Again, Strawson clarifies the Basic Argument that moral responsibility is impossible, this time "in very loose- as it were conversational- terms"(219). In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.
I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely offensive, not harmful to the rights of others. Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited.
The statement of Jean Paul Sartre (2004) we led with offers a way out of such misguided thinking, words that can remind us of the immensity of human potential and what that signifies for every person. Admittedly, Sartre’s existentialism is a harsh landscape barren of faith or hope beyond this world, yet even in his Godless realm the philosopher has found ground for exercising human freedom in a way that, though atheistic, contains profound insights and wars against any compromise of the human capacity that lies within each of us. The first insight involves Sartre’s conviction that every individual through conscious choice must determine who he or she will become. While Christianity would assert that we would have no choice at all were it not
Freedom of speech is indeed a basic human right, but does protecting free speech includes hate speech? Having the freedom to say anything causes the possibility of offending or harming certain groups. Consequently, protecting free speech at all costs might result in the instability of the country. Therefore, I disagree with the statement made that freedom of speech should be protected at all cost. Why is freedom of speech so important?
Plato purported that art is dangerous for a number of reasons but it is primarily useless. His argument highlighted that art is mimetic (mirroring nature), deceptive, immoral and politically dangerous in that it stirred up negative emotions that threaten the common good. There seems to be an evident link between modern censorship practices and Plato’s views on art. However, as outlined in article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ Moreover, ‘freedom of artistic expression is the principle that an artist
In Martel's view, this state can be achieved only through the divine violence. For him, this is the real alternative to contemporary sovereignty which 'may have some features in common with sovereignty as we understand it, but it is of a different order, a different form of representation.' Thus, a space is opened for politics that bypasses Schmitt's trap and, consequently, idolatrous
One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that it can be used to provoke and inspire violence. Free speech allows an individual to voice out any opinions without interference. Some people however feel free speech means we can freely hurl insults to provoke and offend which is abusing the right. Oliver Wendell Junior, a staunch supporter of free speech recognizes that there should be limits placed upon it through his famous observation that freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre as it could jeopardize the people’s safety. Abuse of free speech can lead
It is certainly true that there are always more than one way of looking at a situation, and finding truth within a situation can only be found if there are no limitations to people’s freedom of expressing their opinions on the said situation. Mill’s argument that since no-one is infallible, freedom of speech is necessary for the discovery and defence of truth (p443, John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Speech – Il Pensiero Politico 4.3: T.D Campbell. 1st Jan 1971) has been extremely influential in defending the freedom of speech. One of Mill’s core arguments when it comes to liberty and freedom of speech is that there is an inherent importance and duty to “act out” or express one’s opinion, that it is important for humans to engage in discussion as no-one person’s view is
It acknowledges also that life is a human right , and this makes the abuses committed by diplomats our most fundamental human rights violation owing to the fact that other abuses stem form the violation of a human life. This thesis argues that immunity granted a diplomat should be attached to conduct alone in other words, functional immunity. It contends that any harm done to anyone by a diplomat-who ought to be a responsible person of high intellect -in the ordinary course of his’ (diplomat’s) official activities should be able to fall under diplomatic immunity and thus should follow. This does not extend to acts of violence. As the most controversial and dissenting issue in recent times, the central objective of this study is to attempt to
Right to freedom of speech, expression or association is basically one of the aspect of liberty while on the other hand the restrictions are the security of the state and these two, liberty and the restrictions are antagonistic in the pure form . As the foundations of law and government of the country, the constitution tries to strike a balance between liberty and restrictions but apparently it is not an easy job. The court’s attitude towards unpleasant, disturbing and outrageous ideas may not please everyone and not everyone will agree to it and also no one doubt that freedom of speech or expression views as one of the foundations of a democratic society . Even though not everyone will agree