Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
The number one problem associated with self deception is that it has the capability of creating moral dilemmas, such that people use it as a "prophylactic against leaning from experience," according to Dalrymple. Because one knowingly deceives oneself into believing something even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. The main driver of self deception is self interest. Due to our concern for our own well being we choose to believe and hold certain beliefs. Dalrymples argument is that by refraining from making judgements we are refusing to evaluating what is acceptable in a society and we let certain behaviors such as crime and brutality to flourish.
Even the most moral person in the world should do unjust things if they knew they could never be caught, because they have the opportunity to gain something with no repercussions. People in society would see one as a fool if they knew some person had the chance to do something beneficial towards oneself without the chance of getting in trouble, and did not pursue. People do not believe that acting morally benefits one personally, only the status of being a moral person; when the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, but instead attempt to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, through unjust acts. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources.
When it comes to morality this is something we cannot enforce, because there are some values which looks like immoral to you but it might not be in others views. Even if there are some common values, which are considered, immoral in all societies but still force is no solution because moral values cannot be taught anyway, only way we adopt a moral value is from inside of man by seeing other people observing it in surrounding. This happens by persons own will, just like a habit, that we do not choose a habit, it just becomes a part of ourselves unknowingly. To me, enforcing a moral value on somebody is like extracting it spirit from it, and it will lose its originality leaving an empty shell, which people will put over to pretend to observe that moral value which you enforced on them. In my opinion, this is a natural reaction because man has rebellious nature, which we cannot change.
Emotions were regarded as harmful because they keep us from living according to reason. Epictetus preaches that we should try and get a dispassionate understan... ... middle of paper ... ...is , it will be to our own advantage. But speaking specifically about whether I am in agreement with his views about human nature and the good life, well I don’t. I don’t believe that one must give up all worldly goals and possessions such as money, wealth, power, pleasure, health etc. I believe that (no matter what anybody tells you) these things are necessary to have in one’s life and I feel that all of us to some degree or the other strive for these things.
Unfortunately, morality and immorality play a roll within the harm principle; many actions may be interpreted as immoral harming others interest but not being protected by rights. Those, however, who want to start or continue harming themselves it will be judged to society’s likings. According to the harm principle, we should not force upon someone to stop harming him or herself. The thought might sound cynical but it’s just that we don’t coerce them. Society shouldn’t make use of the law or moral condemnation to make adjustments to someone’s behavior, unless the person causing he ... ... middle of paper ... ...ents within themselves as well.
Obviously if you don’t know in advance that someone is trying to rile up a crowd, you can’t censor them live, so censorship would not help in such a situation. Such people are criminals and can be dealt with accordingly, and the people have a right to know what was being said to influence their peers, so that they can prepare themselves for whatever onslaught may occur. To what extent should censorship be allowed? Censorship itself should not be illegal, but it should not be done by the government either. Censorship should be something that people and businesses choose to do on their own, for their own reasons.
This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources. People view the choice to act morally as a nuisance, not because that is their first choice of action. People will choose the action that benefits them over not receiving any benefit, however, unless that person feels they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future, consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Bentham further stretches this to society and believes that if everyone has the opportunity to achieve genuine pleasure that society would be better off. This is a sound assumption in theory, however it is a bit too idealistic. As history, has shown us human greed would not allow Utilitarianism and Bentham’s social adaption of hedonism to be present in society. His pattern of thinking logically brings him to his conclusion as well. The assumption that the population overall would adapt to this is not likely.