Facebook debate and the harm principle by Mill

-
John Stuart Mill was a famous British political philosopher who contributed to the advancement of our modern society. We need to go back to his argument on the 'harm principle' if we want to have a deeper political understanding of the Facebook debate in PNG.

In UPNG, when I first attended Alphonse Gelu's course titled 'The State', we talked about the 'harm principle'. I did not develop a firm understanding of the notion, initially. 

But later, when I attended Alphonse Shaun's class on 'Social Political Philosophy'. I began to make sense of what these great political philosophers were saying and how their political philosophies influenced the foundation of our modern society.

According to the video (below) from YouTube, Mill argued that free speech is important. What people are saying on Facebook at the moment according to Mill is not harm. Such dissent offends others (but not all) and keeps those who are offended on their intellectual toes. In this case, our public office holders. 



Jason Nowaczyk defines the 'harm principle' as:
"The harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. If a person's actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government, should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. This even includes actions that a person may do that would harm the person himself."

He also outlines well the difference between 'harm' and 'offense' according to Mill. But you should also read the 'principle of utility' in the previous paragraph for a better understanding. 

He further states that:
"Harm is something that would injure the rights of someone else or set back important interests that benefit others. An example of harm would be not paying taxes because cities rely on the money to take care of its citizens."

Going back to our debate, we now ask the question whether the comments made by people using fake usernames on Facebook caused any harm to those concerned? Moreover, did their unsubstantiated comments injure the rights of our public officer holders in anyway or affect all citizens nationally?

What about the case of APEC? Do you think all the negativity on Facebook about the hosting of APEC, and about certain public office holders, is a set back to this interest which might benefit others? 

It gets complicated when you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Section 39 (Subsection 3) of our Constitution directs our court system to take into consideration the UDHR in its rulings. Article 7 of the UDHR talks about equal protection from discrimination, and Article 12 says that we should not be subjected to attacks upon our honour and reputation.

Thus, are those using fake usernames on Facebook attacking the honour and the reputation of the Prime Minister or any parliamentarian for that matter? Does the Prime Minister has the right according to international law not to be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation? 

On the other hand, he defines offense as:
"An offense, according to Mill, is something which we would say 'hurt our feelings.' These are less serious and should not be prevented, because what may hurt one person's feelings may not hurt another's, and so offenses are not universal."

If you use the explanation above about 'offense' to reflect on the Facebook debate on the floor of parliament. Then we can say that it is not right to prevent what should be or could be said on Facebook against certain members of parliament and against the staging of the APEC summit this year. 

Any mature democracy would understand this if we refer back to the 'harm principle' and the argument put forward by John Stuart Mill. But is PNG a matured democracy? Judging from the response from the responsible government minister and the fact that we will be only 43 years old, maybe we are not matured to that level.

The objective of this post is not to say that we should or should not ban Facebook usage for a certain period of time. I intend to point you to the philosophical background of the Facebook debate. As students of politics, it is imperative that you read the works of great political philosophers like Mill.

I played my part by introducing you to the works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Kant, Grotius and others. I hope you will find time to read about the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and so on.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di
Read more

Rise and fall realism

-
Image
By Colin Elman and Michael A. Jensen Source: Williams, P. D. (Ed.). (2008). Security studies: an introduction . London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. What is rise and fall realism? Rise and fall realism remerge as a powerful alternative to the balance of power theories that predominated international relations scholarship during the 1950’s. Central theme Hegemony is the foundation for peace while balance is often associated with war (Organski). Dynamics Rise and fall realism emphasizes that war between major powers is least likely when the international system is dominated by a single state and when there are no rising challengers vying for system leadership. Given its privileged position, a dominant state is capable of shaping the rules and practices of the international system in such a way as to satisfy its selfish interest. Stability is a product of this hegemonic order, as states which are dissatisfied with the status quo lack the capabilities to change it.
Read more