Freedom of speech is objective morality

[Steve3007]

You can't decide for someone else if something is good for them. They must decide for themselves. The only way to know the "greater good" is to poll people. "Is x good or bad?" If a majority say it's good, then that's the "greater good." No other interpretation holds water, because "good" is an individual assessment.

"What is good" is an individual assessment in the same sense that "what is moral" is. Hence I took the first paragraph to be simply defining "moral" as "good" and not saying anything about majorities. But, yes, maybe "greater" implies that. I suppose we need Philo_stone to clear this up for us.

[Terrapin Station]

You can't decide for someone else if something is good for them. They must decide for themselves. The only way to know the "greater good" is to poll people. "Is x good or bad?" If a majority say it's good, then that's the "greater good." No other interpretation holds water, because "good" is an individual assessment.

"What is good" is an individual assessment in the same sense that "what is moral" is. Hence I took the first paragraph to be simply defining "moral" as "good" and not saying anything about majorities. But, yes, maybe "greater" implies that. I suppose we need Philo_stone to clear this up for us.

"The greater good" almost always refers to the wider community, "the public good," a consensus, etc. He could have been using that term differently, of course, but there was no indication of that. Usually it's an allusion to utilitarianism.

[Steve3007]

Fair point.

[Marvin_Edwards]

But the location of the notion that some of the inventory is inside refrigerators and the notion that some of it is not, is inside your head. So are you speaking of "objective" facts or just your "subjective" opinion?

All notions are inside our heads, sure. Any fact about minds is a subjective fact. "Subjective" there is simply saying that we're talking about the location of brains-functioning-as-minds (well, or whatever else might function as minds, too). "Subjective" doesn't amount to "opinion but not a fact."

It's just like if we had these two terms: frigative and thermative, where frigative meant "of or in a refrigerator" and thermative referred to the complement--everything not in or of a refrigerator. Saying that there is milk in the refrigerator would be a frigative fact. That's all we're saying by saying that "notions are inside our heads is a subjective fact." We're noting that it's a fact about minds that notions only occur in them.

Technically, any fact about minds is an objective fact. Facts are always objective. A statement asserting a fact is an objective statement, even when it is false ("it is a fact that 2 = 3" is objective, but false). Opinions are subjective.

[Count Lucanor]

I think people will agree that anything which leads to greater good is moral and anything which hinders it is immoral.

The problem is that before reaching that consensus, people will have to agree first what is a greater good. And I'm afraid that is always an historical convention. Freedom of speech is no exception.

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

Whether it's parents suppressing the speech of a child, husband suppressing wife, teacher suppressing student, or clerics suppressing adherents, it always lead to something immoral.

There freedom of speech is always helpful to achieve greater good.

What's your thoughts on this?

All of this applies only to one particular historical convention. It may the dominant one, but it is still a convention.

[Terrapin Station]

All notions are inside our heads, sure. Any fact about minds is a subjective fact. "Subjective" there is simply saying that we're talking about the location of brains-functioning-as-minds (well, or whatever else might function as minds, too). "Subjective" doesn't amount to "opinion but not a fact."

It's just like if we had these two terms: frigative and thermative, where frigative meant "of or in a refrigerator" and thermative referred to the complement--everything not in or of a refrigerator. Saying that there is milk in the refrigerator would be a frigative fact. That's all we're saying by saying that "notions are inside our heads is a subjective fact." We're noting that it's a fact about minds that notions only occur in them.

Technically, any fact about minds is an objective fact. Facts are always objective. A statement asserting a fact is an objective statement, even when it is false ("it is a fact that 2 = 3" is objective, but false). Opinions are subjective.

If x refers to mentality then a fact about mentality is an x fact, correct?

[Marvin_Edwards]

Technically, any fact about minds is an objective fact. Facts are always objective. A statement asserting a fact is an objective statement, even when it is false ("it is a fact that 2 = 3" is objective, but false). Opinions are subjective.

If x refers to mentality then a fact about mentality is an x fact, correct?

No. A fact, about anything, about apples or thoughts, is still an objective fact. "I was thinking of an apple" is just as much an objective fact as "I was eating an apple".

[h_k_s]

I think people will agree that anything which leads to greater good is moral and anything which hinders it is immoral. I find freedom of speech when logical always lead to greater good and suppressing it spread immoral and evil culture and beliefs. 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.

Whether it's parents suppressing the speech of a child, husband suppressing wife, teacher suppressing student, or clerics suppressing adherents, it always lead to something immoral.

There freedom of speech is always helpful to achieve greater good.

What's your thoughts on this?

Do you think all people will agree with that?

Do you think the CCP Politburo in Beijing will agree?

Do you think Kim Jong-Un will?

Think again.

[Steve3007]

Technically, any fact about minds is an objective fact. Facts are always objective. A statement asserting a fact is an objective statement, even when it is false ("it is a fact that 2 = 3" is objective, but false). Opinions are subjective....

...No. A fact, about anything, about apples or thoughts, is still an objective fact. "I was thinking of an apple" is just as much an objective fact as "I was eating an apple".

How does this sound: Objective means "about objects". Subjective means "about subjects". "I like apples" is about me. "Apples are red" is about apples.

How do you like them apples?

[Marvin_Edwards]

Technically, any fact about minds is an objective fact. Facts are always objective. A statement asserting a fact is an objective statement, even when it is false ("it is a fact that 2 = 3" is objective, but false). Opinions are subjective....

...No. A fact, about anything, about apples or thoughts, is still an objective fact. "I was thinking of an apple" is just as much an objective fact as "I was eating an apple".

How does this sound: Objective means "about objects". Subjective means "about subjects". "I like apples" is about me. "Apples are red" is about apples.

How do you like them apples?

That would be incorrect. "Objectivity" is a measure of the correspondence of a statement about reality with reality. Objectivity is increased by multiple diverse observations. I see the apple, I smell the apple, I taste the apple, I feel the apple, and so on, all increase the objectivity of my observations. Within science the same principle applies. Multiple independent observers make observations, conduct different experiments, and do whatever else scientist do, to confirm that the hypothesis is more than just one guy's subjective opinion.

[Terrapin Station]

If x refers to mentality then a fact about mentality is an x fact, correct?

No. A fact, about anything, about apples or thoughts, is still an objective fact. "I was thinking of an apple" is just as much an objective fact as "I was eating an apple".

So let's say that x refers to canines. We have the fact that dog's wet noses aid them in detecting scent molecules. Isn't that an x fact? In other words, isn't that a canine fact?

[Marvin_Edwards]

No. A fact, about anything, about apples or thoughts, is still an objective fact. "I was thinking of an apple" is just as much an objective fact as "I was eating an apple".

So let's say that x refers to canines. We have the fact that dog's wet noses aid them in detecting scent molecules. Isn't that an x fact? In other words, isn't that a canine fact?

"Canine fact"? There are facts about canines, but there are no "canine facts". There are facts about our mental experiences which are not themselves mental experiences (other than storing them in our memory).

So, where is this merry chase leading us?

[chewybrian]

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.

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

When speech is used to create unnecessary harm it is objectively immoral. When speech is used to benefit everyone then it is objectively moral.

There is a middle ground of foolishness and ignorance. You should have the right to be wrong, to be foolish or wishful, if there is no intent to deceive others and/or cause harm. When the facts are unclear, or you are unaware of them, sometimes you just have to learn the hard way. Even if you never learn, it seems like a defacto right to be an idiot (perhaps a treasured right here in the states). That is a blurry line, but if you punish stupidity we could not build jails fast enough.

[Terrapin Station]

So let's say that x refers to canines. We have the fact that dog's wet noses aid them in detecting scent molecules. Isn't that an x fact? In other words, isn't that a canine fact?

"Canine fact"? There are facts about canines, but there are no "canine facts". There are facts about our mental experiences which are not themselves mental experiences (other than storing them in our memory).

So, where is this merry chase leading us?

Do you not think that facts are states of affairs?

[Marvin_Edwards]

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.

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

When speech is used to create unnecessary harm it is objectively immoral. When speech is used to benefit everyone then it is objectively moral.

There is a middle ground of foolishness and ignorance. You should have the right to be wrong, to be foolish or wishful, if there is no intent to deceive others and/or cause harm. When the facts are unclear, or you are unaware of them, sometimes you just have to learn the hard way. Even if you never learn, it seems like a defacto right to be an idiot (perhaps a treasured right here in the states). That is a blurry line, but if you punish stupidity we could not build jails fast enough.

Amen.