Can Freedom of Speech, as an Absolute Right, Be Protected on Utilitarian Terms - Research Paper Example

? Can freedom of speech, as an absolute right, be protected on utilitarian terms? If not, can Ronald Dworkin defend it as a ‘fundamental human right’? Table of contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………3 Introduction…………..……………………………………………………………….4 1. Utilitarianism and moral rights……………………………………………………….5 2. Freedom of speech as an absolute right and utilitarianism………………....…………6 3. Defence of freedom of speech by Ronald Dworkin as a fundamental human right…..7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….9 References……………………………………………………...…………………….10 Abstract This paper concentrates on the notion of freedom of speech and how its functioning has been elucidated in a synchronized manner. The paper also entails the analysis of how freedom of speech as an absolute right can be defended on the utilitarian ground. The last part deals with the critical evaluation of how the famous liberal scholar, Ronald Dworkin, defended the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right and how far he is able to achieve his goal. The general intellection of almost all philosophers today is that human beings with the virtue of their nature possess moral rights in terms of both special rights (for example, the right of a creditor to collect his money from debtor) and general rights. According to the majority of the philosophers, the general notion of belief is that there is compatibility between utilitarianism and moral rights. For instance, the famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose contribution is immense in the field of philosophy, perceives a congruency between utilitarianism and moral rights. The constitutional right to freedom of speech enables an individual to protect his freedom of expression (Wellman 2005, p.145). Philosopher Mill loyally supported utilitarianism and at the same time defended freedom of speech until or unless it torments the sentiments of others. However, there are some philosophers who believe that there is an incongruous relation between utilitarianism and moral rights (Brandt 1984, p.1). 1. Utilitarianism In order to understand the interaction between utilitarianism and moral rights, it is necessary to define utilitarianism at first. According to John Stuart Mill, “the utilitarian approach is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing, desirable as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.” In support of this he has also mentioned: “If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it is the test by which to judge of all human conduct, from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole” (Brandt 1992, pp.197-198). The concept of utilitarianism was ushered in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help the legislative units frame different laws which are morally optimal. In the utilitarian approach, firstly various courses of action are identified. After that the entities to be possibly affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be caused by each action need to be evaluated. Lastly, a certain action is chosen to produce the greatest benefits and least harm (Velasquez et al., 2010). 2. Freedom of speech as an absolute right and utilitarianism Freedom of speech is invariably represented as a fundamental right by written Constitution and bills against state suppression and regulation. Freedom of speech is an important concept. The prime function of the freedom of speech is a representative range of views. These views are mainly responsible for the decision making processes at all levels in a societal structure. These are the prime functions of freedom of speech. Implementation of a decision is deemed to be successful when it is done after ample consultation rather than with no discussion. As a result, freedom of speech is very crucial at all levels of society including the functioning of the government and politics of every country. Freedom of speech provides institutions to understand the problem and gain solutions to them through discussions in electronic and print media. Freedom of speech is indispensable in bringing political freedom and, hence, economic freedom. Although freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the question always arises whether it can be considered as absolute or not. It is restricted to an extent unless it gives a prior signal of threat and destruction or emergence of any substantive evil. The right to freedom of expression should be restricted by the non-aggression principle and protected by general principles of liberty (Kraut, 2006). Although the policies for respect towards individual rights have been found to be acceptable, utilitarianism would still be delivering the right answers for the wrong reasons. It can be said that the utilitarian protection of rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) does not always perfectly correlate with the actual reasons for such rights. When applied to the issues of individual rights, utilitarianism brings about circumstances which are compatible with these rights. But instances often generate where there is valid reason for supporting those rights, when utilitarianism, conversely, supports its suppression. This incorporates the contradiction between utilitarianism and those rights (Arneson 2000, pp.14-15). An example can illustrate this. A leader of criminal gang orders his fellow gang members for the execution of a murder. In this case, he may not perform the task by himself, but he is equally guilty and liable to punishment. Hence, it may be an expression of speech, but in reality, it is responsible for the perversion of the cause of justice, and brings in social degeneration, and hence negated from the utilitarian angle (Kraut, 2006). Liberal philosophers often describe the difficulties involved in discussion of freedom of speech as paradox of speech. In his essay on Liberty in Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill explains the paradox of speech as “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered" (Cooray, 1997). 3. Defence of freedom of speech by Ronald Dworkin as a fundamental human right The Index on Censorship propounds that freedom of speech along with the freedoms of conscience and religion are fundamental human rights. The world community must perform the duty to guard the same. It also reports regularly on censorship in every issue of magazine (Owen 2000, p.1). Liberal philosophers have always argued for further immunization of free speech policies over other forms of conduct, but they have faced severe criticisms. In Britain and in other liberal democratic countries, it has been argued that they are more concerned with the scope of freedom of speech in cases like pornography, advertisement of cigarette brands, rather than the protection of the same (Why protect free speech? n.d., pp.1-2). Among the heated controversies between the government policy and liberalists, it has been seen that liberalists are in favour of pornography, and one of the famous liberal theorist Ronald Dworkin has expressed this issue in his ‘Do we have the right to pornography?’ where he states that there is no significant conflict between liberty and equality (Langton n.d, pp.312-313). In a society, it is a prejudice that majority of people are in for banning pornography. This is an approach to interfere with pornographers’ freedom of speech. It is also an illegitimate ‘external’ preference of the majority of the society to prorogue the government policy to ban pornography. Hence it hampers the right to moral independence of the producers and consumers of pornography. According to Dworkin, this will lead the life style of the minority groups to succumb under the purview of the dominated opinion of the majority. And this will violate the basic right of all people to be treated on a framework of equal concern and respect. In a liberal defence of pornography, Dworkin expresses that people ‘have the right not to suffer disadvantage in the distribution of social goods and opportunities, including disadvantages in the liberties permitted to them by the criminal law, just on the ground that their officials or fellow-citizens think that their opinions about the right way for them to lead their own lives are ignoble or wrong’ (Pornography and Censorship, 2004). But the question arises how far pornography qualifies for the amendment or other free speech provision. General freedom is closely connected to personal freedom as is the free speech, but the two are not the same thing. Ronald Dworkin has been criticized for his own work. When people’s response directly confronted with pornography, he along with Williams Committee conceded the relevance of the question, whether an increase in the amount of pornography in circulation in the community is likely to produce more violence or more sexual crimes of any particular sort. So this is indeed not an affirmative statement, and in the time of explaining the question of harm and moral degradation of women related to pornography, he remained silent (Langton 2010, pp.326-327). Ronald Dworkin is criticized, and it is a fact that pornography entails female subordination and dominance, which lead to utility degeneration for the society as a whole. This notion is to some extent true, as for example, if a person is given the right to choose one’s dress and sexual lifestyle without any public restraints, then it does not necessarily implies the broad free speech right or general privacy right. In case of homosexuals also the equality and dignity may support the free speech, but the two cannot be put into one identity (Why protect free speech? n.d. pp.14-15). Conclusion The discussion of the right to freedom of speech and its validity has been focused on in this paper. It can be concluded that freedom of speech is an indispensable tool in the development of any society. For the adoption of government policies and political structuring, freedom of speech is very much essential. But the absoluteness of this right is being questioned, criticized, and restricted in utilitarian terms, which are shown in the work of Ronald Dworkin. A right should be one which falls under the umbrella of equality, justice and liberty. Every right should be indifferent to all in utilitarian terms. Reference list Arneson, R. J., 2000. Rawls versus utilitarianism in the light of political liberalis. [online]. Available at: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/rawlsut.pdf [Accessed on April 5 2012]. Brandt. R.B., 1984. Utilitarianism and moral rights. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, XIV (1), pp.1-19. Brandt. R.B., 1992. Morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge University Press. Cooray, M, 1997. Freedom of speech and expression. [online] Available at: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap6.htm#6.1 [Accessed on April 5 2012]. Kraut, R. 2006. Is freedom of expression an absolute right? [online]. Available at: http://rantingkraut.wordpress.com/2006/04/03/is-freedom-of-expression-an-absolute-right/ [Accessed on April 5 2012]. Langton, R., 2010. Whose right? Ronald Dworkin, women, and pornographers, [online]. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/langton/www/pubs/WhoseRight.pdf [Accessed on April 5 2012]. Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T. and Meyer, M.J., 2010. Thinking ethically: a framework for moral decision making, [online]. Available at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html [Accessed on April 4 2012[ Wellman, C., 2005. Medical law and moral rights. Springer. Why protect free speech? n.d., OUP, [online]. Available at: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199225811.pdf [Accessed on April 5 2012]. Read More