Freedom of speech is objective morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 690
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Pattern-chaser » May 18th, 2020, 10:18 am

Ecurb wrote:
May 17th, 2020, 5:20 pm
Here are some restrictions to Freedom of Speech that many people support...
Quite so. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute thing or a right. It's a compromise. Freedom of Speech, in practice, is our attempt to keep speech as free as we can, but within certain limits that we prescribe. So no hate speech, etc., but pretty much everything else is OK? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 438
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 12:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 9:47 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 17th, 2020, 7:47 pm


But there is a person. Me. And I am making the statement of fact that the tree falling in the forest still makes a thud even though no one is there to hear it. Now, if you and I did not exist, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place. And that's a fact.
"If there were no people" -- aren't you capable of contemplating that hypothetical?
Not if it traps me in a loop. But feel free to set another.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3071
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 18th, 2020, 1:12 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 12:46 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 9:47 am


"If there were no people" -- aren't you capable of contemplating that hypothetical?
Not if it traps me in a loop. But feel free to set another.
You should be able to follow your claims to wherever they logically lead, and if they lead to a problem, you should make an adjustment. That's intellectual honesty as opposed to salesmanship.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1719
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Sculptor1 » May 18th, 2020, 3:22 pm

Philo_stone wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 11:56 pm
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?
Of all the dumb attempts to saddle morality with objectivity, this is the most ridiculous.
This post is absurd for a number of reason.
What is "good"? (objectively)
What is meant by "the greater good"?(objectively)
And what makes you think that, in all cases, freedom of speech is good?
DO you even know what objective means??

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 438
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 1:12 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 12:46 pm


Not if it traps me in a loop. But feel free to set another.
You should be able to follow your claims to wherever they logically lead, and if they lead to a problem, you should make an adjustment. That's intellectual honesty as opposed to salesmanship.
Ah, back to name-calling. If there is a real problem in my argument, then spell it out. But I'll not follow you down just any old alley.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 » May 18th, 2020, 5:16 pm

viewtopic.php?p=358317#p358317
Steve3007 wrote:So are facts true statements or not?
Marvin_Edwards wrote:...true statement (fact)...
"Yes" would have been fine.
Steve3007 wrote:You've said both here.
In these circumstances, why can nobody ever say something along the lines of "Oh! So I did! Silly me! My mistake."

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 » May 18th, 2020, 5:22 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:Ah, back to name-calling...
It's not "name-calling". He's just pointing out that if you're simply, honestly looking to examine ideas to see how sound they are, then you won't fear being "trapped in a loop". i.e. you won't fear somebody pointing to an inconsistency in something you've said. You'll welcome it as a chance to improve your arguments. But you're not alone. Very few people, in these kinds of places, ever feel that they can concede an argument, no matter how trivial the point being argued.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 438
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 5:58 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 5:22 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:Ah, back to name-calling...
It's not "name-calling". He's just pointing out that if you're simply, honestly looking to examine ideas to see how sound they are, then you won't fear being "trapped in a loop". i.e. you won't fear somebody pointing to an inconsistency in something you've said. You'll welcome it as a chance to improve your arguments. But you're not alone. Very few people, in these kinds of places, ever feel that they can concede an argument, no matter how trivial the point being argued.
Oh. I can concede when I am wrong. I remember a conversation maybe twenty years ago on NTUF (national taxpayer's union forum) about whether long-term capital gains (selling your house) should be inflation adjusted before they are taxed. At first I was skeptical, but then I was convinced that they were right. And 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.

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.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3071
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 18th, 2020, 6:54 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 5:58 pm
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
There's no need to do that. Just empty your mind and think about/address the question at hand. Wouldn't that be much simpler?

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 18th, 2020, 7:57 pm

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'.

I believe 'good' in matters of truth is an objective reality independent of individual subjective assessment.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 438
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 8:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 6:54 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 5:58 pm
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
There's no need to do that. Just empty your mind and think about/address the question at hand. Wouldn't that be much simpler?
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.

User avatar
Philo_stone
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: May 14th, 2020, 3:11 am

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Philo_stone » May 19th, 2020, 2:09 am

I am sorry for being late in reply. I didn't expect the topic will be approved this soon.

To Steve3007
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.
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.
How about the law, by the use of legal penalties, suppressing libel?
I think Law should uphold the truthfulness, logic, reasoning and everything that brings up the truth to the highest regards. Truth is sometimes very damaging to emotional well being of people for a short period, but afterwards it is helpful to reduce crime by making people understand over a period of time. Reducing crime is a duty of law. If Law itself protect crime and help in hiding logic, reasoning, truth then Law itself is criminal. It should be noted that crime originate from lesser evil or immorality, lack of understanding, wrong beliefs etc. Thoughtful explanation of truth through logic and reasoning can reduce crime.

I think we should not talk about Law before we properly understand that suppressing freedom of speech is immoral and evil.

To 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. .


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


Let me first clear why I said freedom of speech is objective morality in the course of discussion. But till then try understanding that you cannot suppressing lying, deceiving etc.


To Benj96

I think one thing needed to be more than clear i.e. when you talk about suppression of speech you talk about suppression of thoughtful explanation of truth through logic. It's never a suppression of lie, deception, verbal abuse, cyber bullying etc. because to suppress these you need complete shut down of people's mouth, ability to write, like you cannot talk with your mother, friends, spouse, or anybody around. Then only you can suppress lies, deception, verbal abuse etc. , and you cannot shut people's mouth. So there's no point talking about these, I think so. If you still think that there's a need for talking in this line of thought, then you can express your concern.

Secondly logic often contradicts morality.
Does that mean illogicalness is moral?

Actually, logic and morality is not a dichotomy. Let us have example:-

Being respectful is moral and being disrespectful is immoral, right?
Suppose you respect an evil person and support his evil ideas, but I am disrespectful to him, hurt him because of same ideas. Tell me, who is moral here, and who is logical?

IMO we both are moral and immoral here, in a way. The difference is in appearance and reality. But who is logical? I think, I am.

So, logic and morality goes hand in hand, but difference is in appearance and reality, I think so. It is not always this way, depending upon presence of evil ideas and evil person.

Your example of environment and culling surplus human seems wrong to me because there is not one way to solve any problem, but many. Also, it seems like someone is in urgent need to solve that problem, and urgency and time constraints doesn't go well with truth and logic.

To Terrapin Station

I am not suggesting mob rule, but I am suggesting right rule even if the right is only one person. This "right" only comes logical explanation of thoughts which I call as freedom of speech.

Your motorcycle example is like dictatorial implementation of what felt to be right. No, I am saying implement or approve anything on the basis logic, truth, freedom of speech.
So, per "anything which leads to greater good is moral and anything which hinders it is immoral" you don't wind up with freedom of speech, because there's a lot of speech that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.
Generally logical expression of thoughts are uncomfortable to lots and lots of people who think wrong is right and when such belief and ideas are questioned they curb the speech by simplest means possible.

Some speech cannot be suppressed because it requires complete shutting down of mouth and ability to write, so there's no point talking about it.


We are talking about objective morality, so it is very important to understand it anyway because if it is then it would beneficial in many ways. So I request everyone to be patient and question my understanding all the way you can, but reasonably. Without your questioning and opposition I may not be able to explain my views, as I am not writing a book. I think the topic is very critical and very important to me, and possibly everyone. I generally write one post per day.

I will try answering remaining posters in forthcoming replies. Please take this post to understand my views better.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 » May 19th, 2020, 3:05 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:...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". But I know that, with the best will in the world, it's sometimes not as easy as that. I think the way that we generally move towards that ideal is by gradually building trust that each side in the discussion are "honest brokers" and are not treating the whole thing as a point scoring exercise or a "pissing contest". Or, if they are, to simply ignore that aspect of their words. The trouble is, a very large proportion of people do treat it like that and it's difficult to ignore it. Maybe we all fall into the trap of treating it like that at various times. Incidentally, that's why a lot of this forum's rules are as they are.

I think there's also a strong natural human tendency to take one thing that a person says as indicative of other things that they're likely to say. "If you're wrong about X, how can I trust you on Y?". That tends to lead to the fear that if one admits to being wrong on one thing then other more or less unrelated things will also be given less credence. It's the reason why many people regard conceding any argument as a sign of weakness and therefore make it a point of principle never to do so. Then they go into politics! :D

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 » May 19th, 2020, 5:43 am

@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.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3071
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 19th, 2020, 7:22 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 8:37 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 6:54 pm


There's no need to do that. Just empty your mind and think about/address the question at hand. Wouldn't that be much simpler?
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?

Post Reply