Only listening carefully and employing empathy will tell us if a social movement is the result of people's untold pain and suffering from verbal abuse or is simply people being extreme narcissists who believe that they are entitled to freedom from any words that they do not like or approve of. I don't sense that there is much of the latter going on, so I don't see what there is to be scared of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I could be wrong, but I think that it is safe to say that words--as in everyday, ho-hum exchanges, not just the exchange of ideas in political and scholarly contexts--can be very harmful and do a lot of psychological damage. If we acknowledge that words can damage a psyche and cause a lot of suffering just like pollution can damage lungs and cause a lot of suffering, that completely changes the nature of the issue. It takes us from what people do or do not like / approve of to what does or does not harm people and cause avoidable suffering. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
It is not inviolable and I don't see any reason why freedom of speech should be the top of our list of freedoms. — Pseudonym
Hurt feelings can lead to actual harm by psychological trauma or suicide, so there's no question about the possibility. — Pseudonym
Because if you don't have freedom of speech then you might not be able to acquire new or guarantee pre-existing rights. Russia or Uganda will send you to prison for publishing anything construable as pro-gay-propaganda because it suits the feelings of the people (people too stupid to afford democracy the respect it requires), and this is likely setting back acceptance of gays markedly. — VagabondSpectre
I see people using this argument very lightly, and they (you) really shouldn't. If you suspect someone might be a suicide risk, (for example, if them getting their feelings hurt could be their last straw), then serious intervention/assistance should be offered to that person. A part of being free means being responsible for one's self, and merely being offended because of a political opinion that someone else expressed falls well within the "deal with it" category. Democracy requires we tolerate the political opinions of others. — VagabondSpectre
When it comes to outright harassment, we actually have anti-harassment laws which are more than adequate to deal with anyone who consistently emotionally badgers a particular individual. — VagabondSpectre
But even if we do try to determine which political opinions we should outright disallow, do you have any bright ideas? Would you be the one to accept the position of deciding what is o.k and not o.k to express politically? — VagabondSpectre
The black lives matter movement takes the position that violence done to black men by cops is the worst problem facing the black community, — VagabondSpectre
For me to contradict their position is literally and emotionally interpreted by them as racism. — VagabondSpectre
I could choose to say nothing for fear of hurting too many feelings, but if I don't then I think there's a higher chance laws will be passed which are not only counter-productive to the general impoverished black community, but will be outright detrimental to everyone (including them). — VagabondSpectre
If everyone had thicker skin we could have emotional discussions about controversial topics without everyone flying off the objective handle... — VagabondSpectre
You've given me a reason why freedom of speech is an incredibly important right, I asked for a reason why it might be considered more important than any other. Such an argument would require not just the presentation of the bad things that can happen when the right is removed, but a demonstration that they are somehow worse than what happens when any competing rights are removed. That's what I mean by adding some objectivity to this debate, at the moment it's too reliant on polemics. — Pseudonym
If you read my argument carefully, I'm using this form of cause and consequence to indicate that actual harm can result from insult. It's a philosophical point, establishing the parameters of what it is reasonable to argue. This is something which is essential in any professional discussion on ethics, but for doing which I'm constantly being misrepresented on this site. I don't suppose many people here have actually sat on ethics committees, but establishing the parameters is pretty much the first job. I'm merely stating that it is a reasonable proposition that insults can lead to direct physical harm and so a utilitarian approach could reasonably argue that these harms need to be accounted for. I'm not giving psychological advice on how to approach suicide victims. — Pseudonym
I'm not giving psychological advice on how to approach suicide victims. — Pseudonym
Again this is a misleading line of argument in ethics. What we have laws for and what is ethically right/wrong are two entirely different, and often unrelated, things. The argument ethically is whether we have a right to restrict freedom of speech in order to avoid offending people, not whether we have already done so and enshrined such a restriction in law. The law might be wrong, it might not go far enough, or go too far, such discussions are how laws are made/altered in the first place. The question for this debate is whether you agree that anti-harassment laws are morally acceptable. If you do then you have agreed that there are circumstances where someone's right to speak as they see fit is outweighed by the harm it is evidently doing a person. As I said explicitly above, the matter then is a practical one of establishing the harm caused, as we have already agreed on the principle that some harms justify a restriction on free-speech. — Pseudonym
Yes, and yes. That's the duty of any moral agent, we cannot simply absolve responsibility because the question is hard, we have to decide, and it is each person's duty to do so and to do what they can to persuade others of their position (if they think some harm might come from the position others currently hold). I fail to see how our duty to avoid allowing others to suffer could possibly be outweighed by our duty to be humble in the face of our uncertainty on any complicated moral decision. — Pseudonym
this is an objectively verifiable fact, by some metric, they are either right or wrong about this. — Pseudonym
this is surely their prerogative as much as it is yours to state your views, you haven't specified any extent to which they're using force to restrict your freedom of speech here. — Pseudonym
The key here is that you think there is a 'higher chance' of harm from not saying anything. You have made an assessment of the net value of your speech and acted accordingly. That's not the same as saying the people should be allowed to speak as they wish regardless of any such assessment. — Pseudonym
This is a reasonable sentiment, but you've failed to demonstrate either that it is the case, or that 'coddling' as you put is is responsible for the lack of a 'thick skin'. We can approach both issues with psychological experiment and insight, but we cannot simply presume either is the case based on personal experience alone. It is an equally reasonable argument to say that if we lived in a society where people restricted their public expression to show respect for the feelings of others the resultant 'safe' environment would lead to more fruitful, less polemic debates. — Pseudonym
For some people, simply pointing out the logical fallacies in their argument qualifies as being aggressive. As I keep saying it is subjective. There are no objective rules as to what is offensive or not.As un said earlier in the thread, a small group like this forum, or any voluntary society, has rules about people's remarks not being offensive. I'm glad of them; to be frank I find people ruder online than I feel comfortable with, and sometimes I don't even come to this relatively civilised forum because some posters are more aggressive than I can handle.
I quite accept that there is no 'right not to be offended'.
There is nevertheless, among civilised people, normally a tacit rule that one is not rude to others. When people are aggressive in their arguments I suspect their rationality is flimsy. When people insist that their need to express their opinion is more important than their feeling of mutual respect towards other people, I doubt their goodwill. — mcdoodle
Firstly, I did give a reason as to why freedom of speech (and of thought) might be more important than other rights: because it's required to guarantee that we're able to even talk about other rights, let alone fight for them in a democratic system.
Secondly, we're not talking about freedom of speech trumping any other right, we're talking about it trumping "the right to not be offended". — VagabondSpectre
I'm defending political speech, not all possible speech. — VagabondSpectre
Driving a car comes with the risk of accidentally killing pedestrians or one's self, and we could sit around debating whether we should even be given the freedom to drive cars or walk on sidewalks, but it's not pragmatically feasible: we need to drive cars even though it kills people every single day, and we need to express our political opinions even though doing so may indirectly kill people every single day. — VagabondSpectre
So you will get to decide for everyone else what beliefs they are allowed to hold and express, for everyone's own good, because you know best... What happens when someone disagrees? — VagabondSpectre
Perhaps we should all be free to think for ourselves and communicate what we think is right in order to ensure that we can come to un-coerced decisions? That's free speech. — VagabondSpectre
You are being extremely oversimplistic, in my humble opinion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I probably don't agree with you about the kinds of speech it's reasonable to restrict. e.g. I think the racists should be allowed to state their position. We have to live with them either way. Better to know what they're up to and have the chance to talk some of them out of it. I suspect the alternative is much worse. — Roke
Your moniker is well-fitted (friendly tease).In my humble opinion, your concern and the discussion it creates distract us from clearer, but well-obscured, realities. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
That acknowledgement is one of the items under examination.If we acknowledge that words can damage a psyche and cause a lot of suffering — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Not all agree that any mechanism, in this case speech, conveying content causes psychological harm to the point where otherwise "avoidable suffering" occurs. Even if true, does it require action on the part of third parties compelling the speaker to silence in pursuit of the avoidance of the other's "suffering"? I think that there are demonstrable incidents where the socially normative approach (the everyday ho-hum "ignore the haters" approach) is jumping the various "rights" or "action" categories.It takes us from what people do or do not like / approve of to what does or does not harm people and cause avoidable suffering. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
That is true, but it also does not oblige anyone else to do anything about silencing the exchange. The makeup of a differing psychology may already be "damaged" or may be more prone to being "damaged", whereas others may be more well-adjusted or resilient.it is safe to say that words--as in everyday, ho-hum exchanges, not just the exchange of ideas in political and scholarly contexts--can be very harmful and do a lot of psychological damage. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
A softly worded assertion of the truth of relativism?Clearly we can't just dismiss something as not being a right based on limited, biased things like our own culture's traditions, laws and values, even if the consequences scare us. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
So, in other words, would it be fair to say that context is the mechanism which justifies the claim of a right?A right is a justified claim...Rights depend on context. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
So the group consensus as a function of listening skills and empathic capability is the "context" which justifies another's right or the legitimacy of a "movement"? What if there is a dull, selfish, and oblivious population?Only listening carefully and employing empathy will tell us if a social movement is the result of people's untold pain and suffering from verbal abuse... — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Could it also be possible that some members are part of both sets of categories? They are both narcissistic and part of a group that is persecuted? From a psychological approach, narcissism tends to be a dominant strategy in social hierarchies, especially newly formed ones with little sense or history of unified identities, which translates to (under certain conditions), the narcisissists getting to make the rules and/or make the demands for and/or give the communications for everyone else within the same group. Could that become, under certain circumstances, detrimental to both the bulk of remaining members of the persecuted group as well as for members outside of that group? It is with that dynamic that I think the original OP was written and don't find it to be simplistic at all in theory or practice. I think it is closely linked to the problem of "intolerant tolerance" and "tolerating intolerance" and what forms both concepts take in social structure and interaction....or is simply people being extreme narcissists who believe that they are entitled to freedom from any words that they do not like or approve of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Free speech is a pre-requisite to reasonably evaluate and uphold other rights. It's the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods. — Roke
It's not possible to allow all reasonable claims while preventing all unreasonable claims. So, we have to be able to deal with unreasonable claims. What chance does a confused person have at being corrected if we prevent them from articulating their beliefs?Firstly, that we should 'reasonably evaluate' rights. How are we going to enforce a 'reasonable' evaluation without preventing people from making claims which are unreasonable? — Pseudonym
I don't see how we'll determine which discussions are good and which are bad if they don't take place to begin with?Second, that this is "the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods". What cause do you have to believe that all discussions on rights are necessary to achieve social goods. — Pseudonym
I'm not following your argument that a "discussion" is automatically necessary before arriving at a moral decision. I already know racism is bad, I don't need to discuss it beforehand, nor did I need to be taught it by discussion. — Pseudonym
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.