There are two main natural aspects in which human beings behave: one is to oppress and the other is to be oppressed. There are also two other different natural ways in which human beings live: to express themselves so that they will be understood in the manners that they want to be understood, or to have no opinions and to accept others' opinions as ways to learn and to understand others. The results of these behaviors are freedom of oppression as well as freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. Springing from these matters is the matter of censoring ideas or opinions expressed in written forms, and this is a problem that I am going to analyze in the below paragraphs.
Some human beings cannot live without showing or describing themselves or mentioning about their concerns of other people. We also learn from Hobbes that in the state of nature, human beings will inevitably be led into conflicts with one another in efforts to preserve themselves. Thus, life is constant struggles among a society. Since any society has a government to control the activities of the citizens in a country, there will certainly be agreements and disagreements between citizens and the government, or between different organizations, individuals, etc., and thereof, the control of the government over these disagreements, especially disagreements in writing or speech, eventually leads to the problem of censorship. There are many kinds of censorship: censorship conducted by the government, censorship conducted by private organizations, and even individual censorship.
First, I will talk about governmental censorship. In our text book, Law and Philosophy, in Chapter 5, Section A, John Hospers writes:
Government is the most dangerous institution known to man. Throughout history
it has violated the rights of men more than any individual or group of individuals
could do: it has killed people, enslaved them, sent them to forced labor and
concentration camps, and regularly robbed and pillaged them of the fruits of their
expended labor. Unlike individual criminals, government has the power to arrest
and try; unlike individual criminals, it can surround and encompass a person totally,
dominating every aspect of one's life, so that one has no recourse from it but to
leave the country...
Thus, when people are opposing something in the ruling policy that the government doesn't do correctly or violating their rights, they express their oppositions by speech or writing; as a result, sometimes, the government will eliminate parts of the documents written that will harm its reputation, and this is what governmental censorship is about. It is the true value of the writing piece, or parts of it that the government doesn't want to know or doesn't want to be exposed to the public's knowledge. Sometimes, the government suppresses it because they believe that it is not true or because they deny the truth of it.
Other kinds of censorship is the censorship that is conducted by private organizations or individuals. For private organizations, the reason for censoring is the same as the reason of a government; that is the documents are protesting against the reputation of that organization. Sometimes, a writing expression is not protesting against an organization but against the government, and the organization still eliminate parts of the document because they are afraid of being condemned by the government and therefore to censor it on behalf of the government. Individual censorship can also happen; for example, when one person is writing something that may harm another person's reputation, the other person would not allow that information to be proliferated, and will extrude that information from circulation.
There is an important matter that needs to be aware of about censorship; that is, it is not only used to protect the reputation of an individual, an organization or a government, but it also is used to benefits or gain advantages over the opponents. And this is the most selfish kind of censorship because it takes advantages from others using its own power. For example, the use of censorship for monopoly purposes, or to prevent better ideas or conflict ideas that one organization or an individual can do to another organization or another individual. This kind of censorship, of course, will violate the rights of some people and therefore can be considered as non-violence fights among people or groups of people. Only justice or fair judgments can be used to determine and prevent this profitable problem.
What are other nature reasons for freedom of speech or expression and for the cause of the problem of censorship? According to John Stuart Mill, in our textbooks, in the article "Truth as a Value of Free Speech", mankind has a tendency to seek wisdom and knowledge as well as ways to possess happiness; therefore, the need for intellectual advancements is what causes mankind to have speech and expression. In addition, as I already mentioned in the above paragraphs that to tell the truth is what construct or initiate free speech or expression, Mill presents the same concept:
Instrumental defenses of free speech focuses on one of two values promoted
by free speech - truth and democracy. Utilitarian John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
took up the case for truth, and his On Liberty (1859) has become its classic
defense... According to Mill, speech competes in a marketplace of ideas, where
truth and falsehood try to outbid one another. Society has no reason to think
that it has enough knowledge to predudge whether a claim is true or false. If
society suppresses a truth, it denies itself a valuable piece of knowledge; if it
suppresses a falsehood, then it denies the fuller understanding that comes from
contrasting truth with error. The argument, of course, assumes that truth will
prevail in the long run under conditions of open discussion. (Simon, 230)
Thus, we see that to suppress an expression or a speech is an action against the progression and the innovation of human life whether the value of that expression or speech is true or false. In case of a suppression of a true expression or speech, it becomes oppression or coercion if government is involved. However, we also should know why censorship is allowed as former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Well Holmes remarked, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shoutint fire in a theater and causing panic" (Simon, 233). Thus, censorship is useful when used to limit some types of speech such as fighting words, libel, obscenity. In these cases, censorship doesn't violate someone's private right; instead, it protects society from being exposed to unwelcome indecency or sensuality expressed by insolent people. And I agree that this kind of censorship should be maintained because nowadays, there are many literary works, press columns or journal articles that use many cursing words, and describe scenes that are considered sexually dirty, and especially the pornography problem that can have bad influences on virtuous or moral values.
Moreover, censorship is used beyond the above basic need of preventing immoral values; it is used to limit harmful speech or expression: "Mill justifies limiting speech with his harm principle, which states that actual or potential harm to others provides the only justification for limiting speech. If a person's thought or action would harm another, then the government is justified in imposing limitations" (Simon, 233). And the second case for limits on speech or expression is that all the harmless forms of speech are not equal and that some forms of speech or expression have higher values than others. For example, in this case, political speech receives more protection than commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading.
In conclusion, in my opinion, if the purpose of censorship is to prevent immoral values to be taught or expressed to good and virtuous citizens, and to promote virtuous or moral values against bad and vice actions then this kind of censorship should be maitained and practiced. Or if the purpose of censorship is to prevent harmful speech or expressions that can deprecate or devaluate the value or reputation of individuals, organizations then it is also should be maintained and approved. However, if censorship is used for oppression or suppression purposes such as to take advantages from others or to impede the truths or to make profits then it is certainly bad and should be limited or prevented.
References
Simon, Thomas W. Law and Philosophy - An Introduction with Readings. New york: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2001.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Internalism and Hobbe's Laws of Contracts
We know that early internalists use Aristotelian science of ethics and Socrates' individual virtues as the foundations for their argumentative ideas regarding internalism; however, Hobbes is one of the modern philosophers who does not favor individual virtues because he believes that in a natural state which is a state of scarcity, human beings as individuals are free and equal, and they inevitably have trends to preserve themselves and to compete with one another over scarce resources. Thus, to Hobbes, to live in peace is to establish laws or contracts that enable human beings in seeking peace and in doing justice to one another. In Chapter 15 of Leviathan, Hobbes talks about a fool who resembles the fool described by Glaucon in Socrates' Republic in one main point that they both think that there is no justice. To see why Hobbes brings up this topic of the fool and for what reasons that it makes the circumtances of the fool's thoughts relate to his political science, and to find out if Hobbes is an internalist, we need to analyze what is said by him about the fool; thus the following paragraphs will be responsible for undertaking this purpose.
First of all, I think I should mention the most important ethical principle that Aristotle as a follower of Socrates' ethics uses that the internalists also use as their ethical guide; that is reasoning which requires a virtuous internalist to have in order for him to become virtuous. Based on this requirement, Hobbes thinks that a fool can misuse of it to promote the kind of justice that satisfies his own preservations that are considered as an aim to seek goodness and happiness which in turn satisfies Aristotelian virtue. Hobbes' idea of the fool is obviously diffferent from Glaucon's fool because Glaucon's fool does not have any knowing of what the right goodness or happiness is except being forced by external power for being unjust. The reason that Glaucon takes as his motivation for doing injustice is because "someone who has power to do this, however, and is a true man wouldn't make an agreement with anyone not to do injustice in order not to suffer it" (Plato, 35). What Glaucon means is that a powerful person will do injustice because he cannot suffer the injustice that others do to him; thus he must do the same thing that others do because he doesn't believe that there is justice within a society where people are willing to do unjust things for their own benefits. So, one would do unjust things if he or she has the opportunity to do it.
Unlike Glaucon's fool, Hobbes' fool thinks that if something is considered to be good by one person, it is also considered to be good by another; thus if someone who does good things to preserve himself well then there is nothing harmful to another person for that reason. For example, if I want to eat a good meal, and if I can afford it, can what I do harm other people? Of course not, because other people do the same thing I do; that is to want to obtain good meals for themselves. Thus, there are no unjust actions that one do that can harm others. Hobbes writes:
...there could be no reason why every man might not do what he
thought conduced thereunto, and therefore also to make or not to make,
keep or not keep, covenant was not against reason, when it conduced to
one's benefit. (Hobbes, 90)
Hobbes' fool then question that whether injustice may exist with the reason that requires every man to do his own good? Since as explained above that when a man do good things for himself, that action is not considered as an unjust action because every man is entitled to be able to take care of his or her life good because no one would be better to take care of our lives than ourselves. Thus there is not injustice involving in doing one's own goods.
Hobbes' fool even doesn't care whether other people have power or not or whether they will do injustice or not since he can obtain good things for himself or do just things for himself without intervening with others' lives. And in such a society where "it is impossible to receive hurt by it and if it be not against reason, it is not against injustice, or else justice is not to be approved for good" (Hobbes, 90). So, we see that Hobbes' fool uses reasoning to protect himself when he says that "there is no such thing as injustice" because what he means is that it is not against reason to do one's own good, and it is not an unjust action to take care good of one's own life. But the reason why Hobbes wants to show the fool's story is to show that the fool's idea is false when he says that there is no injustice.
What Hobbes means is that the fool is not wise when he thinks that there is always justice in a society and that all every one does is just things. By not knowing that people are malicious and will do unjust things when they have opportunities to do them, the fool will suffer injustice caused by other people. Thus, to protect equal rights of every man in a society, laws must be established, or contracts must be established in order to demand people to do just actions to one another.
To Hobbes, although a fool is an internalist who thinks that doing one's own good things is a just action because it is not against reasoning, I don't think Hobbes himself is an absolute internalis because he doesn't believe that people themselves are honest, and therefore he cannot be classified as an ethical internalist since internalists believe in their self-education to become virtuous people. And Aristotle is the first internalist who thinks that one should obtain virtue by himself based on the definition of virtue as the excellent activity of the soul for a soul is something inside one's mind; thus, he must obtain virtue as the activities of his own soul, and therefore, this condition makes him become an internalist. But Hobbes objects this idea by saying that every one is more likely to compete one another over scarce resources and therefore is not able to comply with the rules of the soul. Consequently, Hobbes has a trend to become an externalist because he believes in the external conditions such as scarce resources, competitions, others' own power to commit injustice, etc. as the main conditions that can affect the just people from doing just actions.
However, if we consider that Hobbes is a philosopher who uses reason to help obtain natural laws that are beneficial to a society then we can accept him as an internalist since a traditional or ancient internalist is one whose judgments for doing justice is to use reasoning, a condition that makes use of the advantage of the soul. "Political philosophers in the natural law tradition maintain that reason dictates for each of us the basic laws that ought to govern our dealings with other persons. Hobbes embraces these tradition, for his time, radical view of human reason. For Hobbes, reason is an instrument or a tool allowing human beings to satisfy their appetites more effectively." (Hurley, 275)
In conclusion, I think Hobbes is in between an internalist and an externalist because although he uses reasoning to obtain new laws that are known in another term as "contracts", he still thinks that external conditions can prevent human beings from being virtuous or just, and that human beings must be controlled by covenants, or laws in order to avoid doing unjust things to one another. In other words, he is the kind of a modern internalist who objects the traditional ways of obtaining justice through self-education and is the one who accepts obligations as a means to compel human beings to do justice.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Hurley et al. History of Philosophy. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Plato. Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Ed. C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
First of all, I think I should mention the most important ethical principle that Aristotle as a follower of Socrates' ethics uses that the internalists also use as their ethical guide; that is reasoning which requires a virtuous internalist to have in order for him to become virtuous. Based on this requirement, Hobbes thinks that a fool can misuse of it to promote the kind of justice that satisfies his own preservations that are considered as an aim to seek goodness and happiness which in turn satisfies Aristotelian virtue. Hobbes' idea of the fool is obviously diffferent from Glaucon's fool because Glaucon's fool does not have any knowing of what the right goodness or happiness is except being forced by external power for being unjust. The reason that Glaucon takes as his motivation for doing injustice is because "someone who has power to do this, however, and is a true man wouldn't make an agreement with anyone not to do injustice in order not to suffer it" (Plato, 35). What Glaucon means is that a powerful person will do injustice because he cannot suffer the injustice that others do to him; thus he must do the same thing that others do because he doesn't believe that there is justice within a society where people are willing to do unjust things for their own benefits. So, one would do unjust things if he or she has the opportunity to do it.
Unlike Glaucon's fool, Hobbes' fool thinks that if something is considered to be good by one person, it is also considered to be good by another; thus if someone who does good things to preserve himself well then there is nothing harmful to another person for that reason. For example, if I want to eat a good meal, and if I can afford it, can what I do harm other people? Of course not, because other people do the same thing I do; that is to want to obtain good meals for themselves. Thus, there are no unjust actions that one do that can harm others. Hobbes writes:
...there could be no reason why every man might not do what he
thought conduced thereunto, and therefore also to make or not to make,
keep or not keep, covenant was not against reason, when it conduced to
one's benefit. (Hobbes, 90)
Hobbes' fool then question that whether injustice may exist with the reason that requires every man to do his own good? Since as explained above that when a man do good things for himself, that action is not considered as an unjust action because every man is entitled to be able to take care of his or her life good because no one would be better to take care of our lives than ourselves. Thus there is not injustice involving in doing one's own goods.
Hobbes' fool even doesn't care whether other people have power or not or whether they will do injustice or not since he can obtain good things for himself or do just things for himself without intervening with others' lives. And in such a society where "it is impossible to receive hurt by it and if it be not against reason, it is not against injustice, or else justice is not to be approved for good" (Hobbes, 90). So, we see that Hobbes' fool uses reasoning to protect himself when he says that "there is no such thing as injustice" because what he means is that it is not against reason to do one's own good, and it is not an unjust action to take care good of one's own life. But the reason why Hobbes wants to show the fool's story is to show that the fool's idea is false when he says that there is no injustice.
What Hobbes means is that the fool is not wise when he thinks that there is always justice in a society and that all every one does is just things. By not knowing that people are malicious and will do unjust things when they have opportunities to do them, the fool will suffer injustice caused by other people. Thus, to protect equal rights of every man in a society, laws must be established, or contracts must be established in order to demand people to do just actions to one another.
To Hobbes, although a fool is an internalist who thinks that doing one's own good things is a just action because it is not against reasoning, I don't think Hobbes himself is an absolute internalis because he doesn't believe that people themselves are honest, and therefore he cannot be classified as an ethical internalist since internalists believe in their self-education to become virtuous people. And Aristotle is the first internalist who thinks that one should obtain virtue by himself based on the definition of virtue as the excellent activity of the soul for a soul is something inside one's mind; thus, he must obtain virtue as the activities of his own soul, and therefore, this condition makes him become an internalist. But Hobbes objects this idea by saying that every one is more likely to compete one another over scarce resources and therefore is not able to comply with the rules of the soul. Consequently, Hobbes has a trend to become an externalist because he believes in the external conditions such as scarce resources, competitions, others' own power to commit injustice, etc. as the main conditions that can affect the just people from doing just actions.
However, if we consider that Hobbes is a philosopher who uses reason to help obtain natural laws that are beneficial to a society then we can accept him as an internalist since a traditional or ancient internalist is one whose judgments for doing justice is to use reasoning, a condition that makes use of the advantage of the soul. "Political philosophers in the natural law tradition maintain that reason dictates for each of us the basic laws that ought to govern our dealings with other persons. Hobbes embraces these tradition, for his time, radical view of human reason. For Hobbes, reason is an instrument or a tool allowing human beings to satisfy their appetites more effectively." (Hurley, 275)
In conclusion, I think Hobbes is in between an internalist and an externalist because although he uses reasoning to obtain new laws that are known in another term as "contracts", he still thinks that external conditions can prevent human beings from being virtuous or just, and that human beings must be controlled by covenants, or laws in order to avoid doing unjust things to one another. In other words, he is the kind of a modern internalist who objects the traditional ways of obtaining justice through self-education and is the one who accepts obligations as a means to compel human beings to do justice.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Hurley et al. History of Philosophy. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Plato. Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Ed. C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)