Here is a link to a video on Youtube. The video consists of clips of Anti-Semitism in the media. This is of course very controversial, particularly for Jews, but it is very relevant to test the application of cultural relativism: Here is something that we find absolutely despicable, and yet, our disgust with this does not change the fact that Anti-Semitism is a staple in many cultures. Do we have a right to inhibit the right to free speech, and to judge the ideas of these people, if they are only expressing the values of their culture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xotGJfumZj0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Free speech is a societal value worth protecting.
That being said, violence is not part of free speech. The synagogue burning is ridiculous, and the people should be held accountable..
But rallies and burning flags? I respect these people's rights to free speech, and though I may not have the same opinion, that doesn't mean they're not entitled to theirs.
I'd really like to know what people who are against free speech in these cases would do about this. It's one thing to go around saying that these people shouldn't be able to express themselves, but what action could they do to back up their backwards way of thinking? Put someone in jail when they say they hate Jews?
People hate other people. It's life. And it isn't going to change.
That being said, these situations should be monitored in case these radicalists intend to physically harm Jews based on their actions. But otherwise, we're just trying to control their thoughts. And everyone would agree - that's unacceptable.
When it comes to free speech, I think the liberatarian view is the best solution.
As Gideon mentioned, people are always going to hate others, there is no getting around that.
No one should be restricted in saying what they feel and think as long as it causes no harm to anyone else.
There is no limit to what they can say until people begin to be harmed by it, and just claiming your feelings are hurt does not count. If your feelings are hurt toughen up, as Hobbes says "life is nasty, brutish, and short."
We do not have a right to inhibit the right of freedom of speech, but we do have the right to stop unnecessary violence. I think that acts of violence like burning down synagogues and ripping up Israeli flags are unnecessary acts. It is enough that these people are allowed to demonstrate their hate in words, but once it comes to being physically violent, I think it has gone too far and these people should be punished for their acts.
I think that even though we must respect the values and customs of other cultures (cultural relativism), once unnecessary violence occurs, we cannot have respect for them anymore and it should be stopped.
I, like Gideon, believe that free speech is a societal value that must be protected.
After conducting some research into the topic, I discovered a very interesting concept that I would like to discuss on the blog.
The right to “freedom of speech” is viewed by many as an integral part of many liberal democracies. However, many people prefer to use the term “freedom of expression” when describing this right. What I would like to have discussed, is the difference between:
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression
In my eyes, these terms are not synonymous as freedom of expression does not define the medium through which people can express themselves. Freedom of speech is confined to verbal expression. If this is the case, then Ally is correct in saying that the ripping of flags and the burning of synagogues are far too extreme. But, if the ethical principle here is Freedom of Expression then are these actions really wrong? Or according to cultural relativism are these actions permissible because these cultures are expressing their feelings in the ways they’ve deemed correct?
I agree with Gideon in his idea that freedom of speech cannot be taken away becasue you disagree with what someone is saying. That being said, everybody has their freedom to think about other nations or religions however they want to, but as soon as violent acts are committed because of it the right is taken away.
Ozier brings up the concept of freedom of expression and I believe that it is also a value that should be upheld until violence occurs. Even though to any Jew the burning of the Israeli flag is a very terrible offence, it does not hurt anyone physically and therefore I believe that it can deemed legal and moral according to the right of freedom of expression. The concept of cultural relativism has strong standing in this issue because people have to realize that even though they may not agree with the antisemetic acts that are done in the movie the participants in the actions are technically not doing anything wrong, and it is not fair to deem their actions immoral simply because you do not agree with them.
I have two thoughts on this issue. According to cultural relativism anti-Semitism is moral, and people who burn flags and vandalize cemeteries are not wrong in their actions. However, I believe that even though burning a flag does not hurt anyone physically, much more should be considered before classifying the act as moral. Would it be considered moral for a man to burn an Israeli flag at the Jewish Community Centre? The act itself might be moral according to his culture but this would make other people feel threatened. The act cannot be justified as moral at that specific place. Therefore, we have a right to inhibit freedom of expression depending on the place and circumstance or whether it threatens the safety of others.
The best way to determine if acts of anti-Semitism are permissible is to apply the theory of relative morality instead of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism accounts only for the specific culture of the actor with no other considerations. Relative morality brings the place and time into perspective.
My second thought contradicts my first thought, but it is worth mentioning. Even though the spreading/preaching of anti-Semitic conspiracies and opinions may be considered immoral (since it is threatening to the Jews), it is very difficult to “stop words”. We have the power to inhibit acts of anti-Semitic violence since crime is easily punishable according to all ethical belief. However, we do not have the power to inhibit freedom of speech since expressing thoughts do not violate the standard moral code.
Post a Comment