Doesn't free speech also enable lies and immoral ideals to be spread by bots/people too? It seems it's a double edged sword in a way but I don't think censorship is a solution. I don't think there is a solution beyond education?
> Doesn't free speech also enable lies and immoral ideals to be spread by bots/people too?
Yes. I don't think the government should be our moral police nor should it dictate what morals are acceptable.
> I don't think there is a solution beyond education?
I don't think education should try and instil morals. This seems rather totalitarian to me. Where would these morals come from, how would we decide what morals our children should be indoctrinated with in school?
Parents, family, friends, community - many places - being dictated morality in school from a government seems rather perverse though.
I'm sure it sounds great if you also think that nobody with morals that is not yours should ever have political power - but that is not an option and even if it was I don't think that is a reasonable expectation or desire.
School is the community kids spend half their waking lives in. Of course they will learn about morals there. Teachers are a big part of it, as is the curriculum. Both are to some degree checked by the democratic process.
None of this is new or totalitarian or particularly controversial in practice, since most of morality is not particularly controversial in the first place (in a given community at a specific time). People with divergent morality from the society they live in avoid public schools, one way or another.
The curriculum is not part of the community - and either the curriculum dictates morals or it does not. If it does I have a problem with it, if it does not I don't. I doubt the person I was responding with was referencing anything but the curriculum when they said "I don't think there is a solution beyond education?". And to be clear this is also what I was referencing if that was not clear enough.
If it was just some teacher's own opinion and there was no insistence that the children must adopt it then I would not characterise it as dictating morality in school.
And in my view dictating morality as part of the curriculum is totalitarian and perverse.
You will be surprised how difficult it is to teach a lot of subjects without taking moral positions or at least discussing them. In a literature course, students are going to read fiction in which the authors will have taken moral positions. If you don't discuss the morality in class, students are likely to be strongly influenced by that morality - good or bad. If you do discuss the morality, they will be impacted by the morality of the teacher and their peers.
A course on biology can teach genetic editing. If you don't discuss morals and ethics in that course around the issue of designer babies, you will have raised young people who might think the tech is cool without understanding its dangers. Your only solution is to talk about the morality of it.
And obviously, courses on economics or political science can't even begin to be taught without assuming certain moral or philosophical positions.
Education is complicated. It is teaching people how to understand the world around them, and morality is part and parcel of that world.
> If you don't discuss the morality in class, students are likely to be strongly influenced by that morality - good or bad.
Discussing morality in school is not the same as dictating morality in school. If the governments position is these are the morals that the school system must instill in children then I have a problem with it - if not - great - have at it.
> And obviously, courses on economics or political science can't even begin to be taught without assuming certain moral or philosophical positions.
I don't see how any course in economics or political science requires the pupils to adopt any specific morals.
> If the governments position is these are the morals that the school system must instill in children
This is what I am trying to argue, that this is not realistically possible. You can have a situation where you will find 0 policy or legal government documents or statements that say that this moral position is to be taught, yet the curriculum, assessments and resources will unintentionally strongly suggest a narrow set of moral positions to the students, and most students will end up adopting something from that set.
Going back to my example of the biology course. Are you taking the position that the teacher not discuss ethics related to genetic engineering at all? That is already a moral position: students will learn that worrying about morals when you study technology is not required.
If morals are to be discussed, then the teachers are usually not experts in the field. Hence, they usually use resources suggested by the state. The state will suggest a small set of resources, and try as much as you can, those resources will only discuss only a few moral positions on genetic engineering. Ultimately, students will be taught these and they will adopt one of them.
The generic mistake you are making in your argument is forgetting that the null policy is also a policy.
> Are you taking the position that the teacher not discuss ethics related to genetic engineering at all?
I guess that I have not been clear enough - so maybe this will help. I have no objection to morals or ethics being discussed in school. I have a problem with the state trying to instil a specific set of morals into children.
> That is already a moral position
That the state should not dictate what morals children should hold is indeed a moral position. I never once suggested otherwise.
> The state will suggest a small set of resources, and try as much as you can, those resources will only discuss only a few moral positions on genetic engineering.
There is a big difference between studying specific works on ethics and trying to instil a specific set of morals into children. I think it is very valuable to have exposure to many different points of view on morality. I think it would be good to expose children to the concepts of moral absolutism, moral objectivism, morality of different peoples and different times.
> Ultimately, students will be taught these and they will adopt one of them.
If someone gets taught different points of view on morality - it is up to them to adopt or not adopt it.
> The generic mistake you are making in your argument is forgetting that the null policy is also a policy.
I'm perfectly aware that a policy of not dictate morals to children in schools would be a policy - not sure why you thought otherwise. I'm not arguing for the absence of government policy or the absence of morals.
Education works for fact-based debates. And logical thinkers.
But today, there is a lot of emotional manipulation. In the US, recently, xenophobia fears are incited and played upon. Moderate bullying tactics are employed, being careful to avoid hate-speech. Not sure education plays a role when primal fear is involved.
There's a class of people+situations where there's a communication asymmetry. For example, someone in a position of authority can create a press conference and deliver communication to hundreds or thousands, and people can't contest and deliver communication back to all listeners in an equally timely manner. So these situations are one-sided and prone to be abused as propaganda delivery mechanisms.
Why can't we require speech in these specific situations to follow a couple rules:
- Statements of opinions must be preceded by a notice that X is your opinion, for each statement.
- Stating things that are provably incorrect is a violation of law.
- Statements that encourage behavior that is against the law is a violation of law.
