Repugnant Markets: Should Everything Be For Sale? by Philosophy Talk

https://ift.tt/2Lb76hj

More at https://ift.tt/2xBWS7o.

We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France’s attitude towad horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Al Roth from Stanford University, author of “Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.”
via IFTTT

The Limits of Free Speech (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

https://ift.tt/2Kaj1fC

Continuing our free-form discussion, trying to make sense of Stanley Fish’s “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too” (1994) and other potential rationales for prohibiting hate speech. How might the same sentence or idea be used in different speech acts, some of which might be legitimately censured but others not? Also, given the legal right to express an opinion, what responsibility might we have to facilitate expression of opinions, given that if no one gives it a hearing, then there’s no real right to communication at all?
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2HcFMOe

Continuing on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). We discuss “partial truths” and how free speech may allow us to complete them, whether truth will always eventually overcome persecution, whether we can judge some “experiments in living” as failures once and for all, education, “barbarians,” how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Has our culture received Mill’s message that nonconformity is good? Is what we call “diversity” what he’s talking about? Here’s some irony: most people end up using their freedom to conform to some group norm!

Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition.

End song: “Flavor” by Tori Amos from Gold Dust (2012), featuring strings by John Philip Shenale, who was interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #12.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2HcFMOe

Continuing on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). We discuss “partial truths” and how free speech may allow us to complete them, whether truth will always eventually overcome persecution, whether we can judge some “experiments in living” as failures once and for all, education, “barbarians,” how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Has our culture received Mill’s message that nonconformity is good? Is what we call “diversity” what he’s talking about? Here’s some irony: most people end up using their freedom to conform to some group norm!

Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition.

End song: “Flavor” by Tori Amos from Gold Dust (2012), featuring strings by John Philip Shenale, who was interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #12.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2HcFMOe

Continuing on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). We discuss “partial truths” and how free speech may allow us to complete them, whether truth will always eventually overcome persecution, whether we can judge some “experiments in living” as failures once and for all, education, “barbarians,” how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Has our culture received Mill’s message that nonconformity is good? Is what we call “diversity” what he’s talking about? Here’s some irony: most people end up using their freedom to conform to some group norm!

Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition.

End song: “Flavor” by Tori Amos from Gold Dust (2012), featuring strings by John Philip Shenale, who was interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #12.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2HcFMOe

Continuing on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). We discuss “partial truths” and how free speech may allow us to complete them, whether truth will always eventually overcome persecution, whether we can judge some “experiments in living” as failures once and for all, education, “barbarians,” how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Has our culture received Mill’s message that nonconformity is good? Is what we call “diversity” what he’s talking about? Here’s some irony: most people end up using their freedom to conform to some group norm!

Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition.

End song: “Flavor” by Tori Amos from Gold Dust (2012), featuring strings by John Philip Shenale, who was interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #12.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part Two) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2HcFMOe

Continuing on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). We discuss “partial truths” and how free speech may allow us to complete them, whether truth will always eventually overcome persecution, whether we can judge some “experiments in living” as failures once and for all, education, “barbarians,” how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Has our culture received Mill’s message that nonconformity is good? Is what we call “diversity” what he’s talking about? Here’s some irony: most people end up using their freedom to conform to some group norm!

Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition.

End song: “Flavor” by Tori Amos from Gold Dust (2012), featuring strings by John Philip Shenale, who was interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #12.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part One) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2BWX4er

Discussing John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty (1859)
If we disapprove of certain behaviors, when is it okay to prohibit them legally? What about just shaming people for engaging in them? How much shaming is too much? Mill’s famous “harm principle” says that we should permit anything unless it harms other people. But what constitutes “harm”? If I call you by a racial slur, have I harmed you? If I teach your children ideas or behaviors you don’t approve of, without your permission, have I harmed you? Or them?
Mill was not just concerned with paternalistic laws, but with other kinds of social pressures. We should not let the tyranny of custom make us all into meek conformists. We need to promote individuality, diversity, eccentricity. This is the only way to allow genius to flourish. Individuals’ “experiments in living,” even though most of these may just be foolish, ultimately serve to help us progress.
And of course, central to this freedom of living is freedom of thought, and what’s very closely related, freedom of speech. Even if nearly all of us find some ideas objectionable, we need to let them be stated, not just out of principle, but because we want bad ideas to be engaged, to be actively refuted. If we all agree on something, we take it for granted and forget why we believe it; having to defend it makes us understand it better. Ideas need to compete in daylight if we expect truth to prevail over time.
Mark, Wes, and Dylan bring this debate to current issues and explore some of the less expected aspects of Mill’s view, such as his views on public education (he’s for universal education, but against government providing it), imperialism (maybe it’s OK to be paternalistic when dealing with illiberal cultures), and economics (because economic activity by definition involves others, it does potentially fall under the harm principle; Mill’s “libertarianism” doesn’t leave companies to deal with employees and customers however they see fit).
To hear the other famous part of Mill’s thought, check out our Ep. 9 on utilitarianism.
Mill image by Charles Valsechi.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part One) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2BWX4er

Discussing John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty (1859)
If we disapprove of certain behaviors, when is it okay to prohibit them legally? What about just shaming people for engaging in them? How much shaming is too much? Mill’s famous “harm principle” says that we should permit anything unless it harms other people. But what constitutes “harm”? If I call you by a racial slur, have I harmed you? If I teach your children ideas or behaviors you don’t approve of, without your permission, have I harmed you? Or them?
Mill was not just concerned with paternalistic laws, but with other kinds of social pressures. We should not let the tyranny of custom make us all into meek conformists. We need to promote individuality, diversity, eccentricity. This is the only way to allow genius to flourish. Individuals’ “experiments in living,” even though most of these may just be foolish, ultimately serve to help us progress.
And of course, central to this freedom of living is freedom of thought, and what’s very closely related, freedom of speech. Even if nearly all of us find some ideas objectionable, we need to let them be stated, not just out of principle, but because we want bad ideas to be engaged, to be actively refuted. If we all agree on something, we take it for granted and forget why we believe it; having to defend it makes us understand it better. Ideas need to compete in daylight if we expect truth to prevail over time.
Mark, Wes, and Dylan bring this debate to current issues and explore some of the less expected aspects of Mill’s view, such as his views on public education (he’s for universal education, but against government providing it), imperialism (maybe it’s OK to be paternalistic when dealing with illiberal cultures), and economics (because economic activity by definition involves others, it does potentially fall under the harm principle; Mill’s “libertarianism” doesn’t leave companies to deal with employees and customers however they see fit).
To hear the other famous part of Mill’s thought, check out our Ep. 9 on utilitarianism.
Mill image by Charles Valsechi.
via IFTTT

Mill on Liberty (Part One) by Partially Examined Life

http://ift.tt/2BWX4er

Discussing John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty (1859)
If we disapprove of certain behaviors, when is it okay to prohibit them legally? What about just shaming people for engaging in them? How much shaming is too much? Mill’s famous “harm principle” says that we should permit anything unless it harms other people. But what constitutes “harm”? If I call you by a racial slur, have I harmed you? If I teach your children ideas or behaviors you don’t approve of, without your permission, have I harmed you? Or them?
Mill was not just concerned with paternalistic laws, but with other kinds of social pressures. We should not let the tyranny of custom make us all into meek conformists. We need to promote individuality, diversity, eccentricity. This is the only way to allow genius to flourish. Individuals’ “experiments in living,” even though most of these may just be foolish, ultimately serve to help us progress.
And of course, central to this freedom of living is freedom of thought, and what’s very closely related, freedom of speech. Even if nearly all of us find some ideas objectionable, we need to let them be stated, not just out of principle, but because we want bad ideas to be engaged, to be actively refuted. If we all agree on something, we take it for granted and forget why we believe it; having to defend it makes us understand it better. Ideas need to compete in daylight if we expect truth to prevail over time.
Mark, Wes, and Dylan bring this debate to current issues and explore some of the less expected aspects of Mill’s view, such as his views on public education (he’s for universal education, but against government providing it), imperialism (maybe it’s OK to be paternalistic when dealing with illiberal cultures), and economics (because economic activity by definition involves others, it does potentially fall under the harm principle; Mill’s “libertarianism” doesn’t leave companies to deal with employees and customers however they see fit).
To hear the other famous part of Mill’s thought, check out our Ep. 9 on utilitarianism.
Mill image by Charles Valsechi.
via IFTTT