Part 1
“The recognition of the freedom to express our views…is not an absolute justification to violate the personal rights of another”
AT THIS time when there are opposing opinions on political issues, there are some principles that can guide our behavior as individuals. Worth considering is the essay of John Bordley Rawls, a moral, legal and political philosopher of the 20th century, who wrote on “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” a theory originally presented in his book “A Theory of Justice.”
“Rawl’s theory of justice as fairness recommends equal basic liberties, equality of opportunity, and facilitating the maximum benefit to the least advantaged members of society… where inequalities occur” (Wikipedia, John Rawls).
These principles “are meant to help us work out how we should design our most important social institutions rather than guide our behavior as individuals” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal citing John Rawls).
However, “they sit alongside an ideal of citizenship, or of how we should treat one another in our capacity as citizens.”
According to Rawls, the “ideal of citizenship is a moral duty – the ‘duty of civility’ – to engage in politics in a certain way… partly about how we express ourselves and respond to others” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
In a polarized political environment where people have lost faith in the possibility of a reasonable exchange of ideas, political debate must be approached “with an open mind and a spirit of compromise, a willingness to listen to views we disagree with and to take those views in good faith…”
“[W]e should try to abide by the rules of logic and evidence, appealing wherever we can to accepted facts rather than disputed theories” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
“[C]ivility, for Rawls, is also about what views we express in the first place… [w]hen it comes to important political questions [and those that] appeal to ‘public reasons’ – to political values that we sincerely think… [and] our fellow citizens can accept…”
While “[t]he idea of public reason might initially sound quite restrictive… we should be free to speak our minds using whatever arguments seem most compelling to us” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
“[T]he idea of public reason applies in its strictest form only when we are debating constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice, namely our fundamental rights and freedoms and the structure of our social and political system.
“Many day-to-day political questions – such as how much public money we should devote to parks and green spaces, or to culture and the arts — are clearly not of this type” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
“Even in these cases, though, we should try to appeal to public reasons where we can.”
“[Rawls] might argue, for example, that we should invest more in national parks because access to nature is vital for mental health, and something everyone can benefit from” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
In the Philippine setting, free healthcare is imperative for a healthy citizenry, as the construction of roads are essential to communication and economic development.
“[T]he duty of civility, including the requirement to use public reasons, is a strictly moral duty, not a legal one. We cannot and should not use the law to enforce it – doing so would violate our basic freedom of expression which is protected by the first principle of justice” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
The recognition of the freedom to express our views, however, is not an absolute justification to violate the personal rights of another.
There is a thin line between freedom of expression and libelous imputations of a crime or a wrong, while freedom of expression can be invoked against the government or its institutions, the same cannot be used to rationalize utterances of defamatory statements against private individuals.
“We have a moral duty to appeal to the political principles that we sincerely believe are the ‘most reasonable’ basis for cooperation between free and equal citizens – in other words, the principles that our fellow citizens are most likely to accept as fair.” Rawls “recognized that there was room for disagreement, at least within certain limits” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
“[T]he duty of civility is only meant to apply in the ‘public political forum’… [which] is most relevant to political candidates and elected representatives, as well as judges and government officials. For the rest of us, this duty comes into play most obviously when we are deciding whom to vote for” (Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal).
