Can science have moral authority?
Sam Harris argues in this TED talk that science can be an authority on moral issues. It's a superb performance, and I think he's got it approximately right.
It seems clear to me that any source of information about the world is also potentially a source of information - taken together with our values - about how we should act, what moral systems we should want to have in place, what dispositions of character we'd like to develop in ourselves and our children, and what laws and government policies we should vote for. I'd think it's obvious that science can give us information that's relevant to all these things. If these are the sorts of things that are covered by "moral issues" - and it seems clear enough, at least to me, that they are - then science can give us some guidance on moral issues. To at least some extent, then, it can have moral authority.
The reason is simply that, to some extent, science can give us information about what individual conduct, moral systems, laws, and so on are likely to lead to such plausible goals for all these things as individual and collective human flourishing, social survival, and reduction of suffering. Any source of information about what will lead to goals such as these has some moral authority.
Religion, science, and morality
Religion could have moral authority if it were actually a reliable source of information about the world. If religion could give us accurate information that acting in such and such way will lead to such and such consequences, then it could, at least to some extent, have moral authority. If the prophets and other authors of holy books were genuinely receiving information from a god or other supernaturally knowledgeable being, a being with an epistemic advantage over us, then we would be very wise to pay attention.
The difficulty is this: in the real world the holy books seem no more reliable about moral issues than they are about such matters such as the age of the Earth. Sophisticated religious adherents tend to interpret the holy books more in keeping with what they know from elsewhere about what conduces to human flourishing (or social survival, reduction of suffering, and so on). Far from being authoritative, the holy books end up needing to be interpreted in the light of secular wisdom about what actually conduces to, say, widespread human flourishing.
By contrast, various fields of science can now study many aspects of the world, including human nature, and the outcomes may have many implications for how we should act, what laws we should support, etc. As we learn more from science, this can feed back into popular moral understandings. Hume believed in moral progress, as understanding increased and civilization developed; and, in principle, I see no reason to think that he was wrong about this. As we know more, we can make better decisions in respect of moral issues.
To date, however, science is limited in what it can actually deliver. Given the current state of sciences such as psychology, the quality of any advice coming from science still leaves much to be desired. We do not have an exact science of what best contributes to, say, widespread human flourishing. In principle, we can develop this science, but for the moment we must rely to a large degree on such things as literature, historical experience, folk understandings of what makes people happy, and our own experiences as individuals. Moral philosophers need to reflect on all of these things; but at least in principle, science can deliver much useful information. We can expect it to get better and better.
Ultimate values and rational reflection
What science can't do, even in principle, is tell us what our ultimate values or the totality of our values should be. Religion can't do that either.
We can, of course, reflect on our own values, trying to get them into some sort of order. Perhaps I place too much value on eating chocolate, given that I also value not developing obsesity. Okay, I can make a decision to try to lower the value I place on eating chocolate. At the least, I can try to think about the value of not developing obesity on the many occasions when I'd like to buy and/or eat chocolate. Maybe I can keep my chocolate consumption down that way, even though eating chocolate is still, all other things being equal, something that I value (and will indulge in from time to time). I don't have to be a slave to each particular value or desire that I find I have.
However, when I engage in this sort of rational reflection I try to sort out which values are really most important to me, what values I have about what values I want to retain, and so on. In doing that, I never step out of the entirety of my values at once. I always need more than just facts about the world, the "more" being my total system of values. Science cannot enable me to step out of all my values at once, though it can certainly give me some relevant information. Neither can religion. There's no substitute for my own rational reflection on what I value most.
Values and facts
I agree, more or less, with Harris' story about how we should actually act, trying to create a world of widespread flourishing for human beings and other sentient creatures (by standards of flourishing that he and I would largely share). I disagree, however, with his claim that "values are facts". Nothing he said on that was convincing.
Sure, it can be a fact that "Person X values some particular thing." And Person X's valuing that thing, or having that value, may well consist (why not?) in Person X having a particular neurophysiology. Moreover, if I value Person Y being happy, it can be a fact that the thing I value exists - i.e. that Person Y is (by some appopriate standard) happy. Moreover, Person Y's happiness may consist in some neurophysiological state.
So it can be a fact (even with a physical instantiation) that someone values something, and it can be a fact (even with a physical instantiation) that something I value actually exists. But the following are propositions which can be true or false: "Person X values such and such a thing" and "The thing that Person X values exists." Valuing, desiring, fearing, and so on are not the assertion of propositions.
The fact that the possession of a value or the act of valuing has a physical (neurophysiological) substrate does not mean that the valuing itself, or the having of the value, is the kind of thing that can be mistaken. When, for example, I value eating chocolate or desire to eat a chocolate, I am not making a claim that can be true or false. I want the world to be such that chocolate will continue to be available to me, or such that I can get chocolate now. I'm not claiming anything about how the world actually is - the kind of thing that I could be wrong about.
What was more convincing in the Harris talk, though hardly surprising, was that there was widespread agreement on values in the audience. Apart from psychopaths, most people actually do agree a lot on values. Psychopaths basically lack sympathy for others, which is to say that they don't value others' non-suffering in the way that most of us do. (It's actually a bit more complicated than this, as they also tend to lack the normal capacity for prudence, and so they tend to get caught, but we can easily imagine somebody with the psychology of a cunning and prudent psychopath. If necessary, imagine it's an intelligent alien with no feelings of sympathy for human beings.)
I've never yet seen an argument that shows that psychopaths are necessarily mistaken about some fact about the world. Moreover, I don't see how the argument could run, since it's easy to imagine pointing out to the psychopath, as he tortures me, that I'm suffering extreme pain, terror, and so on. The psychopath can know all this, but simply not care. When the psychopath values being able to torture me, he (it will probably be a "he") is not making any factual claim. The fact that he has this value may consist in his neurological state. The fact that what he values exists may consist in mine. But he does not assert any mistaken proposition about the world such as, "Russell is not in pain." He knows all the facts, but he acts differently from a normal human being because he values different things. He's not mistaken about something ... but he's certainly dangerous to the rest of us, giving us a reason to lock him up.
There are also various differences in values among people who are not psychopaths, and again none of those people are necessarily making any mistake about facts about the world. They simply disagree in their settled wishes about how they want the world to be.
If one person, after full reflection, wants the world to be peaceful and gentle, and another wants it to be full of glorious battles and victories, that's a difference in their values, but it need not mean either is making a mistake about any matter of fact. Both may have very good knowledge of how things are, but they have different preferences as to how they want things to be. They will fail to convince each other because they don't disagree on the facts. Each will need to appeal to considerations that the other does not accept and cannot be compelled by reason to accept.
Rough consensus
I don't think that Harris is going to overturn the standard Humean approach to the fact/value or reason/desire distinction any time soon. No one else has ever succeeded, and his argument here wasn't all that original. As I understood his point - though maybe I got this wrong - it was mainly that valued psychological states, such as a particular person's happiness, can actually exist and have physical instantiations. That is true, but it's not surprising, and it does not bridge the divide between fact and value.
Still, he doesn't need to do anything so dramatic. No fundamental advance in metaethics or moral psychology is required to demonstrate that we can obtain action-guidance from science (and could gain action-guidance from holy books if they were reliable sources of information about the world). What Harris said was, for all my quibbles, nonetheless a pretty good practical approximation to the truth about morality.
We can assume a great deal of consensus on what counts as flourishing and on the value in contributing to the widespread flourishing of others (not just ruthlessly seeking it for ourselves as individuals); on the self-defeating and socially-destructive outcome of a ruthless approach to seeking our own pleasure; and other such matters which, taken one by one, are not all that contentious. This is enough to get to a rough consensus or convergence on a rational moral system, and doubtless to overturn a lot of traditional religious morality in the process.
Incidentally, Harris is also correct in principle that more than one moral system might do the job. Moral systems are not arbitrary - there is a largely-uncontroversial point to them - but nor is there necessarily a "One Best System" that is fully determined by facts about the world. There may be many high peaks on a landscape of possible moral systems.
Simplicity and approximation
I don't doubt that it would be rhetorically helpful if we could claim that values are objective in some stronger sense than I can accept.
As I watched the Harris video, I tried to imagine myself giving a similar talk, and it was obvious to me that if I even raised the issues where I'm disagreeing I'd get bogged down making subtle distinctions that might confuse the audience. You can be more forthright and straightforward and rhetorically effective if you have a simple story to tell. But alas, none of that entails that any simple story is more than an approximation.
About Me
- Russell Blackford
- Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019); AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021); and HOW WE BECAME POST-LIBERAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF TOLERATION (2024).
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Writing ancient women: Jenny guest blogs for Gillian Pollack
Great (and detailed) post on the background to The Priestess and the Slave.
Sample:
I've always found the ancient world far more interesting than the modern world – but not the wars, the revolutions, the kings and generals (or even the occasional queen). Instead, I'm fascinated by the tiny details of the daily life of ancient people – what they ate and drank, what they wore, who they worshipped, and how, and why.
One of my favourite university subject was Greek Daily Life, in which one of my assessable assignments was making a long strip of woven cloth. This was more sensible than it sounds: my learned but eccentric teacher Rhona Baere was insistent that we understand that all respectable ancient Greek women, and many of the less respectable variety, plus most female slaves, spent most of their lives in interminable spinning and weaving. (After the hours watching the cloth grow, painfully slowly, I've never forgotten.) She also taught us how Greek pots and furniture were made, and read Plato's Symposium with us, so we could see how the men behaved without respectable women around.
Sample:
I've always found the ancient world far more interesting than the modern world – but not the wars, the revolutions, the kings and generals (or even the occasional queen). Instead, I'm fascinated by the tiny details of the daily life of ancient people – what they ate and drank, what they wore, who they worshipped, and how, and why.
One of my favourite university subject was Greek Daily Life, in which one of my assessable assignments was making a long strip of woven cloth. This was more sensible than it sounds: my learned but eccentric teacher Rhona Baere was insistent that we understand that all respectable ancient Greek women, and many of the less respectable variety, plus most female slaves, spent most of their lives in interminable spinning and weaving. (After the hours watching the cloth grow, painfully slowly, I've never forgotten.) She also taught us how Greek pots and furniture were made, and read Plato's Symposium with us, so we could see how the men behaved without respectable women around.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Back home
Drove back to Newcastle yesterday after about 10 days in Melbourne. It actually seemed a bit strange returning to the Newcastle house, bearing in mind that I lived in Melbourne for 30 years before shifting back here only 3 months ago. After 10 days in familiar surrounds, I'd kind of become reprogrammed for Melbourne, I think - and I was talking to Jenny everyday by email and phone. It could easily have been her that was away, rather than me.
Lots to do back here, but it was great catching up with some of my dear pals down in Melbourne.
Lots to do back here, but it was great catching up with some of my dear pals down in Melbourne.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Apropos of the Guardian piece
I do wish people reading pieces like this would bear in mind that they have to be incredibly terse. I was given 600 words, which is much shorter than an undergraduate essay! It meant either concentrating on a very small aspect of the topic or stripping some of it down to mere summary. My first draft was about twice the allowed length. So it's a bit, um, galling, when I see comments in various corners of the internet that criticise what is not said.
I'm slightly surprised, though, that the bit about reason and desire seems to be creating some problems over at RD.net. It's very standard Humean stuff, but let's expand a bit. Our desires can't be justified in some ultimate way. X desires to have sex with women; Y desires to have sex with men. Neither desire is more rational than the other. What is rational or otherwise is how they go about it. If X thinks that a good way to get women to have sex with him/her is to vomit over their shoes, that's probably not rational. I.e., reason tells us that this gambit is not usually successful.
Reason enables us to find out stuff about the world, including about other people, which can be very useful in achieving our desires. Sometimes it's even rational to try to change our desires because reason tells us that it'll help us achieve our deeper desires. So rational reflection on our desires is important. We shouldn't act on our most immediate impulse but in a way that will work to achieve deeper desires. Hopefully, X's desire to have sex with women isn't going to turn X into a rapist, because X also wishes (desires) not to hurt people, not to use violence, not to breach useful social norms, etc. So X might be the sort of person, like most of us, who is motivated to charm and seduce but wouldn't even think of raping.
But our ultimate, deepest desires are simply things that we have. There's no way to appeal to us to try to change them except by appealing to even deeper desires that we have (in which case they are not our deepest desires after all). Unfortunately, a truly evil person, e.g. a vicious and cunning psychopath, may be doing nothing irrational - but such a person is a danger to the rest of us and must be stopped. It's rational for us to throw him or her in jail. Fortunately, most of us are not like that: we may not be angelically altruistic, but we are social animals who desire to help each other, etc. Think how you'd react in the street if an elderly person suddenly collapsed in pain. Even if you didn't know what to do, you'd want to help. Almost everyone - barring the stray psychopath - is like that.
Without desires (and, like Hume, I include here hopes, fears, values) we'd never do anything. We wouldn't even have a reason to find out facts about the world unless we either desired to know these facts for its own sake or we desired to know these facts for the sake of achieving our other desires. Eventually, reason alone always runs out as a source of motivation.
I'm slightly surprised, though, that the bit about reason and desire seems to be creating some problems over at RD.net. It's very standard Humean stuff, but let's expand a bit. Our desires can't be justified in some ultimate way. X desires to have sex with women; Y desires to have sex with men. Neither desire is more rational than the other. What is rational or otherwise is how they go about it. If X thinks that a good way to get women to have sex with him/her is to vomit over their shoes, that's probably not rational. I.e., reason tells us that this gambit is not usually successful.
Reason enables us to find out stuff about the world, including about other people, which can be very useful in achieving our desires. Sometimes it's even rational to try to change our desires because reason tells us that it'll help us achieve our deeper desires. So rational reflection on our desires is important. We shouldn't act on our most immediate impulse but in a way that will work to achieve deeper desires. Hopefully, X's desire to have sex with women isn't going to turn X into a rapist, because X also wishes (desires) not to hurt people, not to use violence, not to breach useful social norms, etc. So X might be the sort of person, like most of us, who is motivated to charm and seduce but wouldn't even think of raping.
But our ultimate, deepest desires are simply things that we have. There's no way to appeal to us to try to change them except by appealing to even deeper desires that we have (in which case they are not our deepest desires after all). Unfortunately, a truly evil person, e.g. a vicious and cunning psychopath, may be doing nothing irrational - but such a person is a danger to the rest of us and must be stopped. It's rational for us to throw him or her in jail. Fortunately, most of us are not like that: we may not be angelically altruistic, but we are social animals who desire to help each other, etc. Think how you'd react in the street if an elderly person suddenly collapsed in pain. Even if you didn't know what to do, you'd want to help. Almost everyone - barring the stray psychopath - is like that.
Without desires (and, like Hume, I include here hopes, fears, values) we'd never do anything. We wouldn't even have a reason to find out facts about the world unless we either desired to know these facts for its own sake or we desired to know these facts for the sake of achieving our other desires. Eventually, reason alone always runs out as a source of motivation.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Morality, with limits
My piece for Comment is Free (The Guardian) appears here.
Go and help me out, coz this one is going to be controversial. Btw, the word around the traps is that you should NEVER get trapped in debate in the comments section if you write one of these pieces. It can take over your life and drive you to despair. So ... I'll keep away as much as possible. :)
Go and help me out, coz this one is going to be controversial. Btw, the word around the traps is that you should NEVER get trapped in debate in the comments section if you write one of these pieces. It can take over your life and drive you to despair. So ... I'll keep away as much as possible. :)
Science Faction - last gig in Melbourne on this trip
I'm speaking at this event on Friday night. It'll be my last gig in Melbourne on this particular trip ... and on a completely topic from the others.
====
SCIENCE FACTION
So here it is! Tape Projects final 100 proofs art/science talk.
Two men talk minds and machines, science fiction and technological fact.
We have the pleasure of picking the expert brains of intelligent robotics specialist Ray Jarvis and science fiction writer, philosopher and critic Russell Blackford. Please join us in a discussion about technological factualities and their relationships with fictitious imaginings.
Ray Jarvis completed a BE (Elec.) and Ph.D.(Elec.) at the University of Western Australia in 1962 and 1968, respectively. After two years at Purdue University he returned to Australia and took up a Senior Lectureship at the Australian National University where he was instrumental in establishing the Dept. of Computer Science. In 1985 he took up a Chair in the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering at Monash University and established the Intelligent Robotics Research Centre in 1987 and continues to be its Director. He is a Fellow of the IEEE (from 1992). His research interests include Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision, Pattern Recognition and Intelligent Robotics. Between 2003 and 2007 he was the Director of the Australian Research Council Centre for Perceptive and Intelligent Machines in Complex Environments.
Russell Blackford is an Australian writer, philosopher, and literary critic. His qualifications include separate PhDs in English Literature (University of Newcastle) and Philosophy (Monash University). His books include Strange Constellations: A History of Australian Science Fiction (co-authored with Van Ikin and Sean McMullen, 1999); 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists (co-edited with Udo Schuklenk, 2009); and several novels, including three that make up the series Terminator 2: The New John Connor Chronicles (2002-2003). Russell was a member of the editorial collective of Australian Science Fiction Review (Second Series), and his articles, reviews, and short stories have appeared in many anthologies, magazines, academic journals, and other markets. He is a Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and EmergingTechnologies, and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Evolution and Technology.
As usual, light refreshments will be available, and all are welcome!
We look forward to seeing you there.
Love tapr.
100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe has been developed with the support of the Next Wave Kickstart program, for the 2010 Next Wave Festival, NO RISK TOO GREAT, 13-30 May 2010.
Tape Projects is also supported by a Moonee Valley City Council 2010 Cultural Grant.
Http://www.100.tapeprojects.org
Http://www.tapeprojects.org
Http://www.nextwave.org.au
Http://www.mvcc.vic.gov.au
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Bestselling books from the Global Atheist Convention
Here is the list from Readings, who were the convention's bookseller. 50 Voices of Disbelief came in second after The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Y'all who bought it, don't forget to pass on the word if you like what you read.
Y'all who bought it, don't forget to pass on the word if you like what you read.
Some footage of the Grayling/Blackford gig
The gig put on by Readings the other night was not officially recorded, but here's some amateur footage courtesy of Adam Ford, who was in the audience with his fancy camera that has a video function.
Please do not expect professional production values, or complain that it doesn't have them! Anthony Grayling and I don't speak at the same loudness, which is difficult to compensate for, the angle it's shot from is a bit odd (i.e. from Adam's seat in the theatre), and it's done by an amateur photographer with a hand-held home camera ... you get the idea.
You really had to be there! But you'll still be able to get a good sense of what we talked about and the ambience of the gig. As you'll see ... or, rather, hear, we were received very warmly by the audience of about 200 people.
Many thanks to Adam for doing this under less-than-optimal conditions, and for sending me the link.
By the way, Readings sold a lot of books at the Global Atheist Convention, including a lot of copies of 50 Voices of Disbelief. Yay! If you're in Melbourne and looking for the book, or other relevant literature, maybe give Readings a try, because they'll still have stock. My thanks to the Readings staff for their support. You were great, guys.
Please do not expect professional production values, or complain that it doesn't have them! Anthony Grayling and I don't speak at the same loudness, which is difficult to compensate for, the angle it's shot from is a bit odd (i.e. from Adam's seat in the theatre), and it's done by an amateur photographer with a hand-held home camera ... you get the idea.
You really had to be there! But you'll still be able to get a good sense of what we talked about and the ambience of the gig. As you'll see ... or, rather, hear, we were received very warmly by the audience of about 200 people.
Many thanks to Adam for doing this under less-than-optimal conditions, and for sending me the link.
By the way, Readings sold a lot of books at the Global Atheist Convention, including a lot of copies of 50 Voices of Disbelief. Yay! If you're in Melbourne and looking for the book, or other relevant literature, maybe give Readings a try, because they'll still have stock. My thanks to the Readings staff for their support. You were great, guys.
Monday, March 15, 2010
What can Darwin teach us about morality?
"What can Darwin teach us about morality?" is the question this week at Cif belief, on The Guardian's Comment is Free site.
The first answer to the question comes from Michael Ruse, who is, like me, an error theorist when it comes to questions of meta-ethics (at least that's how I've always understood his position, and this brief piece seems to support it). Ruse is rather flip and cynical, but I think he's essentially right this time. It's a pity that he feels the need to get a dig at the "New Atheists" right at the end. That aside, all his paras are worth reading. Ruse continues to be, well, good in parts.
Sample:
[...] there are those – and I am one – who argue that only by recognising the death of God can we possibly do that which we should, and behave properly to our fellow humans and perhaps save the planet that we all share. We can give up all of that nonsense about women and gay people being inferior, about fertilised ova being human beings, and about the earth being ours to exploit and destroy.
Start with the fact that humans are naturally moral beings. We want to get along with our fellows. We care about our families. And we feel that we should put our hands in our pockets for the widows and orphans. This is not a matter of chance or even of culture primarily. Humans as animals have gone the route of sociality. We succeed, each of us individually, because we are part of a greater whole and that whole is a lot better at surviving and reproducing that most other animals.
I'm not sure I'd put the last sentence quoted exactly like that - after all, it might be questioned whether we really do succeed judged by our own values, something that natural selection is indifferent to - but it's about right. And hey, some subtle distinctions cannot be teased out in such very limited space.
I don't know whose answer will be next, but my own will be appearing at some stage this week (yes, they asked me ... and I managed to do 600 words while at the big Global Atheist bash). The piece I've written will be pretty consistent with Ruse's, though with a different emphasis. Presumably there will also be some religious folk contributing, but we await events.
Meanwhile, as usual, some of the comments are amusing ... (I think I'll try to avoid the comments when my own contribution goes up. You get some real nutters commenting there. But of course, I'm not referring to all the sensible people who read this blog. Go and comment away!)
The first answer to the question comes from Michael Ruse, who is, like me, an error theorist when it comes to questions of meta-ethics (at least that's how I've always understood his position, and this brief piece seems to support it). Ruse is rather flip and cynical, but I think he's essentially right this time. It's a pity that he feels the need to get a dig at the "New Atheists" right at the end. That aside, all his paras are worth reading. Ruse continues to be, well, good in parts.
Sample:
[...] there are those – and I am one – who argue that only by recognising the death of God can we possibly do that which we should, and behave properly to our fellow humans and perhaps save the planet that we all share. We can give up all of that nonsense about women and gay people being inferior, about fertilised ova being human beings, and about the earth being ours to exploit and destroy.
Start with the fact that humans are naturally moral beings. We want to get along with our fellows. We care about our families. And we feel that we should put our hands in our pockets for the widows and orphans. This is not a matter of chance or even of culture primarily. Humans as animals have gone the route of sociality. We succeed, each of us individually, because we are part of a greater whole and that whole is a lot better at surviving and reproducing that most other animals.
I'm not sure I'd put the last sentence quoted exactly like that - after all, it might be questioned whether we really do succeed judged by our own values, something that natural selection is indifferent to - but it's about right. And hey, some subtle distinctions cannot be teased out in such very limited space.
I don't know whose answer will be next, but my own will be appearing at some stage this week (yes, they asked me ... and I managed to do 600 words while at the big Global Atheist bash). The piece I've written will be pretty consistent with Ruse's, though with a different emphasis. Presumably there will also be some religious folk contributing, but we await events.
Meanwhile, as usual, some of the comments are amusing ... (I think I'll try to avoid the comments when my own contribution goes up. You get some real nutters commenting there. But of course, I'm not referring to all the sensible people who read this blog. Go and comment away!)
Ireland to hold referendum on blasphemy law ... probably
H/T PZ Myers. Ireland will probably be holding a referendum in October to remove from its constitution the requirement for a law prohibiting blasphemy.
If all goes well, this could be a major victory for freedom of speech. Meanwhile, since this is only "probably" going to happen, do anything you can to keep up the pressure, if only by blogging about it and passing on the message.
According to the Sunday Times (as quoted by Atheist Ireland):
A final decision on a blasphemy referendum rests with the cabinet, but if [Dermot] Ahern remains justice minister after this month’s reshuffle, he is likely to propose that it be added to the autumn list. The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.
I'm not especially interested in whether Ahern was planning something like this all along; whether he's acted in good faith; whether or not, in some Machiavellian way, he's a friend of free speech after all; or whatever. The Irish can worry about that - he's their politician to vote against at the next election if that is justified. They'd know much better than me.
What matters most, I suggest, is that this medieval law be removed from the criminal code of what is supposed to be a modern Western democracy. Strategically, as we struggle to attain or regain freedom of speech, including the freedom to criticise or satirise religion, this doesn't only affect Ireland. Ireland's blasphemy legislation provides a terrible precedent for all of us, one for enemies of free speech to gloat about, and to cite in other countries and in UN debates. It has to go.
If all goes well, this could be a major victory for freedom of speech. Meanwhile, since this is only "probably" going to happen, do anything you can to keep up the pressure, if only by blogging about it and passing on the message.
According to the Sunday Times (as quoted by Atheist Ireland):
A final decision on a blasphemy referendum rests with the cabinet, but if [Dermot] Ahern remains justice minister after this month’s reshuffle, he is likely to propose that it be added to the autumn list. The government is already committed to referendums on children’s rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.
I'm not especially interested in whether Ahern was planning something like this all along; whether he's acted in good faith; whether or not, in some Machiavellian way, he's a friend of free speech after all; or whatever. The Irish can worry about that - he's their politician to vote against at the next election if that is justified. They'd know much better than me.
What matters most, I suggest, is that this medieval law be removed from the criminal code of what is supposed to be a modern Western democracy. Strategically, as we struggle to attain or regain freedom of speech, including the freedom to criticise or satirise religion, this doesn't only affect Ireland. Ireland's blasphemy legislation provides a terrible precedent for all of us, one for enemies of free speech to gloat about, and to cite in other countries and in UN debates. It has to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)