote:
But not reasonably, since you seem to live in "little white rich boy land". |
Ad hominem, as you so often use...
quote:
Way to avoid the point. You said that schools denying prayer were engaged in supporting atheism. That was false, they are supporting neutrality on religious issues and the separation of church and state. |
Right. They are supporting secular government, which is (functionally) atheist.
quote:
Why does the law sanction people for libel or making death threats? |
Those aren't expression.
quote:
Utter rubbish. A cross burning is designed to terrorize black people. That's why the clan does it. Just because you as a honky are not the victim of such things does not mean that they don't happen. |
I also support the right of Muslims to chant "Death to America".
quote:
It's only debatable if you are a white guy. Homosexuals, Jews blacks and other minorities who actually experience it do not think it is a matter for idle chatter. |
I'm sure all of them support restrictions on freedom of expression, too... not.
quote:
One may as well say that the harm caused by death threats is "debatable", but that would be simply ridiculous. |
Death threats are not expression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Our difference is that I have faith in the people to collectively do what is best...you only have faith in one or a few. Furtermore, who selects the one or the few?
|
The people, collectively, are simplistic, a great theatre of sheep. Individually, we have our talents, but politics and economics is a precise game. If I have to choose between deciding on the basis of logic or popularity, I choose logic. Those members of the public with sufficient understanding of politics, law, philosophy, economics, sociology or psychology to run the country in a democracy are "diluted" by those who don't. Note that I am a free speech advocate, but see no reason why a nation should be run on that basis, instead of merely featuring it for the people. Of course, elected representatives are a better idea than pure democracy, but can only really serve as a cushion to the uninformed populus. Let's be clear about this, you opiate the people with a feeling of power, you create a stable government (the longest lived political systems iirc are democracies), and you can field large patriotic armies. That, particularly the latter point, hasn't changed in the better part of 25 centuries.
As for who selects the few? A good question, a system in a constitution whereby those who fullfill certain criteria best are chosen perhaps (obviously more than one to curb the risk of corruption, but ideally a self-perpetuating and transparent technocracy to eliminate the risk of corruption). Lets not go off at a tangent by discussing the finer points of my pipe dream, but suffice that there is a reasonable argument against democracy that does not involve exploding Shi'ites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Good point (and yes, but it overlaps with On Liberty a lot in my view). It would tend to lend itself to a vague democracy, perhaps once a generation to keep the government roughly in line with the wishes of the people, which would also serve as a check against revolution. Perhaps an election once every 15/20/30 years. That lends itself to technocracy too of course... one could elect programs instead of people. Either way, its different, I like it  |
One of the things Mill actually admired about the US was the Senate - he claimed that because it was selected by the state legislatures, which were mostly elected for a seperate purpose, the Senators were generally more professional. Now, I don't know if this was correct, not having lived then, but it seems to make sense, and is similar to what you suggest - democracy, but not only not direct democracy but with several layers between the people and the legislators.
Of course, I would also want a directly elected house, with proportional representation, to give the people some direct power (but checked).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2004 22:14
|