Is the argument biased by our common interest in philosophy?

I don't exactly know why I am so insistent on disagreeing with Shiffrin's basis, particularly because I think she puts forth an account that categorizes many actions I find frustrating and wrong as immoral. My guess is because I feel even if I explained this argument, many of the people I find myself frustrated with would not be convinced to change.

I agree with a thinker-based approach and think Shiffrin provides a defensible account of how it could legally interact with non-standard cases as with children and lying, I'm just not convinced its basis is as universal as I would like it to be. Shiffrin champions the necessity of free-speech in two ways (excluding arguments directly from political checks and balances). One is through the reasoning that because free speech is essential to the development of thought, and thought is essential to the development of morality, free speech must also be essential to morality and should be protected. The second is an appeal to free expressions role in defining our sense of selves, using the extent to which solitary confinement harms prisoners as evidence. I don't think either of these rationale is sufficient to instantiate the full importance of free speech. 

To tackle the weaker of the two first, I find the comparison to solitary confinement problematic. Although Shiffrin admits that "prisoners in solitary confinement endure more than just the lack of conversation and the absence of interlocutors," she argues that we can isolate disproportionate impact on prisoners in solitary confinement, as other prisoners suffer all other effects too. I don't mean to argue that communication with other people isn't extremely valuable, but I also don't think the specific concoction of deprivation that makes up solitary confinement can be put on a spectrum with other more general forms of free speech. I do not have anywhere near a full understanding of the psychology behind self-activity, but it seems a simple comparison to other forms of self-isolation indicate that the impacts on self-activity is more nuanced. Those who are stranded on an island sometimes lose mental capacity, but not always. Perhaps different because of the willful component, but the "cabin in the woods" or "retiring to a simple farm life" is often depicted as an ideal state despite the inherent isolation. 

I believe in moral progress and the capacity for philosophers to utilize free expression to bring about social change, but I don't necessarily think it is universal that mental freedom is tightly correlated to moral progress. Morality is often understood to be an intuitive thing. A healthier environment undoubtably cultivates better morality. The issue is that free thought does not seem intrinsically essential to a healthy environment. I'm thinking of Kant's butler, but also of all the ways free interaction with widespread ideology can lead to immoral conclusions (disproportionate apathy at CMC as an example). 

    Religion also comes to mind for me as a healthy environment. I think the argument still works if you pick a specific religion other than your own, but I see religion as a largely positive moral force in people's lives, despite blind faith being a core tenant of how many religions functions. From my vague FHS knowledge, was it not true during the time of Martin Luther that religious doctrine specifically listed free inquiry into the mechanisms as "stupid" (I think that's a quote)? Or from another angle, my best friend in high school was from Hong Kong, and he sincerely believed that the restriction of speech in mainland China is unproblematic because rural farmers "don't have the time to worry about politics" and actually enjoy greater access to moral society through restrictions on their ability to publicly dissent. 

Again, I agree that free thought is an essential tool for self-determination and developing morality. I just worry that in the cases where it is not the most important factor to those ends, Shiffrin's account fails to enshrine its intrinsic importance. 

Yay, Pizza! 

Aidan :)