US Constitutional conception
What is your experience of the distinction between the use of public vs. private reason as Kantian describes these. Do you favor the Kantian or the US Constitutional conception of free speech and why?
Public reason is the process of thought, which focuses on communicating with other stakeholders to arrive at a collective decision to be delivered to the public. Public reason is mostly associated with the state or government; it gives an implication that an individual is not in control rather but is open for anyone. On the other hand, private reason implicates the specific individuals perfumes certain assigned tasks related to a given vocation. In an attempt to answer the question about the meaning of enlightenment, Kant came up with an argument supported by the public and private use of reason. Kant chose to apply a philosophical approach to so help solve a political question.
Kant offers the public use of reason as the tool for society’s contemplation. His argument is based on the way he distinguishes between private and public use of reason. According to Kant, the use which anyone makes of the information before it is consumed to the entire public defines what public use of reason is. People tend to raise critical criticism about the state institutions and activities that bind one’s private role. A teacher is likely bound to criticize the ministry of education, yet the teacher himself is the very institution’s private entity. There exists a contract that binds them together. A military offer will criticize the military institution. The public is always perceived to be in association with government or state entities. Public use of reasoning involves doing things in the public or open sphere, mainly to improve our private function.
Private use of reason involves doing things because we are bound to do them. The binding mechanism might be from the signed contracted or agreed will. The private reasoning puts emphasis mainly on the duties and responsibilities held by specific people in various occupations. A military officer in the department of the armed forces will quickly respond to counter an attack when his country is faced with terrorists. The risky action taken by the officer is based on the contract that binds him to his roles. It’s important to note that it’s the duty of the officer to follow the orders of his seniors under all conditions strictly. The clergyman is prohibited from teaching the doctrines that are not in line with that of the church which employed him. Both the clergyman and the military officer are not free to use their reason to execute their duties, but instead, they only follow the stipulated orders and guidelines.
As a scholar, the clergyman will enjoy his full freedom of expression and speak out his mind through writing to share his mind with the public. He will not be bound by any given doctrine’s set rules to feed his mind of thought to the public. For his own reason, a police officer will opt not too risky his life by going to the terrorist attack site. A married woman will not go out late to drink even if that could make her happy. Instead, she will opt to remain in the house and take care of the kids. The agreement they entered between her and her husband dictates her way of life. It denies her the freedom to express what she wants. It always not the will of the citizen to pay the tax levy; rather, it is because that city has been obligated to pay the taxes by the government.
The US constitutional concept of free speech puts that the government shall not judge its citizens from what they express or say except for the rare exceptional circumstances. The constitution gives its people the freedom to put to the public their views without the fear of being fined, jailed, or accounting for any liability resulting from the said expression. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing the government are considered retrogressive and appear problematic as they tend to distort the constitutional policy of self-governance. However, the US constitution goes further and puts off the speeches that could land one to a problem. Speeches full of defamation of one’s character, those full of hatred, and those that issue threats of committing crimes are among those that are prohibited.
In my opinion, the US constitutional concept regarding the freedom of speech or thought is more favorable than the Kantian policy of public use of reasoning. The people’s nature is so unique that when one is given excessive freedom, the very person abuses that freedom he is granted. Free expression of one’s views to the public without putting in place the parameters that will restrict the extent to which freedom is expressed will be detrimental. Though the US constitution offers its citizens the freedom to air out their views to the public, it also puts in place the limit to which one should go.
Public reasoning was a good argument put forward by Kant, but it has its limitations. Take the situation where every idea conceived by an individual has free access to the public without sieving through it to see whether it has farfetched implications or not. Today, immoral content such as pornographic films could be easily accessible and available to even the underage. Such type of videos corrodes the morals of the children. It is a form of sexual abuse to the children. Whereas Kant argues from the use of the public reason concept that people have the right to share their own reasoning to the public, he does not consider such kind of ill implications if such kind of freedom is allowed.
The US constitution, through the First Amendment, protects commercial advertising. Were it not for the constitutional limitation, and advertising firms could be running even the misleading information as long as they make profits out of it. From the Kantian point of argument, these firms that might choose to run misleading advertisements should not be liable to anybody as they are only but reasoning from their point of view. Any content from anybody perceived to be of harm to the public ought to be restricted from being shared.
Free speech is very significant when it comes to searching for new ideas and looking for the truth. When you have many people who have different opinions and ideas but are comfortable sharing them out among themselves, it is highly likely that you will get a very polished and meaningful final opinion. Free speech is part of fundamental human rights. It allows one to speak out his reasoning. It enhances the state authorities’ transparent running as individuals are granted a chance to criticize the state organs whenever they go against the stipulated requirements. But it should always be noted that when freedom of speech is exercised without considering other factors, free speech will end up confusing.