something can be done to curtail future abuses — Fooloso4
What different system do you imagine can be put in place to establish the falsity of a claim before it is published (and the damage done)? — Isaac
One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.
So it is with all acts of censorship — NOS4A2
What’s wrong with free speech absolutism?
they will be more cautious and diligent in establishing the truth of their accusations and allegations. — Fooloso4
What’s wrong with free speech absolutism? — NOS4A2
So I am a truth and honesty absolutist — unenlightened
The issue under discussion is whether there should be deterrents. The effectiveness of deterrents remains to be seen. — Fooloso4
I have no idea what this means. Truth is only useful as a concept if all misrepresentations count as the opposite of it. We do not possess a version of events beyond attempts to recount them. Reporting a false narrative is often done for the purpose of suppressing another.
My point is that the truth is a standard that must be protected. — Fooloso4
What I got from your post that is of concern to me is that attaining that truth via information by the media is an epistemological nightmare. Did you not say that, too? — god must be atheist
What happens to hypothesis? Art? All that’s left is dogma. — NOS4A2
So government employees ought be allowed to share military intelligence with foreign nations? — Michael
What is needed is more reliable information, more factual information. — Fooloso4
One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.
So it is with all acts of censorship
— NOS4A2
That doesn't follow.
What’s wrong with free speech absolutism?
Given that your reasoning appears based on a utilitarian principle, a simple argument against free speech absolutism is that there is at least once case where more is gained than lost by censorship. Perhaps the sharing of military intelligence with a foreign nation is one such example. — Michael
I know you don't believe in an information-dystopia, but you described its workings beautifully. — god must be atheist
We can never know if an act of censorship protected us from the ill effects we were told would befall us should no act of censorship occur. In the case of Socrates, we can never know if his censorship saved the youth from corruption after all. So we are unable to judge whether the act of censorship was morally good. — NOS4A2
I’m not a utilitarian. — NOS4A2
What we do know is the act of censorship itself, in this case killing a man and violating his most basic rights, so we can judge that it was morally bad. — NOS4A2
This seems like an appeal to ignorance. I would say that something can be morally good even if we do not, or cannot, know that it is morally good.
Then why, in a defence of free speech, did you say “one can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.” That seems a quite obvious utilitarian defence.
You cannot say whether the act saved us or not from what you promised it would. Without this knowledge how can you say it was morally good? — NOS4A2
I said it because I’m confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever had been gained by his silencing. We have the act itself, the murder of Socrates, and thus the loss of his creativity and production, so no chance of him conversing about virtue any longer. — NOS4A2
By saying it? I might not know it to be true, but something being true doesn’t depend on me knowing it.
I don’t know that aliens exist, but I can say that they do and I might be right.
So? If you follow this up with “therefore it was wrong” then you’re a utilitarian. If you don’t follow it up with “therefore it was wrong” then it isn’t an argument in favour of free speech absolutism.
You did phrase it as a utilitarian argument. Maybe you made a whoopsie. But I take the logic of your position as deontological not utilitarian, i.e. "It is wrong in principle, regardless of circumstances, to ever compromise on free speech." Another way of saying free speech is the greatest good. No need to dress it up.
It was morally wrong to murder Socrates and morally right to leave him alive because murdering someone just in case is morally wrong — NOS4A2
As for military secrets, I’m not sure violating one’s obligations to one’s employer, stealing their information, and giving it to their enemies constitutes an act of speech. — NOS4A2
That’s why I added, and you removed, “ because violating his rights just in case is morally wrong”. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.