Freedom of Speech: the paradigm (2)
- why everyone is for it, *exept* if... [fill in a reason] -
Despite my earlier comment of it being my last post, I've been doing research on what really constitutes left and right (left and right nowadays have little to do with human rights or racism, those are more properties of the axis [f2s.com] of authoritarian/fascist and libertarian/anarchist), on how the universal declaration of human rights actually came to be [paulwilliams.com] (it was not just a bunch of libertarian or anarchist people) and the history of the concept of human rights [universalrights.net] (you'll be happy to hear that the concept of human rights is indeed quite recent, that the UDHR originally a product of early 20th century European thinking and thus was not universal at all, but things evolved, as also the previous link notes). Of course they're not universal because they're called universal, it's more like the other way round (I'll reply to the argument "but what if the world was mainly ruled by Hitlers and Stalins" later).
I may reply later in detail to your last post, but I'm still convinced that your "hypocrisy test" poses a false dilemma (or at least presents a false conclusion) and that it is not possible to make good social rules by only looking at rational arguments, because the human nature and thus also society simply are not rational. There is this thing called a conscience that most people have, and simply factoring that out of rule making altogether because it's not exactly the same for everyone does not automatically give you good rules for well functioning society.
You may become the ultimate "impartialist" who can set aside all his own moral values and rules, but that does not mean the rules you end up with that way are rules that result in a well functioning society. Society grows, evolves and is per definition deeply affected what happened before. You call those ghosts from the parts and chains that prevent following the path to ultimate rational enlightenment, but others see it as learning from your mistakes and *attempting* (which obviously does not automatically mean succeeding) to prevent them from happening again. Therefore just discarding that
For example, the banning of hate speech in Europe and the inalienable right to have arms in the US are indeed examples of mainly symbolic rules as opposed to purely rational rules. But exactly this symbolism is very strong, and you cannot discard that as being irrelevant or "overrulable" purely in the name of impartial logic and consistency.
Just abolishing them (even in the name of rationality or enlightenment), would always be interpreted as a signal that the government doesn't want you to have weapons so they can better oppress you, or that the holocaust wasn't that bad after (or maybe even didn't happen). You may know that is not the case, but society just doesn't work that way. You can't manage it like it's a bunch of drones who simply follow the rules and do nothing more or nothing less, nor think outside the box. That's why I stand by my point that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences, and why I think the absolute free speech in the US is exactly as justifiable (even though I don't agree with it) as the banning of hate speech in Europe.
- Halo1
I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.
Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.
Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.
Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.
If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.
We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.
Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?
If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.
Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.
Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.
Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.
That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.
So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).
I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.
- Newsbyte
"On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it. "
Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be. I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it. In fact, I think the other choice of simply blindly defending whatever the rules are and switching with them like a leave in the wind is actually hypocrite. I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold.
"Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden."
And this is where the societies come into play. As I've said many times now already: you cannot construct social theories purely on rules of logic. If you would argue against education, people would probably think you're a looney and ignore you. If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again.
"And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions."
Not just mere opinions like yours or mine, but opinions of a society that encompasses pretty much the entire world. The UDHR committee originally consisted of someone from the US, someone from France, someone from Lebanon and someone from China (you may call them all "left", but as I said in my previous post, left and right is meaningless in this context; it's libertarian/anarchist vs authoritarian/fascist in this debate).
It was later included and referred to in a lot of other conventions, treaties and covenants [universalrights.net] and many of its elements can be found back in religions, pre-existing laws/rules (such as the US Constitution), works from philosophers, ... This is not just some majority opinion, it is something that has grown out of human society as a whole (left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, ...), trying to define what makes us human, which rights must be guaranteed in order for people "to be able to be humans", all with the goal of encouraging dignity, peace, cooperation and respect for all.
The Preamble nicely explains where those rules come from and why they chose those particular rights:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore, [...] "
"Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden. "
Again, this has nothing to do with right-wingers, but more with fascism (and yes, there are just as well left-winged people who lean very closely to fascism, such as Stalin). Fascism and authoritarian regimes in general exalt the nation and often race above the individual. They are in fact naturally opposed to human rights. They would not have social or historical evidence to show that their "rights" are foundations of peace and dignity. They would probably not even create such a thing in the first place.
A declaration of "rights" with other kinds of goals than the goals mentioned above, would simply no longer be a declaration of human rights, but then it would indeed be a rose by any other name (just like a directive to legalise software patents suddenly does not result in the prohibition of software patents by calling it a "directive on computer-implemented inventions"). You don't further the goals of peace and human dignity by explicitly giving people "the right to call black people sub-human", nor by forbidding other people to criticise discrimination.
In my opinion, you are starting from the false premise that the UDHR and all documents based on that (and thus reinforced its validity) are merely some (left-wing) opinions which can easily be refuted and which I simply use because they and the name of the charter they appear in come in very handy for me. They are not particularly left-wing (if anything, they are maybe humanist), they are very strongly argued, they came about by world-wide discussions, they are accepted in principle (though definitely not always in practice) pretty much all around the world, they are the result of hundreds of years of evolution and revolution, ...
"Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?"
First of all, see above. Secondly, of course another person (or group of persons, or even large group of persons) could feel like that, I never denied that. Neverthelss, anti hate-speech laws follow the same spirit as the goal of the evolved concept of human rights (even though you can disagree with the "implementation" of these principles in that form): they protect human dignity.
A "pro-racism" law does not promote the goals of these rules in any way. Absence of banning of hate speech (without promoting it) is however simply another way to try to find a balance between the different rights and trying to promote the goals of the declaration in a different way. How a part of society attempts to reach those goals in detail is, once again, destined to follow from their history.
"Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next."
That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.
"That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too. "
If you mean fascists with ultra-rights, then you are mistaken. Fascists do not want things because they are "good for society", unless you redefine society as being a particular subclass of the population based on an arbitrary feature and no-one else besides those people. You might want to read up a bit on fascism [wikipedia.org].
"So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA)."
And a democratic state can just as well can choose not to (in the sense of absolute freedom of speech), as is proven by Europe.
"I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid. "
It is most certainly true that making some part of free speech illegal moves you move towards the fascist/dictatorial side of the spectrum. In fact, when I took the test [f2s.com] at the political compass site I linked to in my previous post, I ended up in the lower left quadrant (left and libertarian), but relatively close to the center (-5, -6 or something like that on a scale of 20 iirc). I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).
"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."
Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).
"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."
Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.
Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.
"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."
I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.
Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.
You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.
"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."
This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.
Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.
Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.
If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now.
" I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme)."
Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong.
"Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself)."
I simply meant that if the UDHR were drawn up by fascists in your hypothetical world and they put in that anti-racism were forbidden because it was supposedly against a fundamental right, that I would not accept it (and you found that that hypocrite, because I do accept forbidding hate speech), and that I do not think that this is hypocrite at all for the reasons explained in my previous post (and partly repeated below).
In short: fascists are against the principle of individual rights, as the state goes above everything. So any "rights" they give, are per definition never universal (since the state can change those at will for anyone and at any time). So they simply cannot draw up a UDHR, except one that states "you have no inherent individual rights". Therefore, your hypothesis is false, and my non-acceptance is not even very relevant. A better answer would have been "mu" I guess.
"Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't. "
Duh. That's why I tried to explain why I did not feel hypocrite, so you could see why I feel that way and could argue against it (or, who knows, agree I'm not hypocrite).
"Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture."
My belief/preaching is that there are fundamental human rights such as e.g. human dignity and personal freedom, and that any rules made that claim to protect human rights cannot be squarely aimed at the destruction of such rights.
That's why I accept banning of hate speech (it aims at protecting dignity, at a trade off with freedom and possibly other things) and not banning any speech at all (aims at protecting personal freedom, at a potential trade-off with dignity and possibly other things). It's also why I do not accept forbidding anti-racism speech (reducing personal freedom in exchange for what?) or explicitly allowing discriminatory talk (reducing dignity in exchange for what? It does not provide for extra freedom, since it was already allowed).
"My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that. "
I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues.
"You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too. "
You missed my point. Maybe I didn't stress it enough in my last post, but I was almost all the time talking about the goals of the UDHR (protecting human dignity, the right not to have to live in constant fear, ... the stuff that's mentioned in the preamble). The rules of the UDHR are just general guidelines to achieve those things and sometimes trade-offs have to be made (as illustrated in the free speech debate). Which trade-off you make depends on your background and I think a society has the right to choose which trade-off they make. You examples have nothing to do with this.
"Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again. "
If they did that, they would simply do that because it can help them control the people, not because they think it's some kind of right. Fascists do not want personal freedom in any way, they think the state is much more important than the individual and that the individual should be sacrificed in favour of the state.
Since human rights per definition pertain to all human individuals, "What if fascists defined human rights?" does not make any sense, since they per definition oppose rights that pertain to all individuals. They cannot define any human right (not even the right to live), since they don't believe in the mere principle of individual rights.
"Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can."
No, the real difference between fascism and everything else (including democracy) is that inherent rights for each and all individuals are recognised at all. And that these others do this not because it strengthens the state or some arbitrary subgroup of the population, but because it is recognised as an inherent right of every human individual to have rights (yes, a right to personal rights) which cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the state as in fascism. I.e., the state is supposed to exist for the individuals, instead of the other way round.
It is true that a democracy can keep existing with opposing view (it may even need them, because I don't think there is any realistic scenario in which 2, let alone all, people voluntarily have exactly the same opinion on everything). And striving for as much personal freedom is a lofty goal. But there are always conflicting rights/benefits to be resolved and trade-offs to be made. One could even argue "A fascist state cannot afford to ban hate speech because it needs as many binding means and as much unity feeling as possible in a select group, while a democracy can do that."
"Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. "
Universal in the sense that they should apply to any and all human beings, because [insert preamble of the UDHR] and I have not seen any counter argument as to why the preamble would be wrong (contains false statements, inconsistencies, illogical things, you name it). Not because they per definition are or because that document sums them up. Do you you think that it should be possible that not everyone has the right to life? (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you the impartial one). That not everyone has a right to personal dignity? To live in peace as opposed to constant fear/terror? That people have the right to have personal rights at all?
My hunch is that your answer will be along the lines of "I don't know" or "that's not for me to decide", since as soon as you answer yes or no, you take a moral stand one way or the other and suddenly are not impartial anymore. But then what is your goal with being impartial? Is it a goal on its own? And while you may see other people's view as limited because they accept some opinions as valuable in the course of decision making, can't you see that it's possible that you yourself are also limited (in another way obviously) by refusing to take that information into account? (based on the argument and that in an alternate universe, that information may not be true or even be the reverse)
We do live in this world as it is, and it's that world our decisions have an impact on. We can only know for sure what has happened here (and then still only partially) and learn from that. Society is not something you can predict based on pure logic, and therefore also not steer based on pure logic. Not wanting to make any moral judgement whatsoever about anything is a serious handicap when deciding on social issues I think, just like an autist can sometimes be very smart and yet miss out on an awful lot of things (especially as far as social matters are concerned).
"You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance."
Darwin argues it's based on survival. Anyway, I meant that that declaration of rights was based on the experience gained from everything that had happened before. One way to describe this process is to look at it as all that previous knowledge evolving into something that combines it. I was merely figuratively speaking.
"If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution. "
As I've said before, they would not create such a declaration, since they don't accept the notion of individual rights (that would actually be the best case, the worst case would be a declaration that simply said "you have no inherent rights"). I don't know whether evolution has anything to do with whether or not nazism or fascism never became the strongest force (from a certain point they are inherently weak, since they are both built upon the principle of "us against everyone else"), but that was not what I was saying nor what I was thinking about.
Of course, we only have a sample size of one as far as "the human population" of the world is concerned. But until you can argue that the drafters and subscribers to the UDHR as we know it are wrong in asserting that e.g. "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", I think that may very well be simply true.
Unless you also question the mere principle of striving for freedom, justice and peace above, in which case I suppose you won't/don't/can't/mu argue them.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now."
Maybe I should have said "We are not talking about just *an* opinion on itself", i.e. an opinion in the void. I simply wanted to say it's a an incredibly extensively argued opinion with lots of supporting facts (as in historic evidence) to back it up. And apart from that, it was also drafted by people coming from societies with entirely different views.
"I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).
Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. "
I think you misread my sentence, sorry for the confusing double negation (or even tripple negation if you also count "bad").
"In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong."
Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts. I also think that considering free speech per definition the ultimate right that should trump all others (and citing opinions of courts and society when making your case, while consistently disregarding all opinions I provide to you) is quite an extreme position.
Maybe you are trying to be too neutral, resulting in an extreme neutral position? Just a thought, but maybe the diagram on the political compass site needs a third axis :)
I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:
"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "
Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.
I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.
So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.
Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?
In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.
"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."
Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature.
If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame.
If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too.
Hmm...well, said that before. :-)
I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically. If one does not accept logic, then what's the point? There is a good quote about that I once read in a book about my favorite (intellectual) writer, Carl Sagan, though it originally was of someone else. I'll look it up and place it on my blog, sometime.
"Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it."
I said "opinions based on facts", as in historical evidence. There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand some basic respect for those rights etc), but a conclusion always contains some form of opinion, unless you are working with maths.
"Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not."
I never claimed you don't have to show any logic, I simply said you can't use only logic. And at some level it even is logical that we in Europe banned hate speech, given that we saw what it indirectly led to (regardless of what courts have said, speech is a very powerful weapon if used properly). It may not be impartial or without moral prejudice, but that's something else.
"Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less."
Have you seen the progress of extreme right in the US? They've been governing the whole thing for the last 4 years! I do not think banning of hate speech as such has a large impact on the progress or deterring of extreme right. I do think it can have a profound influence on the living quality of some minorities. Most importantly however, I'm convinced that in the case of Europe, it's an extremely strong symbolical thing, which makes it no longer "a ban on hate speech as such" but "a ban on hate speech with a further symbolic effect". See below for more on this.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction.
It moves us slightly more to the center (slightly, because as I said it's a trade-off of one basic human right for another). I thought you were the one that was against extremes? Keep in mind that the bottom is total anarchy.
"While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benefit of peace, I don't."
I never said that. Really. What I said is that it is a symbolic action of society, to show that (at that period in time) people were willing to sacrifice part of their freedom (of speech) in order to try to do something to help preventing such atrocities from happening again. It's a symbol, plain and simple.
I also said that tearing down that symbol in the name of logic and consistency would have effects going much farther that what logic would dictate. It would not be the same as never having had a ban on hate speech.
"It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?"
That's the stepping stone theory, which has proven to be false as far as the banning of hate speech in Europe is concerned. In the US, the terrorist attacks are merely used as an excuse by those in power to to get more and more power. I don't think you can say that of the banning of hate speech in Europe after WWII.
"Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? "
Name one large conflict/war in history that was caused by general respect for human rights (from the UDHR) from both sides. And how many atrocities in history did not involve violating human rights?
"I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame. "
You are misinterpreting the meaning of "universal" in the UDHR. It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally (and again, not because it simply is that way per definition or law of nature, but because that's the whole point of having the declaration at all) to all human beings (instead of just to some subgroup), and that they cannot be taken away by the state.
"If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too. "
You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me. It has to do with uniting conflicting opinions from around the round the world (which is independent of having a majority, but which is a sign that it is well reasoned if the end result is not some mumbo-jumbo compromise that does not mean anything) and (more important to you) basing yourself on historic evidence.
"I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically."
You still have not shown one place where the preamble of the UDHR argues illogically.
"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."
No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"
Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.
"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."
If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.
Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.
Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.
Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.
A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).
However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.
Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.
That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though ;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.
I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.
Conclusion:
As we can see in this, originally /., discussion, sometimes it is difficult to get to agree on something, if not downright impossible. It has nothing to do with intelligence; Halo1 is, IMHO, a pretty intelligent guy; I have been impressed with his posts about software-patents and there a rational mind was clearly at work.
Neither are my friends lacking in intelligence, yet, almost exactly the same discussion evolved some of them too, as can be seen in 'Outlawing books'. I am glad to say, however, that at least one of them seems to have turned 180° and thus, recently stupified me with saying and argumenting the same things I had done before, but to which he had objected.
He didn't seem to remember it, but I delude myself in thinking maybe it was thanks to my logical debate that he changed his mind. :-)
Now, the main problem here, and, in fact, the only one, is the question whether you accept logic and rationality as the determining factor to discuss a reasoning/argument or not.
If not, then fine: I'll won't use it neither, and we both sprout mere opinions.
If you do, then we can have a meaningful discussion and look at which reasoning holds more sway.
In this discussion with Halo1, the main culprits why we can't seem to come to a conclusion in this regard, is because:
1)he accepts the UDHR as something that is universal in the sense that "it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" , while I do not.
He claims to find proof in history for that, but I see rather the opposite. This may seem as a standoff, but a theory does only last as long as *no* observations dispute it. In the case of history, there are examples that would support the theory that those rights in the UDHR are universal, but there are also those (like the example of slavery) which clearly shows it doesn't. The moment you have an exeption, you can't claim it is universal.
If one accepts that, one also has to accept that the UDHR is not universal. And if it has no universal value, it is based on opinions. If it's based on opinions, then it has no more sway then any other opinion(s), whether it was decided by majority, by broad world consensus, by power, by good intentions, by the deep thoughts of different people of differnet countries: it still remains an opinion.
Now, Halo1 rightfully says: but it is logically argumented! (Hopefully indicating that logic is, indeed, of great importance in the matter :-) While yes, it is...but only if you accept the basic premisses it begins with, which are based on current ideas on dignity and peace and all that. He asks to demonstrate where the UDHR is being unrational, but, since I agree with the principles, *I* have a difficult time argumenting that.
However, I could imagine a fascist or other extremist, deciding the goals of the UDHR themselves are not enterily right. He could argue, for instance, that 'peace' and 'dignity' only is relevant to humans, and that, in his opinion, jews/niggers/etc. are not human, and thus fall outside the basic human rights.
Thus, it is easily to demonstrate that whatever opinion you base yourself on, an argument can't be won by having that opinion. For a facist/extremist saying 'but it says so in the UDHR' can have no more sway, then when someone is trying to alter my opinion by saying 'but it says so in the bible'..which means, very little, thus. ;-) The argumentation in the UDHR may be consistent, but is based on the view that all humans have basic rights, which is an opinion of it's own, which may not be agreed on by fascists.
So, is there no way to determine if something is 'right', then? I think there is, as I've showed in my last post. You can't truelly debabe something meaningfull, if all your opinions are diametrically opposed. Therefor, what you have to do is find a common opinion, and work on that further.
A common opinion would be, that you can't be hypocritical in your own argument. Another would be, that one opinion, on its own, is not worth more then another.
One could not agree to even that, ofcourse, but the advantage is, that if they don't (have to) agree to these opinions, neither do you, which will end you both with mere opinions anyhow. The quote I once read in a Carl Sagan book describes this point very well, and I'll try to look it up and place it in my blog.
When people do start from this basic common ground, one can go further, for instance, in the line of Kants' philosophy as I've described earlier. As an ethical guideline: 'Do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you' is as basic as it gets, and from there on you can decide on a whole lot of ethical arguments/debates/laws, including forbidding some forms of speech. Just ask yourself: "Would I feel it is right, that something I feel strongly about, but is against an opinion I do not agree with (and yes, even the UDHR could be considered that) is forbidden for me to say?"
That's why I asked Halo1 what his reaction would be, if his own reasoning would be reversed against him. If he would say 'no', then it would indicate that he would do something to others, which he wouldn't want them to do to himself, which makes the ethical value of such an argumentation very dubious.
Despite my earlier comment of it being my last post, I've been doing research on what really constitutes left and right (left and right nowadays have little to do with human rights or racism, those are more properties of the axis [f2s.com] of authoritarian/fascist and libertarian/anarchist), on how the universal declaration of human rights actually came to be [paulwilliams.com] (it was not just a bunch of libertarian or anarchist people) and the history of the concept of human rights [universalrights.net] (you'll be happy to hear that the concept of human rights is indeed quite recent, that the UDHR originally a product of early 20th century European thinking and thus was not universal at all, but things evolved, as also the previous link notes). Of course they're not universal because they're called universal, it's more like the other way round (I'll reply to the argument "but what if the world was mainly ruled by Hitlers and Stalins" later).
I may reply later in detail to your last post, but I'm still convinced that your "hypocrisy test" poses a false dilemma (or at least presents a false conclusion) and that it is not possible to make good social rules by only looking at rational arguments, because the human nature and thus also society simply are not rational. There is this thing called a conscience that most people have, and simply factoring that out of rule making altogether because it's not exactly the same for everyone does not automatically give you good rules for well functioning society.
You may become the ultimate "impartialist" who can set aside all his own moral values and rules, but that does not mean the rules you end up with that way are rules that result in a well functioning society. Society grows, evolves and is per definition deeply affected what happened before. You call those ghosts from the parts and chains that prevent following the path to ultimate rational enlightenment, but others see it as learning from your mistakes and *attempting* (which obviously does not automatically mean succeeding) to prevent them from happening again. Therefore just discarding that
For example, the banning of hate speech in Europe and the inalienable right to have arms in the US are indeed examples of mainly symbolic rules as opposed to purely rational rules. But exactly this symbolism is very strong, and you cannot discard that as being irrelevant or "overrulable" purely in the name of impartial logic and consistency.
Just abolishing them (even in the name of rationality or enlightenment), would always be interpreted as a signal that the government doesn't want you to have weapons so they can better oppress you, or that the holocaust wasn't that bad after (or maybe even didn't happen). You may know that is not the case, but society just doesn't work that way. You can't manage it like it's a bunch of drones who simply follow the rules and do nothing more or nothing less, nor think outside the box. That's why I stand by my point that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences, and why I think the absolute free speech in the US is exactly as justifiable (even though I don't agree with it) as the banning of hate speech in Europe.
- Halo1
I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.
Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.
Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.
Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.
If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.
We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.
Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?
If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.
Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.
Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.
Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.
That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.
So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).
I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.
- Newsbyte
"On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it. "
Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be. I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it. In fact, I think the other choice of simply blindly defending whatever the rules are and switching with them like a leave in the wind is actually hypocrite. I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold.
"Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden."
And this is where the societies come into play. As I've said many times now already: you cannot construct social theories purely on rules of logic. If you would argue against education, people would probably think you're a looney and ignore you. If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again.
"And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions."
Not just mere opinions like yours or mine, but opinions of a society that encompasses pretty much the entire world. The UDHR committee originally consisted of someone from the US, someone from France, someone from Lebanon and someone from China (you may call them all "left", but as I said in my previous post, left and right is meaningless in this context; it's libertarian/anarchist vs authoritarian/fascist in this debate).
It was later included and referred to in a lot of other conventions, treaties and covenants [universalrights.net] and many of its elements can be found back in religions, pre-existing laws/rules (such as the US Constitution), works from philosophers, ... This is not just some majority opinion, it is something that has grown out of human society as a whole (left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, ...), trying to define what makes us human, which rights must be guaranteed in order for people "to be able to be humans", all with the goal of encouraging dignity, peace, cooperation and respect for all.
The Preamble nicely explains where those rules come from and why they chose those particular rights:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore, [...] "
"Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden. "
Again, this has nothing to do with right-wingers, but more with fascism (and yes, there are just as well left-winged people who lean very closely to fascism, such as Stalin). Fascism and authoritarian regimes in general exalt the nation and often race above the individual. They are in fact naturally opposed to human rights. They would not have social or historical evidence to show that their "rights" are foundations of peace and dignity. They would probably not even create such a thing in the first place.
A declaration of "rights" with other kinds of goals than the goals mentioned above, would simply no longer be a declaration of human rights, but then it would indeed be a rose by any other name (just like a directive to legalise software patents suddenly does not result in the prohibition of software patents by calling it a "directive on computer-implemented inventions"). You don't further the goals of peace and human dignity by explicitly giving people "the right to call black people sub-human", nor by forbidding other people to criticise discrimination.
In my opinion, you are starting from the false premise that the UDHR and all documents based on that (and thus reinforced its validity) are merely some (left-wing) opinions which can easily be refuted and which I simply use because they and the name of the charter they appear in come in very handy for me. They are not particularly left-wing (if anything, they are maybe humanist), they are very strongly argued, they came about by world-wide discussions, they are accepted in principle (though definitely not always in practice) pretty much all around the world, they are the result of hundreds of years of evolution and revolution, ...
"Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?"
First of all, see above. Secondly, of course another person (or group of persons, or even large group of persons) could feel like that, I never denied that. Neverthelss, anti hate-speech laws follow the same spirit as the goal of the evolved concept of human rights (even though you can disagree with the "implementation" of these principles in that form): they protect human dignity.
A "pro-racism" law does not promote the goals of these rules in any way. Absence of banning of hate speech (without promoting it) is however simply another way to try to find a balance between the different rights and trying to promote the goals of the declaration in a different way. How a part of society attempts to reach those goals in detail is, once again, destined to follow from their history.
"Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next."
That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.
"That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too. "
If you mean fascists with ultra-rights, then you are mistaken. Fascists do not want things because they are "good for society", unless you redefine society as being a particular subclass of the population based on an arbitrary feature and no-one else besides those people. You might want to read up a bit on fascism [wikipedia.org].
"So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA)."
And a democratic state can just as well can choose not to (in the sense of absolute freedom of speech), as is proven by Europe.
"I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid. "
It is most certainly true that making some part of free speech illegal moves you move towards the fascist/dictatorial side of the spectrum. In fact, when I took the test [f2s.com] at the political compass site I linked to in my previous post, I ended up in the lower left quadrant (left and libertarian), but relatively close to the center (-5, -6 or something like that on a scale of 20 iirc). I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).
"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."
Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).
"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."
Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.
Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.
"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."
I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.
Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.
You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.
"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."
This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.
Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.
Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.
If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now.
" I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme)."
Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong.
"Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself)."
I simply meant that if the UDHR were drawn up by fascists in your hypothetical world and they put in that anti-racism were forbidden because it was supposedly against a fundamental right, that I would not accept it (and you found that that hypocrite, because I do accept forbidding hate speech), and that I do not think that this is hypocrite at all for the reasons explained in my previous post (and partly repeated below).
In short: fascists are against the principle of individual rights, as the state goes above everything. So any "rights" they give, are per definition never universal (since the state can change those at will for anyone and at any time). So they simply cannot draw up a UDHR, except one that states "you have no inherent individual rights". Therefore, your hypothesis is false, and my non-acceptance is not even very relevant. A better answer would have been "mu" I guess.
"Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't. "
Duh. That's why I tried to explain why I did not feel hypocrite, so you could see why I feel that way and could argue against it (or, who knows, agree I'm not hypocrite).
"Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture."
My belief/preaching is that there are fundamental human rights such as e.g. human dignity and personal freedom, and that any rules made that claim to protect human rights cannot be squarely aimed at the destruction of such rights.
That's why I accept banning of hate speech (it aims at protecting dignity, at a trade off with freedom and possibly other things) and not banning any speech at all (aims at protecting personal freedom, at a potential trade-off with dignity and possibly other things). It's also why I do not accept forbidding anti-racism speech (reducing personal freedom in exchange for what?) or explicitly allowing discriminatory talk (reducing dignity in exchange for what? It does not provide for extra freedom, since it was already allowed).
"My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that. "
I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues.
"You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too. "
You missed my point. Maybe I didn't stress it enough in my last post, but I was almost all the time talking about the goals of the UDHR (protecting human dignity, the right not to have to live in constant fear, ... the stuff that's mentioned in the preamble). The rules of the UDHR are just general guidelines to achieve those things and sometimes trade-offs have to be made (as illustrated in the free speech debate). Which trade-off you make depends on your background and I think a society has the right to choose which trade-off they make. You examples have nothing to do with this.
"Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again. "
If they did that, they would simply do that because it can help them control the people, not because they think it's some kind of right. Fascists do not want personal freedom in any way, they think the state is much more important than the individual and that the individual should be sacrificed in favour of the state.
Since human rights per definition pertain to all human individuals, "What if fascists defined human rights?" does not make any sense, since they per definition oppose rights that pertain to all individuals. They cannot define any human right (not even the right to live), since they don't believe in the mere principle of individual rights.
"Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can."
No, the real difference between fascism and everything else (including democracy) is that inherent rights for each and all individuals are recognised at all. And that these others do this not because it strengthens the state or some arbitrary subgroup of the population, but because it is recognised as an inherent right of every human individual to have rights (yes, a right to personal rights) which cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the state as in fascism. I.e., the state is supposed to exist for the individuals, instead of the other way round.
It is true that a democracy can keep existing with opposing view (it may even need them, because I don't think there is any realistic scenario in which 2, let alone all, people voluntarily have exactly the same opinion on everything). And striving for as much personal freedom is a lofty goal. But there are always conflicting rights/benefits to be resolved and trade-offs to be made. One could even argue "A fascist state cannot afford to ban hate speech because it needs as many binding means and as much unity feeling as possible in a select group, while a democracy can do that."
"Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. "
Universal in the sense that they should apply to any and all human beings, because [insert preamble of the UDHR] and I have not seen any counter argument as to why the preamble would be wrong (contains false statements, inconsistencies, illogical things, you name it). Not because they per definition are or because that document sums them up. Do you you think that it should be possible that not everyone has the right to life? (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you the impartial one). That not everyone has a right to personal dignity? To live in peace as opposed to constant fear/terror? That people have the right to have personal rights at all?
My hunch is that your answer will be along the lines of "I don't know" or "that's not for me to decide", since as soon as you answer yes or no, you take a moral stand one way or the other and suddenly are not impartial anymore. But then what is your goal with being impartial? Is it a goal on its own? And while you may see other people's view as limited because they accept some opinions as valuable in the course of decision making, can't you see that it's possible that you yourself are also limited (in another way obviously) by refusing to take that information into account? (based on the argument and that in an alternate universe, that information may not be true or even be the reverse)
We do live in this world as it is, and it's that world our decisions have an impact on. We can only know for sure what has happened here (and then still only partially) and learn from that. Society is not something you can predict based on pure logic, and therefore also not steer based on pure logic. Not wanting to make any moral judgement whatsoever about anything is a serious handicap when deciding on social issues I think, just like an autist can sometimes be very smart and yet miss out on an awful lot of things (especially as far as social matters are concerned).
"You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance."
Darwin argues it's based on survival. Anyway, I meant that that declaration of rights was based on the experience gained from everything that had happened before. One way to describe this process is to look at it as all that previous knowledge evolving into something that combines it. I was merely figuratively speaking.
"If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution. "
As I've said before, they would not create such a declaration, since they don't accept the notion of individual rights (that would actually be the best case, the worst case would be a declaration that simply said "you have no inherent rights"). I don't know whether evolution has anything to do with whether or not nazism or fascism never became the strongest force (from a certain point they are inherently weak, since they are both built upon the principle of "us against everyone else"), but that was not what I was saying nor what I was thinking about.
Of course, we only have a sample size of one as far as "the human population" of the world is concerned. But until you can argue that the drafters and subscribers to the UDHR as we know it are wrong in asserting that e.g. "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", I think that may very well be simply true.
Unless you also question the mere principle of striving for freedom, justice and peace above, in which case I suppose you won't/don't/can't/mu argue them.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now."
Maybe I should have said "We are not talking about just *an* opinion on itself", i.e. an opinion in the void. I simply wanted to say it's a an incredibly extensively argued opinion with lots of supporting facts (as in historic evidence) to back it up. And apart from that, it was also drafted by people coming from societies with entirely different views.
"I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).
Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. "
I think you misread my sentence, sorry for the confusing double negation (or even tripple negation if you also count "bad").
"In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong."
Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts. I also think that considering free speech per definition the ultimate right that should trump all others (and citing opinions of courts and society when making your case, while consistently disregarding all opinions I provide to you) is quite an extreme position.
Maybe you are trying to be too neutral, resulting in an extreme neutral position? Just a thought, but maybe the diagram on the political compass site needs a third axis :)
I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:
"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "
Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.
I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.
So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.
Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?
In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.
"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."
Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature.
If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame.
If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too.
Hmm...well, said that before. :-)
I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically. If one does not accept logic, then what's the point? There is a good quote about that I once read in a book about my favorite (intellectual) writer, Carl Sagan, though it originally was of someone else. I'll look it up and place it on my blog, sometime.
"Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it."
I said "opinions based on facts", as in historical evidence. There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand some basic respect for those rights etc), but a conclusion always contains some form of opinion, unless you are working with maths.
"Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not."
I never claimed you don't have to show any logic, I simply said you can't use only logic. And at some level it even is logical that we in Europe banned hate speech, given that we saw what it indirectly led to (regardless of what courts have said, speech is a very powerful weapon if used properly). It may not be impartial or without moral prejudice, but that's something else.
"Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less."
Have you seen the progress of extreme right in the US? They've been governing the whole thing for the last 4 years! I do not think banning of hate speech as such has a large impact on the progress or deterring of extreme right. I do think it can have a profound influence on the living quality of some minorities. Most importantly however, I'm convinced that in the case of Europe, it's an extremely strong symbolical thing, which makes it no longer "a ban on hate speech as such" but "a ban on hate speech with a further symbolic effect". See below for more on this.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction.
It moves us slightly more to the center (slightly, because as I said it's a trade-off of one basic human right for another). I thought you were the one that was against extremes? Keep in mind that the bottom is total anarchy.
"While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benefit of peace, I don't."
I never said that. Really. What I said is that it is a symbolic action of society, to show that (at that period in time) people were willing to sacrifice part of their freedom (of speech) in order to try to do something to help preventing such atrocities from happening again. It's a symbol, plain and simple.
I also said that tearing down that symbol in the name of logic and consistency would have effects going much farther that what logic would dictate. It would not be the same as never having had a ban on hate speech.
"It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?"
That's the stepping stone theory, which has proven to be false as far as the banning of hate speech in Europe is concerned. In the US, the terrorist attacks are merely used as an excuse by those in power to to get more and more power. I don't think you can say that of the banning of hate speech in Europe after WWII.
"Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? "
Name one large conflict/war in history that was caused by general respect for human rights (from the UDHR) from both sides. And how many atrocities in history did not involve violating human rights?
"I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame. "
You are misinterpreting the meaning of "universal" in the UDHR. It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally (and again, not because it simply is that way per definition or law of nature, but because that's the whole point of having the declaration at all) to all human beings (instead of just to some subgroup), and that they cannot be taken away by the state.
"If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too. "
You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me. It has to do with uniting conflicting opinions from around the round the world (which is independent of having a majority, but which is a sign that it is well reasoned if the end result is not some mumbo-jumbo compromise that does not mean anything) and (more important to you) basing yourself on historic evidence.
"I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically."
You still have not shown one place where the preamble of the UDHR argues illogically.
"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."
No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"
Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.
"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."
If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.
Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.
Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.
Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.
A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).
However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.
Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.
That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though ;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.
I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.
Conclusion:
As we can see in this, originally /., discussion, sometimes it is difficult to get to agree on something, if not downright impossible. It has nothing to do with intelligence; Halo1 is, IMHO, a pretty intelligent guy; I have been impressed with his posts about software-patents and there a rational mind was clearly at work.
Neither are my friends lacking in intelligence, yet, almost exactly the same discussion evolved some of them too, as can be seen in 'Outlawing books'. I am glad to say, however, that at least one of them seems to have turned 180° and thus, recently stupified me with saying and argumenting the same things I had done before, but to which he had objected.
He didn't seem to remember it, but I delude myself in thinking maybe it was thanks to my logical debate that he changed his mind. :-)
Now, the main problem here, and, in fact, the only one, is the question whether you accept logic and rationality as the determining factor to discuss a reasoning/argument or not.
If not, then fine: I'll won't use it neither, and we both sprout mere opinions.
If you do, then we can have a meaningful discussion and look at which reasoning holds more sway.
In this discussion with Halo1, the main culprits why we can't seem to come to a conclusion in this regard, is because:
1)he accepts the UDHR as something that is universal in the sense that "it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" , while I do not.
He claims to find proof in history for that, but I see rather the opposite. This may seem as a standoff, but a theory does only last as long as *no* observations dispute it. In the case of history, there are examples that would support the theory that those rights in the UDHR are universal, but there are also those (like the example of slavery) which clearly shows it doesn't. The moment you have an exeption, you can't claim it is universal.
If one accepts that, one also has to accept that the UDHR is not universal. And if it has no universal value, it is based on opinions. If it's based on opinions, then it has no more sway then any other opinion(s), whether it was decided by majority, by broad world consensus, by power, by good intentions, by the deep thoughts of different people of differnet countries: it still remains an opinion.
Now, Halo1 rightfully says: but it is logically argumented! (Hopefully indicating that logic is, indeed, of great importance in the matter :-) While yes, it is...but only if you accept the basic premisses it begins with, which are based on current ideas on dignity and peace and all that. He asks to demonstrate where the UDHR is being unrational, but, since I agree with the principles, *I* have a difficult time argumenting that.
However, I could imagine a fascist or other extremist, deciding the goals of the UDHR themselves are not enterily right. He could argue, for instance, that 'peace' and 'dignity' only is relevant to humans, and that, in his opinion, jews/niggers/etc. are not human, and thus fall outside the basic human rights.
Thus, it is easily to demonstrate that whatever opinion you base yourself on, an argument can't be won by having that opinion. For a facist/extremist saying 'but it says so in the UDHR' can have no more sway, then when someone is trying to alter my opinion by saying 'but it says so in the bible'..which means, very little, thus. ;-) The argumentation in the UDHR may be consistent, but is based on the view that all humans have basic rights, which is an opinion of it's own, which may not be agreed on by fascists.
So, is there no way to determine if something is 'right', then? I think there is, as I've showed in my last post. You can't truelly debabe something meaningfull, if all your opinions are diametrically opposed. Therefor, what you have to do is find a common opinion, and work on that further.
A common opinion would be, that you can't be hypocritical in your own argument. Another would be, that one opinion, on its own, is not worth more then another.
One could not agree to even that, ofcourse, but the advantage is, that if they don't (have to) agree to these opinions, neither do you, which will end you both with mere opinions anyhow. The quote I once read in a Carl Sagan book describes this point very well, and I'll try to look it up and place it in my blog.
When people do start from this basic common ground, one can go further, for instance, in the line of Kants' philosophy as I've described earlier. As an ethical guideline: 'Do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you' is as basic as it gets, and from there on you can decide on a whole lot of ethical arguments/debates/laws, including forbidding some forms of speech. Just ask yourself: "Would I feel it is right, that something I feel strongly about, but is against an opinion I do not agree with (and yes, even the UDHR could be considered that) is forbidden for me to say?"
That's why I asked Halo1 what his reaction would be, if his own reasoning would be reversed against him. If he would say 'no', then it would indicate that he would do something to others, which he wouldn't want them to do to himself, which makes the ethical value of such an argumentation very dubious.
posted by newsbyte | 12:14 PM
2 Comments:
The expression "Fire in a crowded theater" is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919 as part of the Schenck case. The Schenck case about whether an argument whether someone arguing that the military draft was involuntary servatude and thus morally wrong was guilty of a crime or protected by the US constitution as free speech. The government argued that this speech was interferring with the war effort and should be illegal.
The exception by Holmes was that you can only restrict what you think of as false speech in situations and at times where there is a "clear and present danger" (which became "Imminent lawless action") that really bad things will happen before rational folks can sort out falsehoods (ie. a theatre panic).
The presumption was that anything goes as part of debate. Perhaps more telling is the following quotation from Holmes:
"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical, if you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."
and
"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe… that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.”
< suks so bad
> so so bad
> suks
Post a Comment
<< Home