Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma

Statement of the dilemma: Choices affect our lives. The choices of others also affect us.... If one knows that their choice will induce unfavorable consequences to oneself, it makes perfect sense to consider alternative options, and probably refrain from acting out those initial choices.

Biased Freedom: Since consequences causes one choice to be favored over another, actions will lack variety; This variety is important for the Darwinistic evolution of actions... As human community has evolved Free Speech has been favored over brutality... Call it bias, and that won't be far from truth.

Protecting The Freedom of Speech: Variation of views is important for a healthy evolution of a community: If i were in your place, I'd take that as fact... Ideas just as individuals exhibit evolution over time: Some ideologies gain popularity and\or support, other are diminished! As ideas evolve community morals develop over time to accommodate supported ideologies of that time... In order to maintain a wide set of schools of thought, the Freedom of Speech need to be protected; Call it a fair fight of ideologies if you want... The concept is that ideas have to evolve for their own competence, rather than the strength of people supporting them.

Expression Instead of Repression: Individuals need a safe environment to discuss thoughts away from violence; Individuals need to be assured that their ideas will not be the cause of their damnation, but rather as a cause for the diversity needed in any human community; In all civilized communities such rights are protected! It is important to note that such policies enrich the communities enforcing those policies leading the community to fit better in a world of surprises.... Open discussion leads to enrich knowledge of all parties participating in such discussion... To have such open discussion all parties need to express their point of view; In a discussion there is only one weapon to use: debates... On the other side of the coin, legal threats or otherwise repress some parties in the discussion leading them to withhold their honest views; Such threats leads to counter-productive discussion, and leads to loss of honesty, integrity, and openness.

The Dilemma: Encouraging one party to share their views is not at all an easy task: How much protection does one need to feel at ease sharing their views; The other side of the question is: what action the offended party is allowed to... Even a non-violent action could lead that a party in a discussion to choose to withhold their honest views... If one party offends another, does that party have the right to take action? Even a non-violent action could discourage that offending party! Answers to those questions remain in the hands of participating parties, and the degree of openness they are aiming at....

Finally, I leave you with this cartoon to ponder.

In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams

No comments: