“For Mill, as for us, this is not primarily a legal issue. His main concern was not government censorship. It was the stultifying consequences of social conformity, of a culture where deviation from a prescribed set of opinions is punished through peer pressure and the fear of ostracism.
You mean like the Democrat California legislature AB 1460 and AB 101 establishing the Ethnic Studies requirement in the CSUs and high schools? What would happen to a student in those classes speaking up in disagreement?
What a fantastic article. My concern these days is the problem of Kantian authenticity v utilitarianism of the Critical Theorists. Both sides have a good point.
For example, if I embrace the ethics of authenticity then my compass is always pointing at radical self honesty and the improvement of myself so that I can act consistently with the ethics I genuinely hold. As the existentialists put it, what I choose to do for myself I must acknowledge that I choose this for all people. I do not make allowances for myself that I would not make for all people. So an ethics of authenticity means you must apply the categorical imperative, and act according to the motives you would want everyone to have.
On the other hand if I embrace the utilitarianism of the Critical Theorists, then lying and self deception are acceptable if the ultimate outcome is improved. So pretending to hold views I do not really hold is fine, since it may help the world even if I personally am a fraud. The "you too fallacy" (tu quoque) is important: I may be a hypocrite but that does not mean my advice is bad. I smoke but you should not. I am a hypocrite but my rule is good nonetheless. Smoking will kill you just the same whether or not I smoke. Mrs Jellyby of Bleak House may be a despicable character, but her inauthentic actions do help the African poor of whom she could not really care less. Green washing may be inauthentic, but it still does social good. If I hang a BLM sign on my office door just to join in even if I am really opposed to BLM, for the Critical Theorist I am still doing good. My inauthenticity is irrelevant for the Critical Theorist.
So: Fake it till you make it, or be honest? Thoughts anyone?
The dominant ideology in academia (and elsewhere) is very deeply anti-Mill. The dominant ideology uses phrases like ‘no debate’ to (quite deliberately) shutdown all debate before it even happens. For the dominant ideology, ‘asking questions’ is an intolerable act of violence. A good example of this mindset is provided by “New York Times Sign On Letter” (GLAAD).
The letter actually contains the phrase “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED”, which will come as news to folks in Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, the UK, etc. all of whom have found the evidence for ‘gender affirming’ care to be weak. In no fewer than three places the letter denounces “just asking questions”.
For another example, listen to “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” (by Megan Phelps-Roper). The phrase ‘no debate’ is used heavily by the advocates of one side of the issue. “Just asking questions” is also repeatedly denounced.
Great piece.
“For Mill, as for us, this is not primarily a legal issue. His main concern was not government censorship. It was the stultifying consequences of social conformity, of a culture where deviation from a prescribed set of opinions is punished through peer pressure and the fear of ostracism.
You mean like the Democrat California legislature AB 1460 and AB 101 establishing the Ethnic Studies requirement in the CSUs and high schools? What would happen to a student in those classes speaking up in disagreement?
What a fantastic article. My concern these days is the problem of Kantian authenticity v utilitarianism of the Critical Theorists. Both sides have a good point.
For example, if I embrace the ethics of authenticity then my compass is always pointing at radical self honesty and the improvement of myself so that I can act consistently with the ethics I genuinely hold. As the existentialists put it, what I choose to do for myself I must acknowledge that I choose this for all people. I do not make allowances for myself that I would not make for all people. So an ethics of authenticity means you must apply the categorical imperative, and act according to the motives you would want everyone to have.
On the other hand if I embrace the utilitarianism of the Critical Theorists, then lying and self deception are acceptable if the ultimate outcome is improved. So pretending to hold views I do not really hold is fine, since it may help the world even if I personally am a fraud. The "you too fallacy" (tu quoque) is important: I may be a hypocrite but that does not mean my advice is bad. I smoke but you should not. I am a hypocrite but my rule is good nonetheless. Smoking will kill you just the same whether or not I smoke. Mrs Jellyby of Bleak House may be a despicable character, but her inauthentic actions do help the African poor of whom she could not really care less. Green washing may be inauthentic, but it still does social good. If I hang a BLM sign on my office door just to join in even if I am really opposed to BLM, for the Critical Theorist I am still doing good. My inauthenticity is irrelevant for the Critical Theorist.
So: Fake it till you make it, or be honest? Thoughts anyone?
The dominant ideology in academia (and elsewhere) is very deeply anti-Mill. The dominant ideology uses phrases like ‘no debate’ to (quite deliberately) shutdown all debate before it even happens. For the dominant ideology, ‘asking questions’ is an intolerable act of violence. A good example of this mindset is provided by “New York Times Sign On Letter” (GLAAD).
The letter actually contains the phrase “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED”, which will come as news to folks in Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, the UK, etc. all of whom have found the evidence for ‘gender affirming’ care to be weak. In no fewer than three places the letter denounces “just asking questions”.
For another example, listen to “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” (by Megan Phelps-Roper). The phrase ‘no debate’ is used heavily by the advocates of one side of the issue. “Just asking questions” is also repeatedly denounced.