4 ms·

> Business majors have had ethics courses for as long as I can imagine I took a business ethics course in undergrad, and it was surprising how many students ad

> Business majors have had ethics courses for as long as I can imagine I took a business ethics course in undergrad, and it was surprising how many students advocated all sorts of (to me) aberrant ethical views. (Note I’m pretty traditional, morally speaking. The environment was strongly postmodern, and this was before all the modern insanity about “free speech is bad because some people say bad/offensive things”.) Not that I minded personally, but it was a strong lesson to me that teaching people categories and how to think won’t give them a desire to respect any particular brand of morality.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> this was before all the modern insanity about “free speech is bad because some people say bad/offensive things”.) To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember.
- bregma 7y ago
  > To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember. Yes, it's just that we've only recently been allowed to talk about it openly.
paulmd 7y ago
Most nations besides the US don't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Hell, the US doesn't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Should I be allowed to say that I think you should die for the opinion you just espoused? That is probably not a legal statement for me to make under the US principles of free speech. Should you be allowed to say that you think I should die for my genetics or the social group that I am born into? Glad we've agreed that while free speech isn't bad because some people say bad things, that doesn't mean that all free speech should be legal, either. As we've thus agreed, we can absolutely restrict certain categories of speech without diminishing the actual social value of free discourse. This idea is entirely uncontroversial in every single developed country except for the US. Nobody else thinks that "well I just want to murder all the jews but you want to suppress free discourse, looks like you have some growing up to do" is a valid position for people to take. No, that's not polite to say, but that's where your argument ends up, and that's really the entire purpose of that argument. Otherwise - what arguments exactly do you feel could not legally be expressed in a modern first-world democracy, that actually should be expressed? This argument literally, always comes down to someone who argues that "well I don't actually (openly) support Nazis marching in the streets, but I don't think they should be legally suppressed from expressing their desire to murder an entire race of human beings". Again, otherwise, be glad to hear what exactly you think you think people have a problem with that is legally suppressed in the communist state of Germany or Sweden in 2019. The reality is that the laws are always interpreted by humans and a huge amount of deference is given to free speech in all but the most explicit cases. Yes, if the system becomes corrupted we have a problem, but that's literally always the case even with an unlimited right to free speech. There is no slippery slope here unless things go completely off the rails, and things can always go completely off the rails under any system. We really, actually, can just ban the Nazis marching in the streets without everything magically turning into a dystopia. Germany has done it for 75 years. I realize you probably think I'm overreacting because this idea always went over well at your college smokeouts, but I'm under no obligation to sugar coat this for you, I'm just being blunt: this is an occasion when your opinion is trite and shallow and you really should re-think the consequences, because it's entirely possible that your opinion gets people killed over the next decade. You're not Atticus Finch for white-knighting the right of Nazis to express hate speech.
- gnomewascool 7y ago
  > what arguments exactly do you feel could not legally be expressed in a modern first-world democracy, that actually should be expressed? Many people use “free speech” to describe more than what is covered by the First Amendment in the USA. For instance, freedom from retaliation, by being fired from your job. According to that view, entities other than the government can engage in suppressing free speech.
- nostrebored 7y ago
  Impartial view here, not entirely sure where I fall on free speech: You've concluded that the absolute morality expressed by public consciousness should be the arbiter of publicly expressible speech. Maybe the next thing that gets people killed is not allowing public discourse to challenge socially accepted, morally unacceptable beliefs.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I read the argument and then re-read it. Went through few odd stages of amusement and I still disagree. Defending Nazi right to express free speech is more necessary now than ever given that people apparently forgot what an important right it is. As for the argument that, opinion gets people killed, I can only reply with the following. Opinions don't kill people. People kill people. It is important to know the difference.
  - Faark 7y ago
    I totally agree, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. There is no reason people should be unable to build their own weapons and bombs. And don't even start with the WMD slippery slope. More seriously, limiting speech should not be necessary in a good society were people don't let such stuff spread. But that doesn't seem to be how humans work. The marketplace of ideas does not necessarily prevent bad outcomes. And pretending that a root cause analysis for a genocide doesn't include speech as a vital segment in the chain leading to that atrocity seems illusory to me. So yes, having reasonable rules doesn't seem that wrong to me. It certainly comes with all the usual problems of gov/regulation. I'm kind of fine with what we have here in Germany. Not that its perfect... but it kind of reminds me of that saying about aerospace rules... they are written in blood.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> this was before all the modern insanity about “free speech is bad because some people say bad/offensive things”.) To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember.

bregma 7y ago
> To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember. Yes, it's just that we've only recently been allowed to talk about it openly.

paulmd 7y ago

Most nations besides the US don't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Hell, the US doesn't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Should I be allowed to say that I think you should die for the opinion you just espoused? That is probably not a legal statement for me to make under the US principles of free speech. Should you be allowed to say that you think I should die for my genetics or the social group that I am born into? Glad we've agreed that while free speech isn't bad because some people say bad things, that doesn't mean that all free speech should be legal, either. As we've thus agreed, we can absolutely restrict certain categories of speech without diminishing the actual social value of free discourse. This idea is entirely uncontroversial in every single developed country except for the US. Nobody else thinks that "well I just want to murder all the jews but you want to suppress free discourse, looks like you have some growing up to do" is a valid position for people to take. No, that's not polite to say, but that's where your argument ends up, and that's really the entire purpose of that argument. Otherwise - what arguments exactly do you feel could not legally be expressed in a modern first-world democracy, that actually should be expressed? This argument literally, always comes down to someone who argues that "well I don't actually (openly) support Nazis marching in the streets, but I don't think they should be legally suppressed from expressing their desire to murder an entire race of human beings". Again, otherwise, be glad to hear what exactly you think you think people have a problem with that is legally suppressed in the communist state of Germany or Sweden in 2019. The reality is that the laws are always interpreted by humans and a huge amount of deference is given to free speech in all but the most explicit cases. Yes, if the system becomes corrupted we have a problem, but that's literally always the case even with an unlimited right to free speech. There is no slippery slope here unless things go completely off the rails, and things can always go completely off the rails under any system. We really, actually, can just ban the Nazis marching in the streets without everything magically turning into a dystopia. Germany has done it for 75 years. I realize you probably think I'm overreacting because this idea always went over well at your college smokeouts, but I'm under no obligation to sugar coat this for you, I'm just being blunt: this is an occasion when your opinion is trite and shallow and you really should re-think the consequences, because it's entirely possible that your opinion gets people killed over the next decade. You're not Atticus Finch for white-knighting the right of Nazis to express hate speech.

gnomewascool 7y ago
> what arguments exactly do you feel could not legally be expressed in a modern first-world democracy, that actually should be expressed? Many people use “free speech” to describe more than what is covered by the First Amendment in the USA. For instance, freedom from retaliation, by being fired from your job. According to that view, entities other than the government can engage in suppressing free speech.
nostrebored 7y ago
Impartial view here, not entirely sure where I fall on free speech: You've concluded that the absolute morality expressed by public consciousness should be the arbiter of publicly expressible speech. Maybe the next thing that gets people killed is not allowing public discourse to challenge socially accepted, morally unacceptable beliefs.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I read the argument and then re-read it. Went through few odd stages of amusement and I still disagree. Defending Nazi right to express free speech is more necessary now than ever given that people apparently forgot what an important right it is. As for the argument that, opinion gets people killed, I can only reply with the following. Opinions don't kill people. People kill people. It is important to know the difference.
- Faark 7y ago
  I totally agree, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. There is no reason people should be unable to build their own weapons and bombs. And don't even start with the WMD slippery slope. More seriously, limiting speech should not be necessary in a good society were people don't let such stuff spread. But that doesn't seem to be how humans work. The marketplace of ideas does not necessarily prevent bad outcomes. And pretending that a root cause analysis for a genocide doesn't include speech as a vital segment in the chain leading to that atrocity seems illusory to me. So yes, having reasonable rules doesn't seem that wrong to me. It certainly comes with all the usual problems of gov/regulation. I'm kind of fine with what we have here in Germany. Not that its perfect... but it kind of reminds me of that saying about aerospace rules... they are written in blood.