Mill on Censorship of COVID-19 Misinformation
Versandkostenfrei!
Versandfertig in 1-2 Wochen
17,95 €
inkl. MwSt.
PAYBACK Punkte
0 °P sammeln!
Seminar paper from the year 2021 in the subject Philosophy - Practical (Ethics, Aesthetics, Culture, Nature, Right, ...), grade: 5.5/6, University of Luzern, course: Corona, Klima, Armut: Einführung in Themen der angewandten Ethik, language: English, abstract: With a surging number of COVID cases, social media companies come under pressure to restrict the free flowing and harmful misinformation on the effectiveness of the measures against COVID and the vaccinations. Whilst the detrimental effects of misinformation on public health are being researched thoroughly, the negative consequences of ...
Seminar paper from the year 2021 in the subject Philosophy - Practical (Ethics, Aesthetics, Culture, Nature, Right, ...), grade: 5.5/6, University of Luzern, course: Corona, Klima, Armut: Einführung in Themen der angewandten Ethik, language: English, abstract: With a surging number of COVID cases, social media companies come under pressure to restrict the free flowing and harmful misinformation on the effectiveness of the measures against COVID and the vaccinations. Whilst the detrimental effects of misinformation on public health are being researched thoroughly, the negative consequences of censoring misinformation receive only little attention. This paper presents John Stuart Mill's arguments against censorship of misinformation and applies them to COVID. The main five findings are the following:Firstly, there is always a possibility that COVID-related "mis"information is true and the truth is being censored.Secondly, with censorship, the scientific opinion on COVID loses its clear perception of truth.Thirdly, censorship comes with the risk of creating a dead dogma, where people accept the COVID measures and vaccines without questioning them first.Fourthly, the censorship of COVID-critics comes with a delegitimisation of the scientific opinion as an opinion is only complete when it also considers counterarguments. Fifthly, censorship is wrong in every case and according to Mill, silencing one person is equally unjustified as silencing mankind.Finally, these applications are to be viewed critically, as with the invention of the internet came disruptive societal change for social interaction and deliberation.In light of these developments, Mill nowadays would be likely to take a less strict approach on the necessity of free speech and the illegitimacy of censorship.
Andere Kunden interessierten sich für
