I received a recent objection to my article, “Message to the Ignorant,” that I feel needs to be addressed. I was told that my attempt to enlighten and argue for clean, fair debate was, in fact, a fascist attempt to quash legitimate discourse and debate. I was quoted John Stuart Mill’s form of liberty of speech, that any form of censorship is wrong due to its possible value to society as a whole[1]. I believe that if you agree with this objection then you fully misunderstand my argument. If you think I am arguing for the suppression of such beliefs or statements made out of ignorance by individuals who lack the understanding and knowledge of what they, themselves think, then you most likely fall into this group and are sadly mistaken. Although Mill’s Liberalism was indeed a governing idea behind our inalienable freedoms, his alone were not the ideas of liberty that our government was founded on. Mill’s ideas on freedom of speech are almost entirely unrestricted, which few, if any, systems of government support. Even within the extremes of libertarianism or anarchy, it is commonplace to put limits on freedom of speech, especially with regards to slander, libel, inciting-to-violence and child pornography just to name a few. Even with his unrestricted freedoms, Mill opposes blatant name-calling and outrageous claims. In fact, as he says, “It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right.” Although trying to defend all persons, it is clear that he is intending to defend well-founded beliefs and true knowledge. On the matter of true or good opinions/beliefs, I must defer to Hume who definitively argues that good beliefs are those based upon concrete, experiential evidence such as the sun rising tomorrow, and not unfounded beliefs based in nothing but conjecture like faith in god. To further this point, Socrates, as interpreted by McDonald states, “knowledge includes the reasoning that supports the truth.”
In no way am I arguing against dissent, I am arguing against ignorance, and unfounded “knowledge”. I am not arguing that you should not have the right to be ignorant, I am simply requesting you refrain positing your absurd “opinion” for everyone’s sake. As far as my classifications for informed opinion and intelligent dissent, read more Mill and supplement Hume. Repeat twice daily until cured (as prescribed by my girlfriend).
We absolutely should not tolerate ignorant, abhorrent ideas and ideals, it is our duty to point them out and protest them. We must unveil sheepism and demagoguery for what it is, for it is our duty as rational beings, and Americans. We should NOT tolerate hatred and bigotry. To hide behind liberal subjectivism and spout it as tolerance is horribly misguided and dangerous. We should not quash speech, though we have a moral requirement to uphold the truth to the best of our abilities. Be careful of your slippery slope argument. Governmental repression of non-harmful ideas (notable exceptions include: libel, slander, inciting a riot, child corruption, etc.) should be fought on all counts. However one restriction does not imply other restrictions. Each issue should be fought on it’s own merits and future issues should hold minimal sway on the argument at hand.
[1] I realize this is a gross oversimplification, and to truly understand it, you must read On Liberty by J.S, Mill, however I feel it does justice to the argument I was presented with.
No comments:
Post a Comment