Freedom of speech is objective morality

[Marvin_Edwards]

...I recall asking the other participants to remind me if I attempted to make the same argument again, because it was very possible that I would forget what I had decided.

Fair enough. Good example.

But I often find it hard following what Terrapin is complaining about. He'll ask a one sentence question, and I have to figure out where the heck he's coming from, and often I'll guess wrong. Then he'll jump on it and try to make me look stupid. I don't feel that he is playing a fair hand of cards. I often feel like he's out to ambush me rather than trying to clarify something.

In theory, the solution to the above would be "simply take that one sentence question at face value and don't assume an agenda behind it". ...

Been there. Done that.

[Marvin_Edwards]

No. It would not. If you have something to say, then say it. Stop prancing around trying to get me to say it for you. You're leaving me with the impression that you really have nothing to say, or that you're afraid to say it because you will be challenged in return.

It would be simpler because we wouldn't still be talking about it.

What I said was if facts were true statements, then if there were no people and a tree fell in a forest producing a thud, that would not be a fact.

Do you agree with that?

I've answered your question. My answer was that (a) you and I are two people discussing what a fact is and what it is not, b) when a tree falls in the forest it will produce a thud, even if no one is around to hear it, and that, my friend, (c) is a statement of fact.

Now, you insist upon asking me whether I agree that "if there were no people and a tree fell in a forest producing a thud, that would not be a fact". Your question creates a paradox, because if there were no people, then you and I would not be having this conversation in which I made the factual statement about the tree and the thud.

Your question has been answered. But your paradox has no answer, because it is a paradox. And, by the way, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

[Terrapin Station]

In theory, the solution to the above would be "simply take that one sentence question at face value and don't assume an agenda behind it".

Exactly.

What I'm usually doing is simply asking a question that occurs to me because of something that someone said, where I think something like, "Wait, if such and such, then doesn't that imply this?" Or "How does that work given x, or if x?"

So it's sort of an invitation to either (a) make what I'm wondering about explicit, so that one more fully presents one's views to others in a way that won't lead to those sorts of questions, or (b) to think more about the question at hand, because maybe what struck me wasn't something that the person considered themselves, and that might lead to needing to revise views in light of the logical issue.

So for example, with (a) we can get to the point where the person makes it clear that they're using terms like "moral" and "morally right," "morally wrong" to refer to any situation where one course of action would be recommended over another (so that it's "morally right" on their view to push the "m" key first when they want to type the word "moral"), and for example with (b), we might get to a point where a revised definition of "fact" would be proposed, because maybe the person wouldn't want to say that there are no facts if no people exist. (But who knows on that one--the person needs to consider that question and address it first--maybe instead they'd wind up saying something more unusual, like confirming that they do indeed use the word "fact" in a way so that no facts would exist if no people did--hence asking questions such as I do.)

So, in other words, the questions are more of an invitation for folks to make sure that they've crossed all of their t's and dotted all of their i's in their views/in the presentation of their views, which is something we should be aiming for as philosophers. We want to present views that make sense "internally," views that are consistent/coherent with respect to the entirety of the view, and where we demonstrate that we've considered and are able to address all sorts of objections.

[Terrapin Station]

It would be simpler because we wouldn't still be talking about it.

What I said was if facts were true statements, then if there were no people and a tree fell in a forest producing a thud, that would not be a fact.

Do you agree with that?

I've answered your question. My answer was that (a) you and I are two people discussing what a fact is and what it is not,

Which is NOT answering the issue. Because you're then ignoring the "IF no people existed" part, and that's the whole crux of the issue. "You and I are two people discussing" isn't consistent with "IF no people existed." You and I existing are not the scenario of no people existing.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, I'm not presenting anything like a paradox. It's simply urging you to address the definition you suggested in the context of what seems to be conventional connotations of a term that don't mesh with the definition you suggested. If that's really the definition you use, then you should be comfortable with the oddity relative to conventional usage. Otherwise you might need to reconsider the definition you use if you're not comfortable with that.

[Pattern-chaser]

In these circumstances, why can nobody ever say something along the lines of "Oh! So I did! Silly me! My mistake."

Sound advice to us all! ☺

[Pattern-chaser]

Terrapin, your statement that "'good' is an individual assessment' is an assertion; do you have any argument for this? Quite to the contrary; there is a high degree of consensus that vomiting one's guts out or involuntary convulsions, etc, are not 'good'.

It isn't the blackest (or whitest) cases that illustrate the point, it's the ones in the grey area. And, in this case, the grey area is huge, reflecting the non-objective nature of the issue under discussion. There is no real consensus here.

[Pattern-chaser]

In your view, what does it mean for freedom of speech to be "logical"?

It should be expressed with reasoning, thoughts, explanation, questioning that can be proved right or wrong.

In other words, you are placing boundaries and constraints on speech, while also arguing that it should be free (of boundaries and constraints?). I'm confused.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I've answered your question. My answer was that (a) you and I are two people discussing what a fact is and what it is not,

Which is NOT answering the issue. Because you're then ignoring the "IF no people existed" part, and that's the whole crux of the issue. "You and I are two people discussing" isn't consistent with "IF no people existed." You and I existing are not the scenario of no people existing.

I've answered your question. You're not satisfied with my answer. There's nothing I can do about that.

[Pattern-chaser]

@Philo_stone

A technical point about posting: When replying to people (especially replying to several people in the same post) I suggest you either tag their name with an '@' symbol in front of it (as I did with your name above) or quote them, using the quote tag, and add "=their name" within the opening quote tag. If you don't do that then there's a higher likelihood that they won't notice that you've replied to them.

Good advice, to which I offer this addition. You can also display a poster's name thus: [ mention ]Steve3007[ /mention ] displays as Steve3007 when we remove the spaces inside the square brackets.

Your way is quicker and easier, though. I'll probably do it this way in the future. Thanks.

[Terrapin Station]

Which is NOT answering the issue. Because you're then ignoring the "IF no people existed" part, and that's the whole crux of the issue. "You and I are two people discussing" isn't consistent with "IF no people existed." You and I existing are not the scenario of no people existing.

I've answered your question. You're not satisfied with my answer. There's nothing I can do about that.

If the question is about the scenario in which no people exist, then responding where you talk about people who exist isn't addressing the scenario.

[Philo_stone]

I find freedom of speech when logical always lead to greater good and suppressing it spread immoral and evil culture and beliefs.

In your view, what does it mean for freedom of speech to be "logical"?

It should be expressed with reasoning, thoughts, explanation, questioning that can be proved right or wrong. So if any speech is of this nature then it's likely to lead to greater good, even if it is wrong, as other people can prove it wrong and the truth may come from their side. Truth don't lead to bad of society as a whole, and this is basic assumption here which I found to be correct.

Suppression of speech is always due to evil and immoral practices that people need to be protected to keep their ego intact. Also to hide some of their weaknesses, or fulfill selfish gains.

I disagree with the word "always" and I think even most ardent advocates of free speech probably would too. See the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exemplar as a starting point.

I think phrase "free speech" doesn't fit perfectly with my notion of Freedom of speech. It sounds like anyone can talk any kind of rubbish without any reasoning, questioning, explanation etc. I think shouting fire in a crowded theatre should not be considered under freedom of speech. It is just the ability to speak. It has no value in search or finding of truth or something right, which can lead to greater good. It is something we cannot suppress but can punish and such things are legal offence already.

On the other hand when we talk about freedom of speech or suppression of speech, knowingly or unknowingly we talk about speech that has a value because that kind of speech only can be suppressed and nothing else. It is because this kind of speech is thoughtful questioning or answering, or explanation, which is easy to suppress, and not everyone talk like that.

[Philo_stone]

The value of freedom of speech comes from its utility in conveying truth. The value of truth comes from its role in keeping us in touch with reality, such that we can deal more effectively with it.

Exactly. By this way freedom of speech help reducing evil and immorality. By suppressing speech immoral and evil people try to project their view point without any opposition in the name of speech being disrespectful, hurtful etc. There's little common psychology here, which you need to try understanding to get my point clear. People with wrong ideology, weak position always suppress strong position, new ideas that can change.

So, we should not be so free as to lie, deceive, manipulate, or otherwise cause unnecessary harm to others by our speech. 

We cannot suppress all these things anyway, so I see no point talking about these. It's already a punishable offence if it's not bringing any positive good change due to its assertive nature or illogical expression, instead creating trouble for some people. Moreover suppressing logically explanatory speech help these things to become even more widespread.

These things have no moral value. We can't suppress lying, manipulation, deception while suppressing speech help these things becoming more widespread. I hope I am making my point amply clear.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I've answered your question. You're not satisfied with my answer. There's nothing I can do about that.

If the question is about the scenario in which no people exist, then responding where you talk about people who exist isn't addressing the scenario.

And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement. The problem, as I see it, is that you are not hearing my answers. They do not lead to where you thought they should lead. So, you reject it. I cannot make you see what you have closed your mind to. So, perhaps another time. But we're done here for this thread.

[Terrapin Station]

If the question is about the scenario in which no people exist, then responding where you talk about people who exist isn't addressing the scenario.

And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement. The problem, as I see it, is that you are not hearing my answers. They do not lead to where you thought they should lead. So, you reject it. I cannot make you see what you have closed your mind to. So, perhaps another time. But we're done here for this thread.

What's paradoxical about it?