CAT | Philosophy
The title of this article may be misleading. To be clear: I am a big fan of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is possibly the most important individual human freedom. Every person in the world should be allowed to freely express himself in “the marketplace of ideas,” except in extremely rare circumstances.
Yet many people confuse the point underlying freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives one the right to express him or herself. However, it does not mean that one should express one’s self in any manner. John has the right to say: “If you are a non-Christian, you are inferior;” yet Susan does not have to condone this speech simply because John has a right to make that statement. Freedom of speech works both ways – Susan can judge John and make her judgment known by stating publicly that his statement is bigoted. If John responds by saying that he should not be condemned because of freedom of speech – this is a false argument. John has the right to say what he wants, but Susan and all others offended by his comment may judge him at will.
Unfortunately, the above example is not a far-fetched creation from my mind. In California, a car dealership actually said the following in a radio advertisement (click to hear audio):
Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, “Under God” out of the Pledge, and “In God We Trust” to be taken off our money?
But did you know that 86% of Americans say they believe in God? Now, since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians who believe in God, we at Kieffe & Sons Ford wonder why we don’t just tell the other 14% to sit down and shut up. I guess maybe I just offended 14% of the people who are listening to this message. Well, if that is the case, then I say that’s tough, this is America folks, it’s called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe & Sons Ford are afraid to speak up. Kieffe & Sons Ford on Sierra Highway in Mojave and Rosamond: if we don’t see you today, by the grace of God, we’ll be here tomorrow.
Under the “Kieffe & Sons Ford” interpretation of the First Amendment, it seems that (1) Freedom of speech only applies to the majority opinion; (2) if someone makes a statement that offends others, asserting that the statement is “free speech” means the statement should not be condemned. I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers were going for. [Not So Silver Lining: Apparently Kieffe & Sons apologized after many complaints, then retracted their apology.]
The essential problem here, and in many usages of offensive speech, is the assumption that free speech does not go both ways. But it does – anyone has a right to condemn another for saying something that is idiotic, offensive, or short-sighted. Simply because something is within the right to free speech does not mean it must be condoned, or that a response to that speech is not considered free speech of its own. Nor does the right to free speech only apply to a majoritarian view. Any child who has studied Galileo and Copernicus, or Adolf Hitler’s Germany knows that a majority-only free speech rule would be unproductive and dangerous.
Perhaps everything I’ve written in this piece is completely obvious to everyone that will read it. But there are many people out there that think they should have a “get out of jail free” card for making offensive speech simply because they have a right to make it. You can exercise a right and be a horrible person at the same time.
[P.S. This reasoning also applies to how both major American political parties argue against "political correctness," but in different ways and merely to favor themselves. Maybe sometime soon I'll write an article about that.]
5
Is a World Without Bad Desirable? Is it Possible?
0 Comments | Posted by George in Philosophy
I do not think a world without “bad” is desirable or possible. A world without any bad aspect would hypothetically be a world where everyone were perfectly content at any given moment and no one desired anything they couldn’t have. If this situation were possible, life would be dreary and terrible.
Ignore the already present contradiction that a life without bad aspects would be “bad” in some sense. Instead, think about what really makes life rewarding. To me, accomplishing a goal is what makes life rewarding, be it making money, maintaining a relationship, learning, or what have you. To accomplish these goals, one must deal with many “bads,” such as risking money, getting in fights with a significant other, spending long hours at a library in confusion, etcetera.
Another way to look at it is that the “bads” in life are what make the “goods” worth having. Peace wouldn’t be considered so valuable if we didn’t know the horrors of war. Medical inventions wouldn’t be worthwhile if no one ever got sick. These things are “goods” today, but in a world without bads nobody would care about them.
A world without bads is impossible. Bad is the opposite of good, and both are relative terms. If something is good, it has to be because it moves us away from a bad. If there are no bads, then do goods really matter?
I’m just kind of rambling here, but if there is a point, the point is this. The bad aspects in life: poverty, war, disease, death and others are there for a reason. We would be complacent, boring individuals in a fantasy utopia where these things did not exist. The bads at least make life interesting…
Let me know of your thoughts…
Because of the interesting comments on my last article (Why Does the Environment Matter?), I have decided to elaborate on my thoughts on whether true altruistic acts exist. The first step in this investigation is to define altruism.
According to Princeton University’s Wordnet, the definition of altruism is:
The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
If this definition accurately portrays altruism, it follows that when one commits an altruistic act, he only thinks about how the act will benefits others, and not himself. No self-interest by the altruist is involved.
But what exactly is a benefit that can accrue to one’s self or others? The concept of utility is important in this case. Utility is a measure of satisfaction/fulfillment/enjoyment/happiness/etcetera that one gains from a good, action, or consequence. In a simple example: one gains utility when he finds $10 on the ground. Another example: one gains utility when the weather forecast for tomorrow is pleasant. So if one were to commit an altruistic act, according to the definition above, the act must be made without any consideration of one’s own utility. I believe any act that is made without considering one’s own utility is impossible.
When one commits an act, it is because that act is preferential to any other act for that individual. If a businesswoman gives up her lunch money to buy a hobo a sandwich, she is making a choice. She has chosen to give up her lunch money over all other actions in that situation, expressing her preference for donation in that instance. In other words, giving up the money is what she would rather do than anything else in that situation. The act was certainly kind, noble, and loving. But the act, at the root, was a choice made by the businesswoman to maximize her utility.
Perhaps everyone around the businesswoman at the time thought she was making a bad choice. For them, perhaps giving up the money is not the best choice in that situation, and that is perfectly normal because everyone has different preferences. Perhaps the businesswoman values her conscience and her sense of service to others much more than the other people around her.
I am not saying that a life of service or generous acts are not noble. Those who dedicate their lives or even moments of their lives to others are doing wonderful things. They make huge sacrifices that many others would refuse, often for little or no recognition. These individuals are rare and more of them are needed now than ever.
But I have to believe that everyone has a motivation for everything. If one wants to serve for his entire life, it is because he wants to do it. A “true” altruist would serve without choice. As long as one can make a choice to serve or not to serve, I do not believe an altruistic act is possible.
Semi-humorous conclusion:
Therefore, I believe the only true altruists are robots without artificial intelligence who can only choose to serve (like a Roomba). Any human or animal or creature with a concept of personal utility is incapable of an altruistic act as defined above.
