3 ms·

Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, t

by marrs 11y ago

Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed. Are you sure about this? I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. If what should happen is defined by what's already law... I don't think that's being argued.

ikeboy 11y ago
>Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying under the model presented above, the statement is meaningless, not just right or wrong. But people do make such statements, and mean something by it. >This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. And it would be coherent for someone to say in Israel "we should have the right to deny the holocaust", which shows that "should" is not the same as "it is legal". >I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? >I don't think that's being argued. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should".
- icebraining 11y ago
  "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? For the person who believes, it does. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should". No one said that laws are why people should have rights. What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law. >For the person who believes, it does. That's a tautology and not particularly useful. >No one said that laws are why people should have rights. Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?" You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have." Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should). >What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision. Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Well, clearly I failed to make myself understood, and I apologize. When I said, "countries can decide", I meant "country" as in the general entity which includes society and its general moral code, not the legislative body specifically (nor any other component of the State).
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. If you're using that definition, it's no longer enough to say "look, that's the law"; you need to demonstrate public support for it as well. If politicians pushed it through without broad public support, then it's not a sign of societal ethics.

by marrs 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

>Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying under the model presented above, the statement is meaningless, not just right or wrong. But people do make such statements, and mean something by it. >This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. And it would be coherent for someone to say in Israel "we should have the right to deny the holocaust", which shows that "should" is not the same as "it is legal". >I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. "moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? >I don't think that's being argued. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should".

icebraining 11y ago
"moral and ethical sensibilities changing" != "ethics changing". What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? If you believe murder is right, does that make it right? For the person who believes, it does. I was talking specifically about whether people "should" have rights. If you refer to laws to answer that, you're equating laws with "should". No one said that laws are why people should have rights. What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"? I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law. >For the person who believes, it does. That's a tautology and not particularly useful. >No one said that laws are why people should have rights. Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?" You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have." Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should). >What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision. Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Well, clearly I failed to make myself understood, and I apologize. When I said, "countries can decide", I meant "country" as in the general entity which includes society and its general moral code, not the legislative body specifically (nor any other component of the State).
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. If you're using that definition, it's no longer enough to say "look, that's the law"; you need to demonstrate public support for it as well. If politicians pushed it through without broad public support, then it's not a sign of societal ethics.