 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
Answers for Tom Stoppard[In A matter of give and take, Tom Stoppard despairs for the inalienable right of free speech.] Not inalienable? Tom Stoppard cuts to the chase: If believers of other stripes can't impose their dogma on you, you can't presume to impose yours on them. Two hundred years ago Jefferson asserted that there were certain rights, like free speech, that were inalienable. While Stoppard would like them to be so, and believes they should be, he finds no basis for it. God-given rights hold only for the faithful -- a sticky situation obliging unbelievers, even though they see no foundation, to return behavior. Stoppard ticks off other justifcations that fail, too, since rights by utilitarian contract can be hijacked by a perverted majority, and voluntarily asserting rights, as Voltaire, did -- "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- obliges people to confront repugnant hate speech. Stoppard concludes, "This looks bad for the principle of free speech. It seems to have no foundation." Free speech seems relegated to relativism for survival. As Stoppard says, "It will prevail when we accord it. The rules are ours to make, and modify for different situations. The rules will be as good as we are; or as bad." Having challenged rights as universals, rights as rules, rights as things to be claimed rather than rights that are accorded, Stoppard ends his essay not with the answer, but in quest for a better answer. He quotes his character Alexander Herzen from "The Coast of Utopia" -- a play that struggles with anarchy, utopian idealism, and pragmatism -- "We need wit and courage to make our way while our way is making us. But that is our dignity as human beings." Even if he doesn't write the answer, Stoppard sharpens the pencil for us. It turns out that simply because Jefferson asserted that human rights were inalienble because they were endowed by the creator, it doesn't necessarily follow that religion is the only path to inalienability, universality, or natural law. Something can be "universal" if the same conclusion invariably results for different people despite their different experiences. For instance, it is universally the case that people can recall from their own experience instances when they thought they were correct and were not and conclude that their mental map must not accurately reflect reality. It follows that if free speech is forbidden, one might make bad decisions planning one's future using an inaccurate mental map. It follows that input from others -- free speech -- is invaluable if one can think they are correct when they are not. The possiblity of being wrong may not be universal in the traditional sense, but it acts as if it were and it applies whenever any two people -- the minimal society -- get together. As a universal is called "Humility." Humility, as a process, forms the cornerstone of society. Humility's corollary is the willingness to listen to others, for one's own safety's sake. So it happens that what in a static, rule-based shorthand, might be called a human right of free speech exists as much to benefit the group as the individual. Stoppard presumes that so-called inalienable rights cannot conflict. That may be the habit with static entities, but complex processes regularly come into conflict with each other to be resolved. People do it every day. They just may not have the habit to do it well, yet. It turns out one can assert freedom of expression while equally asserting freedom to protect onself from being verbally bludgeoned. Stoppard regularly sets the stage for the audience to come face to face with issues of importance -- to oblige them to hone the workings of the mind to work toward solutions. In this case, if we are lucky, Stoppard's quest will lead to a cultural change of mind from "rules" to "process" -- from "What rule to follow" to "How to decide." In "The Coast of Utopia," Stoppard's character Herzen loses a son in the play, causing him to realize that "later is too late." The time to change how we understand rights, freedom, and society is now -- before other sons are lost. [Macro error: Can't find a sub-table named "commentIt".]
|
|
||
|
