3 ms·

In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other f

In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it. -- Arthur Garfield Hays, "Democracy Works" (1939) In a very Russell's Teapot way, it's fairly trivial to blow up absolute statements by recursing. This doesn't say much about the content of the idea, per se.

claudiawerner 8y ago
An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be just intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle, because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the harm principle is "hollow" - it is used as a vessel to carry the content of our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful. Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" simply by knowing that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti-pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm. The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my right to free speech, no? >Richard Arneson observes that “emotional reactions to what one’s neighbors and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the quality of life in their community.” Arneson suggests that “we should think of citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge that such events are occurring...” [0] https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too), I'm fond of this exchange in Carpe Jugulum as a rough heuristic for what constitutes harm: There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax. “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.” “Nope.” “Pardon?” “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. “It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .” “But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ”
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the person isn't dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely what makes it so titillating.
    - hprotagonist 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be just intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle, because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the harm principle is "hollow" - it is used as a vessel to carry the content of our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful. Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" simply by knowing that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti-pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm. The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my right to free speech, no? >Richard Arneson observes that “emotional reactions to what one’s neighbors and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the quality of life in their community.” Arneson suggests that “we should think of citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge that such events are occurring...” [0] https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hprotagonist 8y ago
To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too), I'm fond of this exchange in Carpe Jugulum as a rough heuristic for what constitutes harm: There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax. “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.” “Nope.” “Pardon?” “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. “It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .” “But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ”
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the person isn't dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely what makes it so titillating.
  - hprotagonist 8y ago