4 ms·

When something can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary, it makes sense to forbid or restrict it.

benkuykendall 11y ago
Do you really believe that? "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal. I understand restrictions in the case that an action actively hurts someone, but only permitting actions that the government deems good is a worrisome trend. Even if an action appears to do some small harm, I would argue it is often more harmful to ban it. A ban suggests enforcement and punishment, and in marginal cases, the cost of banning an action can be greater than the reward of its absence. Finally, some people believe that the ability to determine for oneself whether an action is good is a benefit in its own right. I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions. Just my personal stance.
- astrobe_ 11y ago
  > Do you really believe that? I do, but it's not important. I was trying to state the average point of view of European countries. > "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal Perhaps the wrong wording, but by this I meant "obviously" bad actions. Driving while being drunk doesn't right away cause harm (if you're lucky enough), but it is dangerous and therefore unacceptable. Hate speech doesn't cause direct harm because "that's just words after all", but hatred is dangerous and spreading it is considered not acceptable by a majority of people. > I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions Individual rights and the rights of the People are in conflict (e.g. the right to go naked versus the right not to have to see you naked). In democratic countries, it is solved by letting the people vote laws to strike a balance between the two. At least in theory, it's not the government that tells you what moral and what is not: it's the people around you.
pessimizer 11y ago
Do you mean things like homosexuality, unions, immigration and the Roma, or is it possible for people to disagree about what completely lacks merit and should be suppressed by force?
jqm 11y ago
Prohibition? To be frank, the thing that does no good for anyone, but rather the contrary, is passing laws prohibiting free expression of ideas.
CamperBob2 11y ago
This has the same flaw that all utilitarian arguments do: imperfect knowledge of future consequences. Specifically, by driving distasteful expression underground, you may find that you've hidden it just well enough to allow it to grow unchallenged. The antidote to bad speech -- the only antidote -- is more speech.
- astrobe_ 11y ago
  In turn, the flaw in your argument is that you let the poison spread. You take the risk that it can spread unchallenged, or insufficiently challenged. Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force. Some people can speak louder than others, some people speak better than others. Some people own powerful media groups and some people are trained in manipulative speech: sophists yesterday, spin doctors today. Those people are "stronger", but of course not necessarily more "right". Still, they can win. Both philosophies have their pros and cons.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a fight.
tsotha 11y ago
Uh huh. And who makes that decision? Once you give someone that kind of power they're going to decide criticism of themselves "can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary".

Do you really believe that? "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal. I understand restrictions in the case that an action actively hurts someone, but only permitting actions that the government deems good is a worrisome trend. Even if an action appears to do some small harm, I would argue it is often more harmful to ban it. A ban suggests enforcement and punishment, and in marginal cases, the cost of banning an action can be greater than the reward of its absence. Finally, some people believe that the ability to determine for oneself whether an action is good is a benefit in its own right. I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions. Just my personal stance.

astrobe_ 11y ago
> Do you really believe that? I do, but it's not important. I was trying to state the average point of view of European countries. > "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal Perhaps the wrong wording, but by this I meant "obviously" bad actions. Driving while being drunk doesn't right away cause harm (if you're lucky enough), but it is dangerous and therefore unacceptable. Hate speech doesn't cause direct harm because "that's just words after all", but hatred is dangerous and spreading it is considered not acceptable by a majority of people. > I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions Individual rights and the rights of the People are in conflict (e.g. the right to go naked versus the right not to have to see you naked). In democratic countries, it is solved by letting the people vote laws to strike a balance between the two. At least in theory, it's not the government that tells you what moral and what is not: it's the people around you.

pessimizer 11y ago

Do you mean things like homosexuality, unions, immigration and the Roma, or is it possible for people to disagree about what completely lacks merit and should be suppressed by force?

jqm 11y ago

Prohibition? To be frank, the thing that does no good for anyone, but rather the contrary, is passing laws prohibiting free expression of ideas.

CamperBob2 11y ago

This has the same flaw that all utilitarian arguments do: imperfect knowledge of future consequences. Specifically, by driving distasteful expression underground, you may find that you've hidden it just well enough to allow it to grow unchallenged. The antidote to bad speech -- the only antidote -- is more speech.

astrobe_ 11y ago
In turn, the flaw in your argument is that you let the poison spread. You take the risk that it can spread unchallenged, or insufficiently challenged. Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force. Some people can speak louder than others, some people speak better than others. Some people own powerful media groups and some people are trained in manipulative speech: sophists yesterday, spin doctors today. Those people are "stronger", but of course not necessarily more "right". Still, they can win. Both philosophies have their pros and cons.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a fight.

tsotha 11y ago

Uh huh. And who makes that decision? Once you give someone that kind of power they're going to decide criticism of themselves "can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary".