>Hi Judy,
>
>a few things
>first regarding free speech
>
>1) the guy who teaches that the holocoust never happened (obviously a
>wrong teaching) Irving is his name I think was denied a visum to enter
>Australia like last year
>
>2) THere are disability groups and individuals in Australia who wo9uld
>like me to give some lectures in Australia on Bioethics and equality
>rights. and they can't get the money together to get me over
>
>This are just two examples where free speech is not really free speech. In
>the first case anactive limitation equivalent to the situation that the
>german government would actively prohibit Singer from entering Germany
>(which never happened). So obviously free speech stops somewhere.
>
>and the second is about distribution of speech. Disabled groups for thew
>most part have not much money. Obviously people who like Singer's ideas
>and work have no problem in finding money to invite Singer all over the
>world. This is an unevenness as to who hears whom and in that way free
>speech becomes a tool for the powerful to justify themselves
Of course. Free speech does in many ways have a price. But Politics is not
the be all (though it may be the end all) of free speech. If you espouse a
view in a country where it is not popular it is only common sense to expect
some sort of reaction, political or otherwise. It shouldn't happen but it
does. The argument above is to me Idealist in many ways because it seems to
be harking after a perfect world - which is for the moment an impossibility.
The idea that there is in reality unconditional free speech is also
Idealist. Words have effect both on the listener and the speaker.
The whole point of philosophical discussion is argument and counterargument.
Not all of his students at Princeton are going to agree with him on this
matter (if any).
>By the way. I find it dqangerous to focuss to much on Singer as there are
>many USA bioethicists who write for decades he same as what Singer
>writes(Joseph Fletcher Tristam Engelhardt to name just two.)
Here I agree unconditionally. Singer is most definitely not the only lonely
man in this matter. Kuhse, Englehardt. The list is long. What worries me
more, is not the abundance of advocates of Euthanasia being moral, but more
that lack of attention given to those advocating the opposite view. And I
don't believe it's just because the powerful and rich like Euthanasia or
just simply find pro-euthanasia advocates so charming.
Michael Peckitt
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|