3 ms·
There is more to life than facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction >“T
by cheph 6y ago
There is more to life than facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction
>“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance” (1978, 53).
This sentence as it stands has no limiting principle and is pretty much the justification that was given for almost every genocide.
Heck this is the exact reasoning that China is using for the ongoing Uyghur genocide [1][2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
[2]: https://neveragainrightnow.com/ https://neveragainrightnow.com/
- nabla9 6y agoThe context is not government censorship. It's people censoring each other.
- cheph 6y ago> The context is not government censorship. It's people censoring each other. Actually if you read the source, it clearly is about government control (i.e. control by the active interference of mankind): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:On_Liberty_(4th_Edition).djvu/101 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:On_Liberty_(4th_Edition)... The sentence preceding the one you quoted is: > Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The problem is that "nuisance" here is not considered to include speech. The whole section this is in is about how "human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve;" And if you read further you will recognize this is not predicated on the speech being true.