Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0265052521000017
D. Schmidtz
Abstract This essay introduces basic issues that make up the topic of freedom of thought, including newly emerging issues raised by the current proliferation of Internet search algorithms.
本文介绍了构成思想自由主题的基本问题，包括当前互联网搜索算法激增所带来的新问题。
{"title":"FREEDOM OF THOUGHT","authors":"D. Schmidtz","doi":"10.1017/s0265052521000017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052521000017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay introduces basic issues that make up the topic of freedom of thought, including newly emerging issues raised by the current proliferation of Internet search algorithms.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0265052521000017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56897771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052520000035
Richard Boyd
Abstract For all the recent discoveries of behavioral psychology and experimental economics, the spirit of homo economicus still dominates the contemporary disciplines of economics, political science, and sociology. Turning back to the earliest chapters of political economy, however, reveals that pioneering figures such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and Adam Smith were hardly apostles of economic rationality as they are often portrayed in influential narratives of the development of the social sciences. As we will see, while all three of these thinkers can plausibly be read as endorsing “rationality,” they were also well aware of the systematic irrationality of human conduct, including a remarkable number of the cognitive biases later “discovered” by contemporary behavioral economists. Building on these insights I offer modest suggestions for how these thinkers, properly understood, might carry the behavioral revolution in different directions than those heretofore suggested.
{"title":"THE EARLY MODERN ORIGINS OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS","authors":"Richard Boyd","doi":"10.1017/S0265052520000035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052520000035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For all the recent discoveries of behavioral psychology and experimental economics, the spirit of homo economicus still dominates the contemporary disciplines of economics, political science, and sociology. Turning back to the earliest chapters of political economy, however, reveals that pioneering figures such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and Adam Smith were hardly apostles of economic rationality as they are often portrayed in influential narratives of the development of the social sciences. As we will see, while all three of these thinkers can plausibly be read as endorsing “rationality,” they were also well aware of the systematic irrationality of human conduct, including a remarkable number of the cognitive biases later “discovered” by contemporary behavioral economists. Building on these insights I offer modest suggestions for how these thinkers, properly understood, might carry the behavioral revolution in different directions than those heretofore suggested.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"30 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052520000035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56898037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052521000121
R. Sorabji
Abstract I have argued elsewhere that in past history, freedom of speech, whether granted to few or many, was granted as bestowing some important benefit. John Stuart Mill, for example, in On Liberty, saw it as enabling us to learn from each other through discussion. By the test of benefit, I here argue that social media that are funded through trade in our personal data with advertisers, including propagandists, cannot claim to be supporting free speech. We lose our freedoms, if the personal data we entrust to online social media are used to target us with information, or disinformation, tailored as persuasive to different personalities, in order to maximize revenue from advertisers or propagandists. Among the serious consequences described, particularly dangerous because of its effect on democracy, is the use of such targeted advertisements to swing voting campaigns. Control is needed both of the social media and of any political parties that pay social media for differential targeting of voters based on personality. Using UK government documents, I recommend legislation for reform and enforcement.
{"title":"FREE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA THAT ARE FUNDED BY TRADE IN OUR PERSONAL DATA","authors":"R. Sorabji","doi":"10.1017/S0265052521000121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052521000121","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I have argued elsewhere that in past history, freedom of speech, whether granted to few or many, was granted as bestowing some important benefit. John Stuart Mill, for example, in On Liberty, saw it as enabling us to learn from each other through discussion. By the test of benefit, I here argue that social media that are funded through trade in our personal data with advertisers, including propagandists, cannot claim to be supporting free speech. We lose our freedoms, if the personal data we entrust to online social media are used to target us with information, or disinformation, tailored as persuasive to different personalities, in order to maximize revenue from advertisers or propagandists. Among the serious consequences described, particularly dangerous because of its effect on democracy, is the use of such targeted advertisements to swing voting campaigns. Control is needed both of the social media and of any political parties that pay social media for differential targeting of voters based on personality. Using UK government documents, I recommend legislation for reform and enforcement.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"209 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052521000121","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56898063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052520000102
James R. Otteson
Abstract When did liberal political theory, or perhaps liberal political economy, begin? Although many would trace their beginnings to the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume, or perhaps John Locke, in fact many of the propositions we today recognize as forming the core of liberalism were articulated in the first half of the seventeenth century by an unduly neglected group called the Levellers and their leader John Lilburne. In this essay, I first give some historical background and context to the Levellers and Lilburne. Next, I articulate several of their liberal positions, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of commerce and trade, and I examine their justifications for these positions, which I argue were both novel and radical. I conclude by exploring the contemporary relevance of the Levellers and argue that they should be considered as among liberalism’s most important founders.
{"title":"THE LEVELLERS AND THE BIRTH OF LIBERAL POLITICAL ECONOMY","authors":"James R. Otteson","doi":"10.1017/S0265052520000102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052520000102","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When did liberal political theory, or perhaps liberal political economy, begin? Although many would trace their beginnings to the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume, or perhaps John Locke, in fact many of the propositions we today recognize as forming the core of liberalism were articulated in the first half of the seventeenth century by an unduly neglected group called the Levellers and their leader John Lilburne. In this essay, I first give some historical background and context to the Levellers and Lilburne. Next, I articulate several of their liberal positions, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of commerce and trade, and I examine their justifications for these positions, which I argue were both novel and radical. I conclude by exploring the contemporary relevance of the Levellers and argue that they should be considered as among liberalism’s most important founders.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"170 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052520000102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56897646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052520000114
M. Schabas
Abstract David Hume wrote prolifically and influentially on economics and was an enthusiast for the modern commercial era of manufacturing and global trade. As a vocal critic of the Church, and possibly a nonbeliever, Hume positioned commerce at the vanguard of secularism. I here argue that Hume broached ideas that gesture toward those offered by Max Weber in his famous Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-5). Hume discerned a strong correlation between economic flourishing and Protestantism, and he pointed to a “spirit of the age” that was built on modern commerce and fueled by religious tolerance. The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, came under considerable attack by Hume, for fostering intolerance and draining and diverting funds. Hume recognized several of the dispositions that later appealed to Weber: an increased work ethic and tendency to frugality, enterprise, and investment in Protestant regions. A neo-Weberian literature now points to additional factors, the spread of literacy and the fostering of a network of trust among strangers, both of which Hume noted. Insofar as modern commerce both feeds upon and fosters more liberties and representative government, Hume also linked these with the advent and spread of Protestantism. My aim is not to suggest that these arguments have merit—there is good reason to question each and every assertion under the historical microscope—but rather to highlight the broader religious and cultural context in which Hume’s economics was broached.
{"title":"DAVID HUME AS A PROTO-WEBERIAN: COMMERCE, PROTESTANTISM, AND SECULAR CULTURE","authors":"M. Schabas","doi":"10.1017/S0265052520000114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052520000114","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract David Hume wrote prolifically and influentially on economics and was an enthusiast for the modern commercial era of manufacturing and global trade. As a vocal critic of the Church, and possibly a nonbeliever, Hume positioned commerce at the vanguard of secularism. I here argue that Hume broached ideas that gesture toward those offered by Max Weber in his famous Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-5). Hume discerned a strong correlation between economic flourishing and Protestantism, and he pointed to a “spirit of the age” that was built on modern commerce and fueled by religious tolerance. The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, came under considerable attack by Hume, for fostering intolerance and draining and diverting funds. Hume recognized several of the dispositions that later appealed to Weber: an increased work ethic and tendency to frugality, enterprise, and investment in Protestant regions. A neo-Weberian literature now points to additional factors, the spread of literacy and the fostering of a network of trust among strangers, both of which Hume noted. Insofar as modern commerce both feeds upon and fosters more liberties and representative government, Hume also linked these with the advent and spread of Protestantism. My aim is not to suggest that these arguments have merit—there is good reason to question each and every assertion under the historical microscope—but rather to highlight the broader religious and cultural context in which Hume’s economics was broached.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"190 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052520000114","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56897659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s026505252000014x
Christopher J. Berry
Christopher J. Berry is Professor Emeritus of Political Theory, and Honorary Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow. He works at the interface between politics, history, and philosophy, and is the author of numerous books and articles, especially on aspects of the Scottish Enlightenment. Included among his publications are the books The Idea of Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment (2013), David Hume (2009), and Social Theory of the Scottish Enlightenment (1997). He is a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith (with Maria Pia Paganelli and Craig Smith, 2013), and his articles appear in journals such asHistory of Political Economy, European Journal of Political Theory, and British Journal for the History of Philosophy. He is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
克里斯托弗·j·贝瑞是格拉斯哥大学政治理论名誉教授和名誉教授研究员。他研究政治、历史和哲学的交叉点，著有许多书籍和文章，尤其是关于苏格兰启蒙运动的方面。他的著作包括《苏格兰启蒙运动中的商业社会理念》(2013年)、《大卫·休谟》(2009年)和《苏格兰启蒙运动的社会理论》(1997年)。他是《牛津亚当·斯密手册》(与Maria Pia Paganelli和Craig Smith合著，2013年)的共同编辑，他的文章发表在《政治经济史》、《欧洲政治理论杂志》和《英国哲学史杂志》等期刊上。他是爱丁堡皇家学会的当选会员。
{"title":"CONTRIBUTORS","authors":"Christopher J. Berry","doi":"10.1017/s026505252000014x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s026505252000014x","url":null,"abstract":"Christopher J. Berry is Professor Emeritus of Political Theory, and Honorary Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow. He works at the interface between politics, history, and philosophy, and is the author of numerous books and articles, especially on aspects of the Scottish Enlightenment. Included among his publications are the books The Idea of Commercial Society in the Scottish Enlightenment (2013), David Hume (2009), and Social Theory of the Scottish Enlightenment (1997). He is a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith (with Maria Pia Paganelli and Craig Smith, 2013), and his articles appear in journals such asHistory of Political Economy, European Journal of Political Theory, and British Journal for the History of Philosophy. He is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"i - iii"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s026505252000014x","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56897701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052521000042
A. Koppelman
Abstract Freedom of thought means freedom from social tyranny, the capacity to think for oneself, to encounter even shocking ideas without shrinking away from them. That aspiration is a core concern of the free speech tradition. It is not specifically concerned with law, but it explains some familiar aspects of the First Amendment law we actually have—aspects that the most prevalent theories of free speech fail to capture. It explains the prohibition of compelled speech, and can clarify the perennial puzzle of why freedom of speech extends to art and literature. It also tells us something about the limits of legal regulation, and about the ethical obligations of private actors.
{"title":"IN PRAISE OF EVIL THOUGHTS","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.1017/S0265052521000042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052521000042","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Freedom of thought means freedom from social tyranny, the capacity to think for oneself, to encounter even shocking ideas without shrinking away from them. That aspiration is a core concern of the free speech tradition. It is not specifically concerned with law, but it explains some familiar aspects of the First Amendment law we actually have—aspects that the most prevalent theories of free speech fail to capture. It explains the prohibition of compelled speech, and can clarify the perennial puzzle of why freedom of speech extends to art and literature. It also tells us something about the limits of legal regulation, and about the ethical obligations of private actors.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"52 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052521000042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56897880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052520000023
Christopher J. Berry
Abstract The essay investigates the proposition that economic questions are a fit subject for science. This investigation will involve a selective examination of seventeenth-century writings before looking at again selective Enlightenment texts. The essay is deliberately wide ranging, but it aims to pick out the emergence or crystallization of political economy by noting how theorists sought to establish it as a subject matter and in the process develop ways of studying it that aimed to uncover regularities and exhibit generality, systematicity, and precision. Together these supported its pretensions or claims to be a science that would in a Baconian manner be useful and free of the perceived shackles of a moralistic classical disparagement of economic activity.
{"title":"OUT OF THE COFFEE HOUSE OR HOW POLITICAL ECONOMY PRETENDED TO BE A SCIENCE FROM MONTCHRÉTIEN TO STEUART","authors":"Christopher J. Berry","doi":"10.1017/S0265052520000023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052520000023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The essay investigates the proposition that economic questions are a fit subject for science. This investigation will involve a selective examination of seventeenth-century writings before looking at again selective Enlightenment texts. The essay is deliberately wide ranging, but it aims to pick out the emergence or crystallization of political economy by noting how theorists sought to establish it as a subject matter and in the process develop ways of studying it that aimed to uncover regularities and exhibit generality, systematicity, and precision. Together these supported its pretensions or claims to be a science that would in a Baconian manner be useful and free of the perceived shackles of a moralistic classical disparagement of economic activity.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"10 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052520000023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56898013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0265052521000091
Teresa M. Bejan
Abstract The classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.
{"title":"FREE EXPRESSION OR EQUAL SPEECH?","authors":"Teresa M. Bejan","doi":"10.1017/S0265052521000091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052521000091","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.","PeriodicalId":46601,"journal":{"name":"Social Philosophy & Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"153 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0265052521000091","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56898040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：