4 ms·

Hah. I had to re-read your post + delete my original reply rejecting that. You got me. ;) I guess I am not as absolutionist as I thought.

• basementcat 7y ago
  I was also more of a free speech absolutist when I was younger. Now I’m more on the fence and I struggle to objectively define what is "good" and "bad" speech.
  • ignoramous 7y ago
    A good definition for good I've come across is: "Anything which should be done, if done as it should, to the extent to which it should, in the place where it should, at the time when it should, and in view of the end for which it should, is called good." Kind of explains why the distinction between good and bad remains a grey area for some.
    • yesenadam 7y ago
      But the idea of 'good' is there smuggled in and already present inside that word 'should', it seems to me. p.s. Defining 'good' has been a problem for philosophy, see e.g. discussion of Moore's naturalistic fallacy[0]---a problem in trying to define good in terms of something else. Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape has been the most useful book for me on understanding ethics and what good means. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy Not sure if that's the best link for the topic, but it's a start.