Morality: the standard that an individual or a group has about what is right and wrong

Ethics: examining moral standards and asking how these standards apply and whether these standards are
reasonable or unreasonable
Ethics concerns what is morally right or wrong.
Justice concerns what is legally right or wrong.
Ideally, justice is ethical, and one assumes that doing what is ethical is legal.
Justice cares about peoples rights, and righting wrongs when those rights are violated.
Values, morals and ethics
What are the differences between values, morals and ethics? They all provide behavioral rules, after all. It
may seem like splitting hairs, but the differences can be important when persuading others.
Values
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn't, good and bad. They also
tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another.
Dictionary.com defines values as: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional
investment (either for or against something); "he has very conservatives values"
Morals
Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about
good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described
as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Dictionary.com defines morals as: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Ethics
You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal
system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted,
whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people.
If you accuse someone of being unethical, it is equivalent of calling them unprofessional and may well be
taken as a significant insult and perceived more personally than if you called them immoral (which of
course they may also not like).
Dictionary.com defines ethics as:
A theory or a system of moral values: The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the
members of a profession.
Ethics of principled conviction asserts that intent is the most important factor. If you have good principles,
then you will act ethically.
Ethics of responsibility challenges this, saying that you must understand the consequences of your decisions
and actions and answer to these, not just your high-minded principles.
The medical maxim 'do no harm', for example, is based in the outcome-oriented ethics of responsibility.
Four Types of Justice
There are four types of justice that people can seek when they have been wronged.
1. Distributive justice
Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive, from goods to
attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots of socialism, where equality is a fundamental
principle.
If people do not think that they are getting their fair share of something, they will seek first to gain what
they believe they deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.
2. Procedural justice
The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as opposed to the fair share of distributive justice).
If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to be distributed, then they may well
accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they see both procedural and
distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.
3. Restorative justice
The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is some form of restitution, putting
things back as they should be. The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology. Restoration
means putting things back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly
sorry. This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party.
Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.
4. Retributive justice
Retributive justice works on the principle of punishment, although what constitutes fair and proportional
punishment is widely debated. While the intent may be to dissuade the perpetrator or others from future
wrong-doing, the re-offending rate of many criminals indicates the limited success of this approach.
Punishment in practice is more about the satisfaction of victims and those who care about them. This strays
into the realm of revenge, which can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurt party seeks to
make the other person suffer in return. In such cases 'justice' is typically defined emotionally rather that
with intent for fairness or prevention.
So what?
If you have been wronged, consider carefully what kind of justice you are really seeking.
If you are the wrong-doer and others are seeking justice against you, seek first to ensure distributive
justice.
A question may be asked why people are put in prison. If it is to prevent them re-offending, then it is
restorative justice. If it is to punish them, then it is retributive justice. Sadly, this have proven a poor
method of prevention.
Rights: Definition, Nature and Different Aspects
Definitions of Rights:
Rights are legal or moral recognition of choices or interests to which particular weight is attached. A
person is faced with a number of alternatives or choices and he is to select one or two of them.
This freedom is the central idea of rights. The individual shall have the full freedom to select the required
number of alternatives. The system of rights therefore denotes some sort of distribution of freedom
(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics).
The second definition is that
Rights can be called justified and recognized expectation.
It is justified in the sense that when one claims rights there shall be sufficient justification behind the
claims and, at the same time, the claims should be recognized.
Thirdly, T. H. Green defines rights in the light of idealism since he was the doyen of English idealist
philosophy. He defines the concept of rights:
The capacity on the part of the individual of conceiving a good as the same for himself and others and of
being determined to action by that conception is foundation of rights, and rights are the condition of that
capacity being realized. No right is justifiable or should be a right except on the ground that directly or
indirectly it serves this purpose.
 Andrew Heywood (Political Theory) calls rights as entitlements (emphasis added). Rights are entitlements
to act or be treated in a particular way. Modern political thinkers are accustomed to treat rights mainly as
entitlements. It is a type of entitlement in the sense that an individual has rights means that he is entitled
to have something.
In the present day situation rights have been regarded as rational claims. The environmentalists have
challenged the traditional concept of rights. They forcefully argue that every claim made by the
individuals must be based on rationality. Human beings cannot kill animals indiscriminately or destroy
forest for their own benefit.
These two acts may satisfy their needs but at the same time the killing of animals or destroying forest
shall cause an imbalance in nature and ultimately society and succeeding generations will suffer. So the
idea of entitlement shall be viewed from modern and wider perspective.
Nature of Rights:
There are several features of rights:
(1) Norman Barry uses a new term which he calls claim-rights. Let us quote him: In the more usual
sense of the word right it is understood as a type of claim. Claim-rights entitle their holder to limit the
liberty of another person.
A has a right against B, deriving either from moral or legal rule, which puts B under a duty. It is not the
moral quality of act that entitles A to limit Bs liberty but simply the fact that he possesses the
rights Claim-rights possessed by persons are quite different from favors or concessions granted to
individuals by authorities.
The claim-rights do not depend upon the mercy of another person. For one reason or other individuals
claim rights which means that others will not create any obstructions on the way of enjoying the claim-
rights. The implication of this right is individuals claim-right on the ground that the rights are
indispensable for the development of personality and the authority is bound to provide such right.
(2) Right is viewed in the sense of liberty, right is liberty. There is a general and popular view that rights
imply duties. A man cannot claim/demand rights if he does not perform duties. Rights, in this sense, are
correlative to duties or functions. But when rights are interpreted in the background of liberty the doing of
duty does not arise at all.
For example, an individual has right of the freedom of speech means that the individual has liberty to open
his mouth and mind and if he does so he will face no problem. When rights are understood as liberties, the
possession of rights by one person does not entail the restrictions on liberty of another or in the sense of
being under a correlative duty. This concept of right denies the traditional relation between right and duty.
(3) Identification of rights as special claims is another characteristic feature of rights. In the period of
monarchical absolutism people claimed the right to freedom of speech because it was drastically curtailed
by the absolute kings. Not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of thought and action were demanded
by people.
In the middle Ages there were conflicts among the various religious groups and in that period many people
claimed the right to practice any religious belief and faith. In the nineteenth century, individualism
dominated the political scene and rights were viewed negatively. The state interference with the
individuals affairs shall be minimum.
It was the negative approach to rights. In the modern age positive ideas cloaked the idea of rights. It means
that Individuals will enjoy rights but at the same time the state should do for the realization of
welfare objectives. It was also felt that this could be done by both the state and the general public.
Both should act in tandem.
 (4) Sometimes it has been found that there are rights for few and rights for many. For example, the
revolutionaries of American Revolution and French Revolution demanded that they were fighting for the
general rights of general public.
But after the revolutions it was found that only limited people were able to enjoy the rights. In all class
societies only handful of persons enjoys all sorts of rights and majority is deprived of basic rights. In many
states special rights are recognized for particular sections of people.
For example, in India the scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and other backward classes enjoy special rights
and Constitution recognizes these special provisions. We may call this system as special rights for special
classes. Side by side there are general rights for general classes or all persons of the state.
(5) Rights are very important no doubt, but individuals alone and without any help from the state cannot
enjoy rights. The state must create an atmosphere in which all the individuals will have opportunities to
enjoy rights. But the state can do this only on condition that the rights are recognized by the state. Whether
the state recognizes or not rights are always rights. But this is the conceptual sense of rights.
In reality, people will be in a position to enjoy rights if the state comes forward for their realization. No
rights can exist beyond the jurisdiction of state. People of the state of nature had natural rights, but all of
them had not the opportunities to enjoy rights because the state of nature had no enforcing organ.
(6) For the enforcement of rights law is essential. The state is the enforcing authority and law is the
mechanism or instrument. State takes precautionary measures with the help of law. This rights, law and
state are all interlinked. In respect of law and right-law performs a double function. It protects the right of
some and prevents others from interfering with the rights enjoyed, by others.
Different Aspects of Rights:
Natural Rights:
Rights which persons possess by nature that is without the intervention of the agreement, or in the absence of political
and legal institution (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics). Some thinkers believe that natural rights are some sort of
moral rights in the sense that they do not depend for their validity on the enforcement of a legal system. They are a
special type of moral rights. Any agreement or authority is not the source of natural rights. Again, such rights need not be
recognized by the state because they existed before the origin of state.
Bill of Rights:
It states: No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or banished or in any way
destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land.
Fundamental Rights:
Almost all the constitutions (which have adopted rights as part of the constitution) call fundamental rights. The same
rights are called fundamental in the sense that these rights are inviolable or cannot be violated simply to satisfy the
needs or whims of a section of government or population. The idea of fundamental, inviolable rights is rooted in the
Magna Carta. Bill of Rights passed by the British Parliament and the declaration of Rights of Man. From the progress
of society and course of history it became crystal clear that certain rights are indeed fundamental or indispensable for
the development of personality and inherent qualities of man.The purpose of incorporating these rights into the
constitution is that rights need to be protected by the state and if these rights are not made parts of the constitution their
proper protection will not be ensured. There is a subtle difference between rights in general sense and the fundamental
rights.
All sorts of rights are not included into the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are also called basic rights. Citizens also
came to know what are their rights. The term fundamental is not rigid at all. A right is fundamental in one state and the
same right is not fundamental in another state.
For example, right to work is a fundamental right in a socialist state but not in a capitalist state.
 Human Rights:
Definition of Human Rights:
Besides fundamental rights, natural rights and bill of rights there is another right which is called human rights. Human
rights are not, so to speak, basically different from general category of rights. While analysing the nature of rights we
had the opportunity to throw light on the idea that rights can practically come to be meaningless if they are not
recognized and state authority does not take any step for their protection.
Naturally the intervention of state appears to be inevitable for the realisation of rights, but this need not be the case.
Any human being as a part of humanity is entitled to have certain rights and the state must take necessary steps for
their protection. From this idea emanates the concept of human rights.
We here quote Heywoods definition of human rights: Human rights are rights to which people are entitled by
virtue of being human. They are, therefore, universal rights in the sense that they belong to all human beings rather
than to members of any particular nation, race, religion, gender, social class or whatever.
In a slightly different way Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics has defined it:
Human rights are a special sort of moral entitlement. They attach to all men equally simply by virtue of
their humanity irrespective of race, nationality or membership of particular social group. They specify the
minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life.
Nature of Human Rights:
1. Human rights are called moral entitlements. As a part of the whole humanity every human being is
entitled to certain rights and no authority under the sun can deprive him of these basic rights. Naturally,
any attempt to deprive man of his share to rights is immoral.
Categories of Human Rights:
Though the two words human rights are comparatively of recent origin the rights included under this head
are not of recent origin. Even the rights contemplated by Locke or Jefferson have found place in human
rights.
For example, Lockes right to life, liberty and property or Jeffersons life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
are treated as parts of human rights. So originally civil rights such as life, liberty and freedom
from torture were human rights.
Derivative Rights
Derivative rights are rights which are designed to further the interests of persons other than those to
whom the rights are granted. Thus, utility rights are at least partly derivative, because they are designed to
increase social utility, rather than the utility of the bearers of those rights.
In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their
voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual
rights to a specific undertaking.26
"that these rights are not suddenly forfeited when a business grows beyond some arbitrarily defined size
...". if a corporation's "right to exist were limited, then to that extent the rights of individuals to property,
association and contract would also be limited."
What is "Critical Analysis"?
A critical analysis is different from a summary. It may include a summary, but should go beyond this. You are
providing an informed critique of the material. Remember that the purpose of a critical analysis is to evaluate.
Template for critical analysis of arguments
1. Whats the point (claim/opinion/conclusion)?
Look for sub conclusions as well.
2. What are the reasons/what is the evidence?
Articulate all unstated premises.
 Articulate connections.
3. What exactly is meant by . . .?
Define terms.
Clarify all imprecise language.
Eliminate or replace loaded language and other manipulations.
4. Assess the reasoning/evidence:
If deductive, check for truth/acceptability and validity.
If inductive, check for truth/acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency.
5. How could the argument be strengthened?
Provide additional reasons/evidence.
Anticipate objectionsare there adequate responses?
6. How could the argument be weakened?
Consider and assess counterexamples, counterevidence, and counter-Arguments.
Should the argument be modified or rejected because of counter-Arguments?

7. If you suspend judgment (rather than accepting or rejecting the Argument), identify further
information required.
Rawls Social Justice Ethics
Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which Rawls attempts to solve the
problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar
device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two
principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle.
The original position
Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition, although he takes a different view from that of previous
thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an
artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind
a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they
cannot tailor principles to their own advantage:
"...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the
distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties
do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are
chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an
individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to
privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular,
Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximum strategy which would
maximize the prospects of the least well-off.
The Two Principles of Justice
These principles are lexically ordered, and Rawls emphasizes the priority of liberty.
The First Principle of Justice
"First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for
others."[2]
 The basic liberties of citizens are the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and
assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
The Second Principle of Justice
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
(a) They are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just
savings principle. (The difference principle)
(b) Offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
Rawls' claim in (a) is that departures from equality of a list of what he calls primary goods"things which
a rational man wants whatever else he wants" [Rawls, 1971, pg. 92]are justified only to the extent that
they improve the lot of those who are worst-off under that distribution in comparison with the previous,
equal, distribution. His position is at least in some sense egalitarian, with a provision that inequalities are
allowed when they benefit the least advantaged. An important consequence of Rawls' view is that
inequalities can actually be just, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off. His argument for
this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family one is born
into) shouldn't determine one's life chances or opportunities. Rawls is also keying on an intuition that a
person does not morally deserve their inborn talents; thus that one is not entitled to all the benefits they
could possibly receive from them; hence, at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to
equality in assessing the justice of distributions is eliminated.
The stipulation in (b) is lexically prior to that in (a). Fair equality of opportunity requires not merely that
offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable opportunity to
acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed. It may be thought that this stipulation, and even
the first principle of justice, may require greater equality than the difference principle, because large social
and economic inequalities, even when they are to the advantage of the worst-off, will tend to seriously
undermine the value of the political liberties and any measures towards fair equality of opportunity.
Kant's Ethical Formalism
Ethical formalism is a type of ethical theory which defines moral judgments in terms of their logical form (e.g., as
"laws" or "universal prescriptions") rather than their content (e.g., as judgments about what actions will best
promote human well-being). The term also often carries critical connotations. Kant, for example, has been criticized
for defining morality in terms of the formal feature of being a "universal law", and then attempting to derive from
this formal feature various concrete moral duties.
Kantian Ethics
Deontological (or duty-oriented) theories of ethics (e.g., divine- command theory, Kantian formalism)
assume that the first task of ethics is to determine what we are obligated to do. By doing our duty, we do
what is valuable (not the other way around).
Divine-command theory says that something is good for no other reason than that God commands it.
Kant's ethics is called formalism because it focuses on the form or structure of a moral judgment (the fact
that all moral directives have the form "you ought to do X").
The fundamental aim of Kant's ethical theory is to determine how a command can be a moral command
with a particularly obligating character.
Kant's Ethics
According to Kant there are several problems with consequentialism
o According to the consequentialist, no act (no matter how evil or cruel) is right or wrong in itself
o If we are already inclined to do an act because we naturally seek to produce good consequences (e.g.,
pleasure, happiness), then we are not acting freely and therefore not morally responsibly
o Because of differences in their experiences and backgrounds, people differ as to what are good
consequences; therefore, we can never achieve agreement on the end of moral behavior or on an ultimate
criterion for making such decisions
o The consequences of our actions are often out of our control, so we cannot be held responsible for those
consequences or have our actions judged based on them
Morality is not based on hypothetical imperatives (if you want X--where X is, for example, happiness--
then do Y) but rather on a categorical imperative (you must do X, regardless). If morality were
hypothetical and people differed in their social and personal goals (as they do), then their means for
attaining those goals (e.g., morality) would differ as well. But morality should be the kind of thing which
does not vary from individual to individual, because otherwise there would be no point in providing a
reason for behavior other than that it is simply what one wants to do. In other words, it would be to
acknowledge that there is no reason for acting one way rather than another. But because we are rational
beings, we can give reasons for what we do, and we can act based on those reasons rather than acting
simply because we want to.
According to Kant, the fundamental rational principle of moral argument or reasoning is the categorical
imperative: you should act, regardless of your own aims or purposes, only on maxims (general ways
of acting) that you could will that everyone else also adopts. To test the maxim for universalizability,
you have to ask whether the universal adoption of such a way of acting would be (1) consistent (i.e.,
possible) or (2) acceptable to rational beings.
A maxim such as "lie when you can get away with it" cannot be universalized consistently (i.e., without
contradiction) because, if people lied when they thought they could get away with it, you would never
know when anyone was telling you the truth; in such a world, there would be no way to tell the truth from
a lie, so its universalization would generate a contradiction. Another example of this same point: the
universalization of "steal when you can" would create a world in which no one's property would any
longer truly be rightfully his or hers; but if there is no private property any more, there can be no stealing
either, since stealing means taking someone's private property.
Kant recognizes that it is necessary to add the second test of universalizability (acceptability) because
there are maxims that can be universalized without contradiction (e.g., "Help out people only when you
benefit from it") which are not universally acceptable. That is, it is possible to imagine a selfish world
where no one helps out others except for personal gain; however, such a world would not be acceptable
to everyone, and the fact that it does not have universal acceptability makes it a maxim on which no
moral action can be based.
Being rational means being able to act based on motives that are universally defensible. Thus to act as a
human being is not to act as a slave to one's instincts or passions or as a result of social causes but as
ends-in- themselves. Human beings can act out of respect for doing something because it is the rational
thing to do, and when they do this they are acting for the sake of doing their duty; and this is what being
moral means, acting on the basis of a "good will." In this way, they are authors of their actions
(autonomous) and are morally responsible for their intentions, not the consequences of actions.
Morality presumes the existence of rational persons. A society of autonomous, rational persons is a
kingdom of ends, a society in which each individual has dignity, intrinsic worth, and is considered fully
responsible for his or her choices in the making of universal law. [But if everything is valuable only in
terms of moral beings, then what about nature?--Answer: value is meaningful only in terms of freely
chosen ends.] The possibility for rationality makes humans morally significant, but that does not
indicate specific morally justifiable ways to act.

J.S. Mills On Liberty

 A. Free Speech
Free speech is one of the necessary conditions of a free society
Mills position amounts to this:
o No opinion, no matter how false or immoral it appears, should ever be silenced unless it directly leads to the
harm of others
To support his contention, Mill considers different cases concerning the truth of the opinion we might propose
to suppress:
1. when its true
2. when its false
3. when its partly true, partly false
B. Fallibility
Suppressed opinions are always suppressed on the grounds that they are false
But to suppress (censor) an opinion is more than to believe that we are right it implies that we could not be
wrong
Suppression presumes certainty to be equivalent to absolute certainty
But everyone knows that we can be mistaken
o People have been mistaken
o Ages have been mistaken
o Great thinkers have been mistaken
Socrates & Athens, Christianity & Marcus Aurelius
The most open-minded and educated people can be wrong!
We have no reason to believe that todays certainties will not be found false tomorrow
o We used to be certain that the earth was flat
C. It Could Be True
The opinion that is suppressed could very well be true, and if we squash it, weve missed out on the truth
And if you believe that the truth always shines, youre mistaken
o If not entirely lost it can be lost for centuries, e.g. Aristarchus and the solar system
The only way to insure that we are as close to truth as possible is to allow for divergent opinions
Experience is not enough, we need discussion the free exchange of ideas
This is evidenced by the fact that the greatest advances in knowledge have always taken place in ages of
extreme toleration, e.g. German Enlightenment
D. The Balance Theory of Truth

In dealing with questions concerning matters of fact, the only way we can come close to truth is by
subjecting our belief to the rigors of debate
o Recall that reason alone wont do it
All ideas must be tested through discussion:

Claim Objection 1 Experience & Testimonies on

both sides

Reply Objection 2

Reply
 Truth
We need completely free discussion because thats the only way we can compensate for our fallibility
Its the only way to be assured that our mistakes can be rectified
Its the only way to avoid stagnation and decadence of thought
E. Limited Toleration is an Oxymoron
Just as no one thinks they are mistaken about any of their beliefs, no one takes themselves to be
intolerant
The tendency is to limit the class of things we could be mistaken about or intolerant of
o I know Im not right about everything, but I am right about this!
o Its good to be tolerant of all good people, e.g. all Christians, all theists, all non-communists
Such an attitude, says Mill, is self-deception at best
There is no such thing as limited toleration, or limited fallibilism
To be tolerant, is to let people have their own point of view
F. Why Defend Such Liberties?
It is often claimed that the only people who defend deviant beliefs & practices are deviants.
o Only atheists defend the right to express atheistic practices?
o Only Nazis defend the right to publish Nazi literature?
o Only perverts defend the right to publish pornography?
This attitude is mistaken, says Mill
The people we protect in defending these rights are not the perverts, Nazis and heretics, but all of
society
o Unless we defend everyones rights, therell be no guarantee that ours will not be the next one to be
infringed upon
We might have to tolerate giving rights to (seemingly) despicable characters to insure that our rights will
be preserved
G. What If It Is False?
Of course it is sometimes the case that the received view is the best and the deviant view is false
o Why not suppress deviance in this circumstance?
First of all, we really cant be certain that our view is true or will continue to be true
Secondly, even if we know for sure that the deviant view is mistaken, we should still allow its
expression
o There are two main reasons for this:
1. Without opposition, a true belief will be nothing more than a prejudice (preference) (Irrational Belief)
2. Without opposition, true belief will lose its meaning (Unfelt belief)
H. Prejudicial Beliefs
There are two major problems in holding beliefs as prejudices (preferences)
First: beliefs that are not backed by reason (irrational beliefs) are often not very stable
o The slightest argument can shake you from your conviction
Second: Even if youve been drilled so much that you cant be shaken from your conviction the belief is
still irrational
o It could be false for all you know
Knowledge is not equal to true belief
To know it is to know both sides of the issue
I. Meaningless Beliefs
 A belief that is nothing more than a prejudice one that does not come from rational reflection is a
dead belief
The truth of it is not something you feel, but something you repeat like a parrot
o cf Aristotle on akrasia (Nicomachean Ethics, Bk VII)
If the belief is to be meaningful, you must understand why it is true
o Why is stealing wrong?
o Why is infidelity a bad idea?
o Why should we be polite to our neighbors?
To fully understand why its true, we must have arguments for our views
To prevent these arguments from being more than associated words, we must test them by debate
J. The Balance Theory of Meaningful Belief
Just as finding the truth in all questions concerning matters of fact requires a dialectical exchange, true
beliefs must be subjected to the same dialogue to retain their meaning
A free discussion of the pros & cons of any idea both verifies (or falsifies) it, and it keeps the idea lively
and forceful:

Pro Con

Pro Con

Justified Truth

And so, even if the deviant opinion is false, we must allow its expression that our view will not be
reduced to empty words
o Comment on Christianity of his day (p. 39, Hackett ed.)

K. Partial Truths

The last possibility concerning the truth of a deviant opinion is the most common one
Most doctrines are neither absolutely true, nor absolutely false; they are partly true & partly false
In these cases, suppressing the opinion squashing discussion makes us incapable of finding the whole
truth
It is through dialogue that we can amend and revise our views to conform to the truth; hence the need
for free discussion
The Balance Theory of Inquiry

Jack is to blame No! Jim is

Jack poked Jane But Jim threatened

in the eye him into doing it
 Jack could have
told Mom

Both are to blame

L. Recapitulation
There are Four Main Reasons for allowing free speech:
1. Any opinion that is suppressed could be true to deny this is to claim infallibility;
2. Even false opinions have a portion of the truth and to suppress them makes it impossible to find that
portion which is true;
3. Even if the received opinion is entirely true, unless it is contested, it can be nothing more than an
irrational prejudice;
4. Not allowing people to contest the truest of doctrines makes these doctrines feeble and meaningless
(no heartfelt conviction).

Liberty-Limiting Principles
1. The harm principle--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent harm to others.
This principle is most widely accepted. John Stuart Mill holds that only the harm principle can justify the limitation of
liberty.
2. The principle of legal paternalism--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent harm to self.
J. S. Mill clearly rejects this principle as a basis for limiting liberty.
3. The principle of legal moralism--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent immoral behavior.Legal moralism
is usually invoked only what would be prohibited is so-called victimless crimes. (If there were victims, the harm or legal
paternalist principles might apply.) When legal moralism is invoked, "community standards"--perhaps the opinion of the
majority in a particular community--are usually used to determine what is moral and what is immoral. J. S. Mill clearly
rejects use of this principle as a basis for limiting liberty. In his view, to do so would amount to "tyranny of the majority."
4. The offense principle--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent offense to others.
The older arguments for censorship of pornography on the basis of "obscenity" seem to rest upon the legal moralism and
offense principles.