Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.

Dee raises the problems of defining welfare and predicting the future. If we could get beyond these problems, there would still be difficulties for a utilitarian justification of a liberal right to free expression.

Someone might concede that we can predict enough to say that a liberal policy is of considerable benefit, but deny that it maximizes welfare. They might argue that by building some exceptions into the rule we can increase welfare still more. Although this might result in a complicated rule, it would still be quite logical within a utilitarian framework. It raises the possibility of a 'slippery slope' that would allow for more and more exceptions.

It is often said that one of the most difficult problems for a theory of free speech is to show why we should protect speech that causes harm. If harm is equated with a decrease in welfare, a utilitarian will have to struggle with this question. The pressure to build exceptions into the rule for cases in which harm is obvious will always exist. At the same time, an ever growing number of exceptions is exactly what defenders of free speech wish to avoid. The easiest way out for a utilitarian is to make precise predictions of the outcomes of this or that policy; but it is unclear that our sociology can supply such predictions.