2 ms·

> I see this as a conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says "free speech was defended, the outcome doesn't matter. Let's keep going". Bu

> I see this as a conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says "free speech was defended, the outcome doesn't matter. Let's keep going". But it turns out that deontology isn't that great of a fit for the real world, because people do care about consequences very intensely. Few have the iron-clad nerve needed to say "an innocent died as the consequence of my/my group's actions, and nevertheless I wouldn't change a thing". I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Personally, I feel asking people to make personal consequentialist decisions gives them far too much leeway to bring personal bias in, so I'm in favor of deontological freedom of speech - on consequentialist grounds.

dale_glass 5y ago
> I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Everyone is consequentialist in some measure. It's in human nature. In the end, we all want to be happy and to enjoy life, and to be proud of our work, and as a result we care when things get in the way of that. You can see plenty evidence of this in modern times. Eg, to pick something a bit less dramatic, Brexit didn't work out so well for a lot of fishermen that supported it, and it's not hard to find news of them being very upset by this and demanding change. It turns out having sovereignty doesn't make one all that happy when it threatens one's own livelihood.