To me, the overall answer is clear-cut, although not always evident in each individual case. That is that the exercise of one's personal freedom cannot infringe upon the freedom of others and that, in a complex society, the greater good of society must be considered along with the rights of the individual.

"To me, the overall answer is clear-cut, although not always evident in each individual case. That is that the exercise of one's personal freedom cannot infringe upon the freedom of others and that, in a complex society..."


"I think that most conflicts occur in the area of religious practices, since these tend to be among the strongest personal beliefs and probably also the area in which there is the widest diversity of opinions. But I will leave that to be explored in the discussion."

I knew after I wrote "greater good of society", that it probably wasn't the best phrase. I even tried to add an additional explanation after I reviewed it before posting, but I just wanted to put it out there. I understand the concerns expressed about that, and I guess defining "greater good" is something that needs to be part of the discussion.

As I wrote, I did not mean "greater good" to mean some vague, easily-implemented justification for stifling personal beliefs and freedom. It was more the idea that, at least in the US, we have common laws and practices, defined by the Constitution, and further refined by legal precedent, that supercede the increasing claims of "absolute freedom" by religious followers and other special-interest groups.

That's not the only theme of the debate, but I think it's one of more important.

The values of our society as a whole are not defined by any one group's beliefs--whether ideological or religious. I think that as long as people act within their homes, and within the structure of their groups, then they have greater claims to absolute freedom. But as they move into the larger world, then the codes, regulations, laws, etc, that are derived from our founding legal documents, begin to take greater precedence.

IMO, you can run your church any way you want, but when you move into the general society as a business--such as a hospital or a university--with a diverse group of people as employees, then you no longer have the right to enforce your religious beliefs without limits or interference. You cannot pick and choose which laws you want to follow, when those laws apply to all businesses and institutions.

As an adult, you have the right to refuse medical treatment according to your religious beliefs, But since those beliefs often are contrary to what science and research have shown to be the best practice to ensure health, you cannot deny medical treatment to your children. ( I think that's how most laws read).

That's more what I meant by "general good".

I got what you were trying to say. But a lot of times many of these solutions to these problems have a side unexplored. When you look at the example of yelling fire in a movie theater, it is apparent that in this case that the person yelling is having his freedom of speech supressed in this case. But it is because not only is he jeapordizing safety, which is the common justification for it, but in fact he is stifling freedom of speech with his actions. I just bought a ticket to a movie with my money. I want to hear what that movie has to say. The people who made that movie wants me to hear their words and see their film. The prankster yelling "fire" has taken one of his liberties and used it to cancel out anothers, so he is wrong.

But if we are going to use the words, "the greater good", civil liberties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, is for the greater good. Words are just words, and we often pay just a little too much attention to potty mouths when, in my opinion, freedom of speech's core function is to never supress the expression of ideas. Seems to me that all to often, supressing something out of fear as vulgar, wrong, or idiotic does nothing but strengthen it's position. It is almost as if americans innate distrust of authority transfers in to intellectual curiousity of the forbidden. I say get it all out in the open, every idea, and let it get debated on it's merit.

We can't interact with other people without affecting them in some way. It could be a small or large change, but we do affect other people. On top of that, we're social creatures by nature. So this tension between personal freedoms and doing what's best for everyone is kind of an inevitable paradox. I happen to think that we're never going to agree on value judgments ( what constitutes "good" or "bad" changes along with "small" or "large" changes). All we can really do is try to come to some sort of agreed understanding about what's happening.

If we look at the video game example, instead of talking about doing what's "good" for our kids--a functionally useless statement, if not an important concept--we talk about what video games actual do. The research behind video game violence affecting children is frequently pretty crappy.

Another example: helmet laws and/or fat taxes. The arguments generally go that we should regulate helmet use and attempt to encourage people to eat better because both affect other people we because we're all part of the healthcare/insurance markets. The extent to which we're actually affecting other people, however, is extremely complex and hard to quantify. And even if you do quantify it, it's saddled with so much context that most people just stop listening.

you can follow religious beliefs that call for women to cover their faces in public, but cannot refuse to uncover to take a driver's license ID photo.

We can't interact with other people without affecting them in some way. It could be a small or large change, but we do affect other people. On top of that, we're social creatures by nature. So this tension between personal freedoms and doing what's best for everyone is kind of an inevitable paradox. I happen to think that we're never going to agree on value judgments ( what constitutes "good" or "bad" changes along with "small" or "large" changes). All we can really do is try to come to some sort of agreed understanding about what's happening.

If we look at the video game example, instead of talking about doing what's "good" for our kids--a functionally useless statement, if not an important concept--we talk about what video games actual do. The research behind video game violence affecting children is frequently pretty crappy.

Another example: helmet laws and/or fat taxes. The arguments generally go that we should regulate helmet use and attempt to encourage people to eat better because both affect other people we because we're all part of the healthcare/insurance markets. The extent to which we're actually affecting other people, however, is extremely complex and hard to quantify. And even if you do quantify it, it's saddled with so much context that most people just stop listening.

Random: I read today that playing video games has a better success rate for treating depression than counseling.
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/04/20/study-shows-gaming-may-be-helpful-in-treating-teen-depression/



But I have to agree with your statement that most cases the greater good being effected by one's personal liberties is highly unlikely.

Interesting. That is not at all what I intended to communicate : ). I think the ways in which we express our personal liberties probably have a tremendous, and usually hidden, effect on the greater good, however we wish to define it.

Really?

TIL:

you can follow religious beliefs that call for women to cover their faces in public, but cannot refuse to uncover to take a driver's license ID photo.

I would imagine very few women who follow these practices would have the freedom to drive alone anyway, but this was a surprise to me.

Great discussion topic and I must just dive in! Your example to "walk around naked in your house, but not down the street…" with the emphasis on the word "in" made me laugh out loud for a couple of reasons.

In a nearby town, a 53-year old woman famous for us locals refuses to dress from the waist up when she is anywhere ON her property, and she likes to spend hours watering her front garden. :happy: The only exception to this for her is inclement weather. She has been taken to court a couple of times and each time she prevails. Why? Because in my neck of the woods, fairness wins out more often than etiquette and her argument that men are allowed in public places to jog or walk or otherwise cavort topless and why not women wins the day. This woman's home is on the direct route to the best doggie play park so this summer we have had interesting conversations about her propriety with the grandkids. I'm afraid of what deviance I may be instilling in them!

Exactly whose liberty and independence is violated by a person au naturale, a person more physically vulnerable I argue than anyone else? The only true consequence to such action is social disapprobation and all of the individual American laws out to prohibit it serve only taste and manners and some form or interpretation of godly shame. Or, perhaps, nudity would empty too many closets, shut down too many stores, focus our eyes on something other than fashion and the markets. Does that idea seem too far out there?

Bottom-line (pun intended), why should the limits on the Freedom of Speech and Religion and Assembly increase the further away one moves into society and yet the Market can move anywhere virtually willy-nilly? Wait, oh, that's right, we have no explicit limitation on Freedom of Markets because in our national heart of hearts, so deep that most of us don't even know it lurks, we believe that markets have an unlimited right to speak and grow and prosper over and above the rights of any group or individual. A nice comparison to illustrate this: In Canada just this year, students have taken to the streets to protest a measly $325 tuition increase and in England two years ago street protests in the thousands over higher-ed costs grew violent. Yet in the United States students (and their parents) willingly and meekly agree to and pay much higher tuition increases each year than the people in either of these countries. Why? What is the difference?

Whether rightly or wrongly, I suspect that our neighbors to the north and across the pond do NOT accept the basic assumption to the extent that we Americans do that markets should have the right to unconstrained freedom. I also suspect that the conflicts that arise in America in conjunction with the First Amendment, especially as you have noted happen with religious speech, have more to do with the hidden but embedded Market Freedom that this society holds as sacred. :ohwell:

Just some random thoughts. . .probably too far "out there", I realize but hopefully valid.

(Due to a more than full-time university class schedule, I'm able to read posts but often cannot comment these days due to lack of time! :ohwell: I will try to keep up as I can.)

-Debra

So what do you think should be the limits, if any, on individual liberty/personal freedom?

To answer your question, it is my personal belief that it is FAR better as a society to allow people to air their grievances and not be punished for it than to suppress, even if those grievances are reprehensible. Allowing people the right to express themselves even if their thoughts are morally repugnant publicly without suppression from the government or punishment allows people to feel as though they can work within the system instead of going underground and subverting the system or resorting to violence in order to get their point across.

The only limitations I think are appropriate are ones that prohibit the incitement of violence against anyone else's property or person and/or those that prohibit libel or slander.

I'll start with, I agree with you.

But to play devil's advocate, what about the person who says 'someone should go and kill those people' over and over? There's a guy who stands outside one of the lecture halls at the university. Religious fanatic. Spends all his time talking about how the fornicators and alcoholics of Penn State are going to burn in hell and belong there and yadda yadda yadda. That's an indirect call, no? Is it really only when it's a command?