There is a difference between right and wrong. Right? Well, we assume there is, so most of us would not be terribly cruel even if we could get away with it. At the same time, many of us love to play the skeptic citing subjective emotions and arbitrary habits as reasons for even our strongest convictions. It is as if we don’t take ourselves quite seriously, at one moment claiming to be right and at the next shrugging it off as just another whim. We say that x is right and are willing to die fighting for it, but in the abstract we deny the rightness of any xs and leave everyone to pursue their personal taste in indifferent liberty. This is inconsistent, to put it mildly.
If something is right, it is absolutely right, or else the term would be meaningless. A mathematical equation has a definite answer based on the principle of mathematics, and if there are no such principles, there is no answer at all – not even an approximate or tentative one. Now, the field of ethics is a lot more complicated than mathematics: In practical life there are always myriads of indeterminate variables floating around making the quest for absolute certainty impossible in practice. Nevertheless, we must assume there exists a possible answer to the question “What is the right thing to do?” or else we would not be looking for it. “Should I kill this enemy of mine?” you ask. I am not so liberal that I magnanimously shrug my shoulders and declare that that is perfectly up to you. Whether or not it is morally permissible for you to kill him, the question has a right answer. It may be hidden from us, but it is necessary that we look for it and we must believe that it exists, or else why are you asking it at all?
It is true that other types of considerations do not admit of objective answers, one thing may be as subjectively beneficial or pleasing to you as another, but an ethical question has the property of some general validity and as such it is in the realm objectivity; it is assuming that a person in the exact same situation as you are ought to do the same as whatever you ought to do.
But to make such a claim, which in fact all of us frequently do, there needs to be a firm foundation for it – not necessarily as something explicitly formulated in our consciousness, but at least as an implicit prerequisite. Just like mathematics has its elementary premises that gives truth to a calculation, ethics must also have a basis if we are to make judgments that are more than a fleeting hunch.
But can such a thing exist? It has to, or else the ground under our feet would disappear and we might as well stop caring about anything. There would be no real reason to be ethical at all. To ask “Why be ethical?” is to ask for the foundation of ethics.
Hate speech is also speech, and if speech is to be free, so must hate speech. Only if there is a difference between the meaning of the simple word “speech” in those two instances, can it logically be argued that the one connected with hate should be forbidden.
Clearly, speech is not simply speech in either case. That is, it is not just about the utterance of words by means of the vocal cords. Also, it is not meant to protect the use of any words in any circumstance, like falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, revealing trade secrets or impolitely interrupting a toastmaster. The whole point of free speech is that any opinion is to be tolerated by the government. Whatever anyone thinks about any issue, they should be allowed to express it without being met with state sanctions. Other kinds of talking that are not about any general issue potentially concerning a wider public, like private slander against one’s next door neighbor, cannot be considered opinions and therefore cannot demand protection.
What then about so-called hate speech? Sure, it may sound like slander, but it is usually not private. Insulting entire groups of people, however reprehensible, may still be an expression of an opinion. Even going so far as to call for a genocide is an opinion as long as it is not a part of the actual planning and execution of such an atrocity. Saying that members of certain ethnic groups are inferior, is also an articulation of an opinion no matter how awful most of us think it is. If we mean anything by free speech, we must allow it to be said.
People hate each other, and hate is an awful thing. Banning it sounds like a nice Utopian idea, but if we do, we’ll have to give up the idea of free speech.
The tolerance of free speech seems unlimited, until it reaches its limit. Anything imaginable is allowed to be published, any meaningless utterance, random picture, anything that may offend intolerant religions and uncultured people. We in the West know what tolerance is, and since we have the power, we insist on teaching them a lesson. The bully refuses to be bullied.
But since we know what tolerance is, we don’t tolerate intolerance. No one is allowed to pronounce words that show disrespect for certain people; that is called hate speech, and such we cannot accept. The free speech has reached its limit.
Now, I don’t have any sympathy for derogatory remarks about minority groups and foreigners, but if free speech really meant anything, such opinions, although distasteful, must also be permitted. As long as they are actual opinions, articulated in an understandable language, it qualifies as speech and must be free.
Let’s say someone claims that immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa spread disease in Europe. That is probably a racist remark, and completely untrue, at least according to my information, but free speech was never meant only to protect truth. If that were the case, a totalitarian state punishing “untrue” agitation against the government, would be a champion of free speech. It also shouldn’t matter if all the scientists in the world were against such an opinion. It has happened before that a lone inventor has introduced a new theory that was first condemned and later accepted, so if we were honest about this principle, nothing, even the most outrageous opinion, can be suppressed. Maybe it’s an expression of hatred (it probably is), maybe it has no scientific foundation (it probably hasn’t), but who am I to say.
An opinion is speech since it can be formulated with words. Contrast that to a picture that is just offensive without expressing an opinion about anything.
The spirit of free speech does not extend to the right to use so-called bad and offensive language. That is not to say that swearing and cursing should be outlawed, far from it, it just serves to show that free speech is not about speech. I personally have no problem with swearwords and some may even occasionally pass my lips, but I don’t insist on my essential right to utter profanities, since I don’t really mean anything when I say it. Neither do I demand my absolute right to step on people’s toes or other activities that would give me no particular gratification. A principle is never for the sake of principle, and everything that is allowed is not an invitation to do it.
But when I have a real opinion about something, I feel the urge to express it in a deeper sense than I am drawn towards ice cream and f-words. An idea is something inside me that wants to come out, and for it to be a proper need, it must be something real. If I don’t understand the meaning of my own utterance, it is hardly anything I can’t do without.
It’s difficult to have a law against blasphemy in modern secular society, but that doesn’t mean it should be protected or encouraged. The attitude in some circles of the enlightened West have been to challenge the narrowmindedness of the Eastern Muslims by pronouncing words or showing pictures that are known to provoke a reaction. By such action they are not exercising their freedom of speech since their “speech” has no meaning for them. They are evidently not expressing any ideas of their own and accordingly they have no need of either support or protection.
Freedom of speech only protects what can be conceived as speech, that is, words that have a meaning for the speaker.
Freedom of opinion is immensely valuable. Freedom of speech, if opinion is excluded, is nothing. Freedom of images, if no opinion is expressed, is debatable.
It is true that it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference, and then it’s better to err on the more generous side, but this is not meant to suggest practical advice but only to get an idea of what it is that actually makes this revered freedom valuable, not as an empty principle, but as something that makes sense.
We want everyone to be able to express their opinion so that society has access to many viewpoints and the citizens are better equipped in their own search for what is right. It both serves a purpose for society as a whole and for the individual. Also, the elementary personal sense of freedom from oppression by being able to express ideas that come to mind, is essential. This constitutes freedom of thought and that’s the only freedom that must be considered innate in the absolute sense, since nothing can be more properly private.
But an output of just anything that doesn’t even have a meaning to the person blurting it out, has no value either to society or the person himself. If you are not expressing an opinion of some sort, you are not expressing anything. Any statement that cannot somehow be called true or false, is essentially meaningless. Why then would you insist on your freedom to say nothing?
You might think that no one could possibly mind your shouting out your nothingness, but what if they do? A picture that constitutes no statement about anything can still be considered offensive and there is no reason to offend people if nothing else is to be gained from your action. We need no freedom to provoke.
The spirit of the law is often different from the letter of the law since it may be difficult to capture the former in dry paragraphs aiming to spell out clearly what can and what cannot be done. It then often happens that the idea behind the law gets confused and even forgotten, and the rules take the form of petrified principles that must be obeyed at any cost without knowing why anymore. The noble principle of free speech has suffered this fate. Whenever that label has been placed on an action no one would dare to condemn it.
It is of course commonly understood that free speech is not about speech in the literal sense. The use of vocal cords is obviously not necessary, writing serves the same purpose, and so does a number of other means of expression that don’t even use words. If a picture can say more than a thousand words, a picture is also a form of speech, and soon you find yourself arguing that any photograph or drawing should be allowed based on the principle of free speech.
Maybe any picture should indeed be permitted, but in that case, it must be justified by some other principle than the one discussed here. It is called freedom of speech, but that name inaccurately expresses its spirit even in the extended sense. There was never a point in defending the right to say just anything, to allow any meaningless combination of words or images. Shouting and screaming and incoherent rambling may pose no threat to anyone, but no particular benefit is to be gained from it either, neither for society nor for the person engaged in such utterances. What is valuable, and what society should always protect, both for the benefit of the community and the individual, is the freedom of opinion. When a “speech” whatever form it takes actually expresses some sort of opinion, then it addresses the spirit of free speech.
The right to free speech is not given us by nature. Mill’s argument is entirely utilitarian, claiming that society will be better off if it grants its members this freedom. He may or may not be right about that, maybe restricting speech would actually make a society healthier, but we will not go into that. We will just assume that free speech is beneficial. But what could speech possible consist of that would make it conceivable that society could benefit from it?
Freedom of speech is a misnomer. What is actually meant, and the thing society needs, is freedom of opinion, or the right to express any opinion whatsoever in the public space. If an expression cannot somehow be reduced to an opinion, there is no particular reason why the state should protect it, at least not based on the same principle. Should any word be allowed, any picture, any piece of art? Maybe, but the principle of free speech is often not a relevant reason to allow it.
Let’s take the example of pornography. There may be good arguments why a state should not ban it, but the principle of free speech is not one of them. Pornography does not in any way express an opinion about anything. It’s images that some find offensive and some do not, and the debate between them must evolve around very different principles.
Freedom of opinion, once it has been accepted as a valid principle, must override any other concerns, and to consider an opinion as offensive is certainly not something that can be used to silence its expression. Any, if not all opinions are potentially offensive and if protection against offense had the highest priority, freedom of opinion would effectively be eliminated. Still, probably no one would argue that all kinds of offense should be tolerated, and if can be demonstrated that no actual opinion is expressed while offending, the action may be punishable.
To be continued
Freedom of speech is not about speech, not in the literal sense of course. Writing and other means of expression are obviously included; no one makes a mistake about that. Still, there is a considerable confusion about what constitutes “speech”. Any sight and sound that a person can produce is sometimes counted since people tend to focus on the mere principle of this freedom rather than the underlying intention. At the same time certain utterances that without doubt are instances of speech (hate speech for instance) are to be excluded from the otherwise generous liberty. This is what happens when the original meaning and argument for freedom of speech is not fully understood, and it is what often happens when an idea has grown old and becomes a habitually accepted truth. It is taken for granted and religiously revered and the mere resemblance of the cherished object is worshiped and moved beyond criticism. The only remedy for this is always to navigate back to the starting point and try to examine the thing with the untainted eyes of a child for whom all ideas are fresh and unspoiled. Where then does this idea of free speech come from. What is the meaning of it all?
Here I don’t want to argue the case of free speech versus unfree speech. I happen to think that free speech is a good thing, but I will not try to explain its advantages. John Stuart Mill’s famous essay “On Liberty” does that admirably and his arguments are generally accepted in the Western world. He may still be wrong of course, but I will not go into that old debate now. Let’s just assume that freedom of speech is a good thing and move on from there. There is still a big question remaining about what this thing really is. Granted that it is good in general, we must figure out what it makes sense to include in this good.
To be continued
The self needs succor. Nothing can uphold itself without support from outside.
Even the freest eagle hovering in the sky and gliding effortlessly without any visible support, uses the winds and the currents to keep its arrogant height and when the wings are tired it rests in a tree rooted in the firm ground. And it can’t stay a lonely bird for long; a spouse, equally haughty, condescends to provide a nest where it can find succor for itself.
Even the lone wolf, the romantic ideal of a self-sufficient hunter, is a grumpy creature. It trots along the fields, suspiciously eying anything that may infringe on its domain and selfishly guarding its dead prey. At night it cries to the moon for succor.
Even man, the most beastly of all animals, is helpless. In fact, he is more lost in the world than any other species and is in almost constant need for someone to come to his rescue. Such a proud creature with such an inflated sense of individuality, and yet he would soon succumb without the most basic support. Not only are his newborn offspring utterly defenseless but also the grown specimen is a weakling when left to himself. He arms himself with tools that are foreign to him and builds a shelter to protect his fragile shell. He helps himself to what is external to him but fails to find sufficient help in all that nature offers.
He himself needs help. She herself needs succor. They themselves are nothing in themselves.
A mind seeks another mind. It delights in objects, sure. It is amused by tasks and puzzles, right. But more than anything it desires confirmation. It must believe that it is not alone among those lifeless things.
The self needs another self. The self needs succor.
Your Daily Word Prompt – #Succor – #YDWordPrompt July 8, 2020
Everything seems to be an obligation. Our life is so full of duties that every waking hour appears to be presenting us with inflexible demands. Do this, you must, you have to! Stay here, go there, be quiet, speak! The rules and laws of our authorities are always valid, and only the unconsciousness sleep gives brief nights of relief.
There can’t be an escape if our obligations are loaded on us from the moment of our birth. If humans have all these strict duties just because they are humans, we will necessarily always fall short of the requirements and for a conscientious person life must be misery.
How can we possibly come even close to obeying all those commandments that the moralists heap on us? The world is so full of suffering and we are all responsible for it. There isn’t a starving child in Africa that is outside of your personal domain of duty and should you ever fail to recycle a piece of plastic, you will be held accountable for the earth’s environmental disaster.
Mere humans that we are, we can always do better, but to perceive our shortcomings as failed obligations is hardly very encouraging. After all, if our duties cannot be fulfilled anyway, why bother? They are abstract demands that keep expanding whether they are obeyed or not. The greater and more overwhelming they appear, the blurrier and more meaningless they become. We might as well ignore them then. They are not real.
We don’t have to do anything. We don’t have to have obligations, but most of us have acquired them voluntarily. We were not born with duties since we didn’t choose to be born, so it would be possible to escape it all and run into the wilderness where no one can demand anything of us. But if we choose company, we are obliged to observe our part of the tacit agreement. For the rest, let’s just do our best.
Your Daily Word Prompt – #Oblige – #YDWordPrompt July 7, 2020
A Bear - Poles Apart 