Complications
I wonder if it is a new phenomenon that speaking and writing are now two of the most ethically and morally complex acts in existence. As the world becomes more amorphous and people become more intertwined, clashes of every type are bound to happen. It speaks for itself that the limitation of violent clashes is ideal; but this logic may not simply transfer to other more metaphysical clashes. If limitation of intellectual strife means the tempering of free opinion and the ultimate moderation of all debate, then by many accounts this is the worst evil humans are capable of committing.
The readings I have been doing this week as part of a summer program have all centered around the ideal of an enlightened society. Somewhat interestingly they all speak of free speech and action while defining morality as socially affecting decisions. Also recently I became aware of the debate between Ezra Levant and Syed Soharwardy. Levant, as publisher of the now defunct Western Star (Calgary newspaper), re-published the heated danish made muslim cartoons. I hate to reincarnate an already flogged horse, but this debate is indicative of today’s globalization-driven free speech debates. This particular argument between Levant and Soharwardy was used mostly for media fodder. The arguments used are extreme, ridiculous and sweepingly general. At its core though the argument is a good one. Levant argues for free speech and the right to exercise his reason in any public forum to which he has access. Soharwardy, though not rebuking free speech, attempts to draw limitations on the ideal; in essence invoking the dreadful concept of political correctness. A note: Soharwardy recalled his complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission this past February. In doing so he cited his original unawareness of ongoing debates about the role and jurisdiction of the HRC, and his current questioning of the legitimacy of the organization’s current status.
Both sides throughout the debate, and always in the media, draw many erroneous analogies and build many straw-men. With references to Orwell’s 1984 and Stalin-esque regimes, as well as to white supremacy and racism, both sides managed to make a genuinely rational and necessary debate into a farce worthy of E! entertainment. This is the biggest problem that I see in discussing such things in public forums; there is such a lack of respect and trust that neither party in any such debate can maintain any sort of decorum. It is not racism or Stalinism which ruins these debates, it is both parties’ inability to focus on the issue; instead they are drawn to a list of fallacious arguments a mile long. I am convinced that each statement each party makes is a crap shoot of fallacies. I won’t pretend to know what social factors contribute to this intellectual machismo, or whether it is simply a measuring of….egos. In any case, some trust in each party’s ability to be reasonable and stay on issue is essential. In order for this to happen some respect for each party - and their stance - is mandatory. This is not a trivial matter, it comes down to the construction of an enlightened society.
It was Frederick II the Great who succinctly asked of Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” The king of Prussia received, in response to his question, perhaps one of the greatest arguments against realism, materialism and authoritarianism ever provided:
A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people’s mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity.
Kant discusses the paradox of the ability for humans to exercise free speech while working in a society which functions based on set norms. He uses throughout the example of a priest. While the priest must preach to his congregation the values and ideals of the church, he may not wholly subscribe to them but must only assume that some truth may possibly therein be found. As a person commissioned to teach certain values, he may not be entirely free in this role. However, as a free agent in the public he may be completely free in addressing any issue he pleases in his writings and speech. It is this paradox in which we must work daily, until such time as the system changes to “treat men, who are more than machines, in accord with their dignity”.
So why do we need the HRC to judge our debates? Because we are still unenlightened in our “self-incurred immaturity”. To escape from this we must take Kant’s advice, “Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding”.
This is all well, but it is also true that words can hurt. Undoubtedly when Kant was writing he was unaware of the extent of interdependency which would result from the 300+ years of globalization (read: colonization) after his death. However, society has enabled us with the capacity to intellectualize without causing undue harm. Much like manners for interaction with strangers, respect for and trust in the “opposing” party allows a certain objectivity in free speech and discussion. Most important however is the realization that, ultimately, nothing can be free of debate. It is only when exclusions occur that resentment, disrespect and distrust follow. There is no reason for even man’s most deeply held belief to be free of questioning. Of course, every person is entitled to their own beliefs, but nothing on this earth makes these beliefs sacred and sovereign.
“This instinct of freedom forced into being latent - it is already clear - this instinct of freedom forces back, trodden back, imprisoned within itself, and finally only able to find vent and relief in itself; this, only this, is the beginning of the “bad conscience”.
- Nietzsche from The Genealogy of Morals, discussing the origin of “bad conscience” in society. Like Kant he sees the quelling of free expression as a great evil and the origin of all “bad conscience” or resentment.
