Deontology is a theoretical and philosophic movement that directs people in understanding what action should and should not be taken by an individual. People subscribing to this view believe that persons are born with a set of obligations and responsibilities they must adhere to. This ethical theory places an increased emphasis on a person’s duty, and its effect on morality. The duty in deontology is divided into two categories, perfect duty and imperfect duty. The perfect duty is the kind that must be fully obeyed, as something that cannot be taken as a half measure. Something like not killing people or not committing certain crimes is an example of a perfect duty.
An imperfect duty, on the other hand, demands much less from a person, requiring them to spend an unspecified amount of time on them. Self-actualization goals or general things one should do in life can fall under this category. Duties, in general, are all kinds of things a person needs to or wants to do in their life. The kinds of duties that a person obeys by are determined by moral norms and regulations, which are defined by their quality of being right.
This philosophy supposes that doing good is a reason for action in and of itself, meaning that people should strive to do good with no ulterior motive. The methodology to understand the right from wrong is based on reason and logic, with arguments being consistent. In this approach, only the intentions behind an action are relevant to its morality, and the consequences are not taken into consideration.
The categorical imperative is central concept of deontology as outlined by Emmanuel Kant. This term is used to describe the absolute moral rules of conduct, the ones that can be used to dictate human action and are absolute in their righteousness. For Kant, humans occupied a central position in the world, and an individual’s actions should be primarily oriented are guaranteeing human good. A categorical imperative, in Kant’s eyes, is a reasonable and unquestionable requirement that must be taken into consideration. An ethical and moral person follows categorical imperatives to their logical conclusion as a way of ensuring that their decisions and actions are based on proper moral grounds.
Article on Free Speech
A recent article published on the BBC website concerns the topic of free speech and its exercise by the people. The person in question, a high school girl named Brandi Levy has publicly vented her frustrations on the worldwide web in the form of a snapchat. This action was promptly shared by her friends and earned her a suspension from a cheerleading team she was a part of (US teen’s Snapchat rant reaches Supreme Court in free speech case). As the post concerned the girl’s anger at the cheerleading team, the school staff responsible for it took offense and decided to take action against her. This response was conducted when she was only 14 years old, and, 4 years later the girl filed a court case against the school in response.
Since the post she made was done on the property unrelated to the school, she argued that the suspension and punishment she received was in violation of her right to free speech. As outlined by a landmark case of 1969, pupil’s speech is protected under the law as long as it does not cause a disruption or hindrance to the school itself (US teen’s Snapchat rant reaches Supreme Court in free speech case). The school staff, in turn, argues that action against schoolchildren outside of the campus is often taken, in an effort to reduce the harm done to the school’s atmosphere. This belief was upheld in an appeal by the school in their effort to change the initial ruling in this case.
They seem to be concerned with the fact that allowing Levy to remain in the right will make it harder for them to protect children against harassment and bullying. This case demonstrates an argument over the protections of free speech, and how they are applied to cases of criticism from children. Levy argues that her ability to express her opinion should be allowed to exist and be spread under the US legislation, while the school argues that its contents are harmful and disruptive.
This case demonstrates the dichotomy between allowing people to say what they want and ensuring the wellbeing of society really well. Both sides have a number of precedents set to argue for their rightness of their perspective, but it is hard to decide whether this particular comment falls within the definition of harmful content. Personally, I think that the ability of the girl to speak her mind in a manner she finds fitting should be protected, as it is the main gateway for people’s ability to express their frustrations.
Ted Talk on Free Speech
Orrin Johnson delivered his Ted Talk on the topic of free speech. The man argues that free speech as an effective and essential tool to combat harmful ideology and hate. The rise of while supremacy and Nazism is an dangerous and prominent trend in the last years, which is beginning to raise concerns among the public. The speaker argues that by challenging harmful ideas and thoughts in the public arena, harmful beliefs can be publicly shamed and disputed, making them less credible in the eyes of the public (Johnson). Harmful ideas are often based on primitive or wrong information, that intentionally distorts the truth of the matters.
Bringing up the example of Nazi ideology being banned in Germany while white nationalism is not banned in the US, Orrin says that the discrepancy shows the difference in attitudes of the countries. Germany seeks to hide and minimize their worst parts, while the US actively chooses to bring them to light and eradicate them in the process. The former approach, as explained by the speaker, allows ideology to fester and spread, finding its footing to become more ingrained and established in the society. The latter, on the other hand, allows the people to publicly ridicule bad ideas and expose them for their falsehoods. This way, such ideas lose credibility and authority they can command, as well as become more clear for the people less familiar with the harm they can do. This approach highlights the importance freedom of speech in the realm of public discourse, as a tool of combating unsightly things and promoting better ideas.
The global arena of though is therefore using as a natural area to challenge harmful ideologies. By this logic, the process of banning or outlawing certain ideas is actually harmful to the society, as it fails to fully eradicate hatred. Actively punishing bad ideas blurs the lines between what is acceptable in society and what is not, as well as puts the decision in the hands of a particular group of individuals. The freedom of speech should be reserved and protected as it is the only viable weapon to protect the population against the spread of resentment and ignorance. By proudly and confidently and boldly countering the arguments of the opposition, good and right ideas can emerge in the “marketplace of ideas” as the proper counter to things like racism and bigotry.
The topic of the freedom of speech is further discussed in the documentary “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech”. The documentary talks about the contemporary challenges of America and free speech, in the post 9/11 world. The interpretation of the first amendment changes rapidly, with the changes in domestic and foreign policy, the people’s understanding of free speech shifts to accommodate the actions that need to be taken. With the war on terror in full swing, the government has used its power to limit and restrict, as well as monitor the actions of its people for the sake of security. In this climate, individuals are expected to sacrifice their ability to express themselves in the name of national safety, which, in turn leads to harmful ideology and totalitarianism spreading far more easily.
Works Cited
Johnson, Orrin. “Transcript of “Why Free Speech Is Society’s Immune System: Orrin Johnson: TEDxUniversityofNevada”.” TED. Web.
“US Teen’s Snapchat Rant Reaches Supreme Court in Free Speech Case.” BBC News. BBC. 2021. Web.