Re: Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it
[#permalink]
01 Jan 2022, 03:46
Dear DmitryFarber,
Thank you for your clarification. I’ve perhaps read into it too much. I would agree with you 100%, if the choice did not have the word “SELF”. In fact, I initially thought about the explanation that you’ve given: a benefit to the government. But the “SELF” bit bothered me.
If we place the ‘SELF’ bit in the context, you’ll have “the self-interest of the government.” Now, the “self-interest of the government” is associated more with “the government trying to stay in power by any means necessary”, or “the government silencing its citizens”, and so on, than with “the government doing the right thing for its citizens.” The government doing the right thing for its citizens is, usually (??), in the interest of the government, as well as in the interest of its citizens, but probably not to its ‘SELF-interest.’ Why?
Well, the word “self-interest” seems to me to be about someone or some entity doing things to gain a benefit for himself or itself but not for others. I wasn’t 100% sure, so I looked up in a dictionary, and according to the Oxford dictionary, the word ‘self-interest’ means: “one's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.” So not only gaining benefits but also doing so for oneself is a part of the word’s connotation.
Now, the analogies that you gave:
"This is the right thing to do AND you will benefit."
"This low-emissions car is good for the environment, AND you will save money!"
These are the examples of a kind, thoughtful person giving a useful piece of advice to someone for the benefit of the person receiving the advice. In other words, these are not the examples of ‘self’-interested’ advice because they don’t disregard others. If so, you have to assume that the self-interest of the person giving advice and the self-interest of the person receiving the advice converge.
As such, you are then assuming that the interest of the government and the interest of its citizens converge, but I rarely see that convergence in the recent human history. I know I’ve watched too much political news and have become the victim of availability heuristic. But I just see too many counter examples to believe in the convergence. Isn’t it too much to ask test takers, usually adults and not impressionable teenagers, to believe that the interest of the government and the interest of its citizens usually converge? So to summarise my problem here: Interest = self-interest??? Really?
Now, if I’m not awfully wrong about the central tenet of the argument, I see it as follows.
Free speech is great because it allows different ideas to be discussed and scrutinised, leading to rational decision-making. Or something like that. And that is in the interest of the government.
Ok, I get that.
But is that the self-interest of the government? Really??
Now, I could be wrong about my explanation, which may be more associative than logical, but just to clarify, I did not mean that the self-interest is related to some personal interest of the advisor. Of course, we cannot know that. Instead, what I meant and perhaps I did not communicate well was that the advisor’s claim about the freedom of speech being the ONLY rational policy is incomplete, all the while the advisor lists up all the wonderful ideals.
The argument gives me an impression that someone is saying: “Look, this is the ONLY way, because then you can achieve these moral, wonderful things! This is the best!” Then, you go like: “Well, is it really the only way??”
Now, the reason that I connected the self-interest to the advisor is that I suddenly remembered reading Aristotle, who talks about 3 rhetorical techniques: logos, pathos, and ethos. And the ethos is the technique of persuasion that uses moral sentiments. Politicians often use that tactic. “I will raise tax because we should save those poor children!” Deceitful bastards!
So these are the reasons that I have a massive problem in seeing the freedom of speech as the self-interest of the government because the government often acts as though the freedom of speech is not its self-interest. Here, I assume the separation of the government and the state. Meanwhile, if I see the whole thing as the rhetorical tactic employed by the advisor, the ethos, then, it makes a whole lot more sense to me.
I’m sure you would agree with me on this that if your interpretation is right, the word ‘self-interest’ is not the most appropriate one here. If it is a trap, then, it is the trap that makes me go “oh, that’s nasty,” but not “oh, that’s clever.”
Thank you for reading my rambling.