This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
When Does Free Speech Cross the Line?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Sagramor
Freedom is essential to the better functioning of the society as a whole, even if all we can ever hope to reach is simply the comforting notion of it. In order to express it's importance, I again do so with the aid of Kant and his Categorical Imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
An action that would, if repeated by all people, disrupt the cohesion of the society is one that must not be performed by the individual. A state of cohesion would be a state where the community, as in the relations and governing of the common good, functions correctly, unretarded and equal. Thus it becomes necessary the preservation of freedom. If all people were to actively inflict upon each other's capability of choosing simply between A and B, society's relations, and therefore it's government, would dismantle. More rationally, if everyone worked to take away everyone else's freedom, free will would cease to exist, and there would be no more freedom to take away, throwing the action into contradiction.
(
Post scriptum
: However, by applying the same logic on the question as to whether or not one should beat their children, the same final negative is reached. But that is not the topic in question.)
Post by
gamerunknown
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
Kind of breaks down in terms of celibacy or working. Would I want everyone to be a student?
Also, what about civil rights? The employer that tells someone applying for a job that they're not welcome because they're black: can they be prosecuted?
Post by
Sagramor
Kind of breaks down in terms of celibacy or working. Would I want everyone to be a student?
If everyone was celibate, society would eventually cease to exist.
Yes, working is a good thing.
And so is studying, for it fulfills the duty to the self, that consequentially is a duty to the whole.
Also, what about civil rights? The employer that tells someone applying for a job that they're not welcome because they're black: can they be prosecuted?
You missed the part about the 'equal'.
Read up
on your philosophers, kids.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
If everyone was celibate, society would eventually cease to exist.
Yes, working is a good thing.
And so is studying, for it fulfills the duty to the self, that consequentially is a duty to the whole.
But if everyone went to the same university to do the same course to apply for the same job, then society would cease to function. Same with if everyone was celibate, but being exclusively homosexual or asexual or a priest isn't immoral in my opinion. Neither is consuming any amount of drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, except where one is putting the life of another in danger (i.e fetal alcohol syndrome, DUI, secondary smoke inhalation). It also breaks down for sadomasochists because it doesn't include consent. In my opinion, Utilitarianism/Consequentialism with consent and the theory of social contract tacked on is superior. That way one acts to increase happiness wherever possible for as many people as possible without violating individual rights, except for people that are propagating unhappiness as much as possible. That way one doesn't quash the rights of the people that are doing nothing to harm the happiness of society (the celibate or homosexuals - the latter may even work to increase the happiness of society by adopting, there are a few studies that show they make average or better parents than heterosexual couples) and don't have to acquiesce to the demands of the sadomasochists, since they are in strict compliance with the letter of the Categorical Imperative, if not the spirit. Not that I think the variation on the golden rule isn't an improvement over the original, it is the perfect rejoinder to the psychopath (as long as they're not also a masochist) with no concern for human suffering: inflict on yourself first what you would inflict on others.
You missed the part about the 'equal'.
Read up on your philosophers, kids.
A little harsh, but that segment wasn't in response to you. I have given the Categorical Imperative some thought, but have only encountered Kant second hand (or third hand, if you include the fact that I can't read the original).
It was more in response to this notion:
Crime should be punished (including the taking advantage of those with limited capability to comprehend and take responsibility for actions) but speech should be free.
I was wondering if crime extended to discrimination., which is illegal in the UK. But so is religious hate speech and I don't think any anti-religious hate speech should be punished, since religion is something an individual chooses rather than something explicitly tied to their character (even if it is fundamentally important to them). There are some sentiments expressed that I'd rather not see, like BNP putting up a picture of a mosque or gurdvara, I forget which and saying "go back to your country". But I don't think it should be illegal.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.