I am not sure the RGS question is an English Language, General Paper or a Moral Studies examination setting. In the interest of good English, I find these instances in "Source A" rather odd :
(a) It says MOH welcomes "the latest removal of content from the YouTube channel by Iris Koh...". Why the heck should Iris remove the said content?.
(b) And in the final sentence "We advise members ..." Surely RGS never send out any advisory of the sort?
Given only 8 marks are allocated to the question, I suspect students are not expected to dwell into a critical exposition of Mill's Harm Principle because that would have demanded inappropriately more time. The expectations of the examiner seems to be for students to define the harm principle and substantiate it with the example of Iris' acts. The "Source A" is framed like a leading question, that is, the examiner is looking for a confirmation answer. In other words, if this were a lesson in critical thinking, it is actually being suppressed. The students are actually being led to regurgitate what's been told.
This is actually a 'loaded question' which is a complex question with a presupposition of an unverified assumption. It is a trick question often found in debates and social online arguments. It sets up an assumption that forces one to accept and thus entrapped to respond in accordance with the agenda of the questioner. An example is the Israel-Palestinian conflict. A typical question is "Israeli genocide has seen 30,000 Palestinians killed, mostly women and men. Why are you supporting Israel?". The statement is unverified (how do you know 30,000 figure is correct? How do you know majority is women and children?) but it forces one to side with Palestinians, assuming one is not a genocidal maniac.
The presupposition in 'Source A' makes two assumptions. Firstly, the MOH's opinion is assumed absolute. The reality is there are serious questions raised by medical experts. How is it wrong to bring contrarian views into the public domain? Note that Iris never assert her opinions, how could she, being a non-medical person. She was sharing other professional expert views. Secondly, YouTube and Facebook's opaque grounds for suspension are assumed absolute. It is a fact these Big Techs use some AI to detect violations of their guidelines. It is also a fact these Big Techs are involved in political activism. Liberal partisanship bias have been built into their AI algorithms. Everyone, except fools, have woken up to this fact long time ago.
"The vaccines are safe and prevent you from being infected with Covid-19. Iris Koh spreads misinformation that the vaccines are ineffective and has dangerous negative effects. For this reason, Facebook and YouTube have taken many of Iris' posts down for breach of their community rules. Clearly, Iris' false claims are harmful as some people may be influenced by her and refuse to take the jabs, thus exposing them to risk of Covid-19 infection. Under the harm principle, which states blah..blah..blah... the MOH is clearly justified to take action against Idris."
The question is this. Is the MOE twisting the harm principle to elevate the government's role in suppressing the rights of individuals? The harm principle is actually a fundamental tenet of liberal philosophy, you know, the 'me me me and government out of my way' ideology.
JS Mill's book "On Liberty" is a philosophical view on individual freedom and autonomy. Personal liberty is the freedom of speech and the right to live life as one wishes. Individuals are capable of making rational choices. People should be allowed to take personal responsibilities, to learn from their own experiences, their mistakes, their failures. Social progress is possible only if there is a diversity of opinions and lifestyles. The government should have limited capacity to interfere into the individuals' space. Mills obviously was aware unfettered individual liberty leads to anarchy. And so he made the distinction of the actions of individuals into 'Self-Regarding' and 'Other-Regarding' types. Self-regarding actions affect only the individual, non-self regarding actions affect other people. The intrusion of the government should only be allowed when other-regarding actions of an individual does harm to others.
Laws and rules and regulations set the boundaries for the individuals. These are absolutes laid down by the government which in many cases, curtail individual liberty. In the case of a democratically run country, it is the tyranny of the majority. Is this bad? Well. show me a better system. Under a dictatorial regime, it is a social control tool wielded to stay in power.
As we live in a democracy, we have to accept the limitations to individual freedom fenced up by laws and rules and regulations. It is however, incumbent on everyone who cherish individual freedom to be constantly aware of government overreach. This means taking an interest in current affairs, seek knowledge, share information, and express opinions. Those with great conviction, often driven by what they feel are the interests of the community, pursue advocacies and activism. The pursuit of Iris is to be seen in this context.
History has shown such pursuits often has a life of their own. Advocacies and activism lead to agitations that germinate movements and then a wholesale rebellion. A good example is ancient China's Yellow Turban Rebellion (184-205 CE). Deep-seated social and economic ills, bureaucratic corruption and natural disasters led to great suffering and discontent by the peasantry and poor people. Taoist teachings influenced the idea of a 'Great Era'. From a message of healing and religious ceremonies it grew into a movement against the Han Dynasty and a revolution for change. The rebellion was put down by the government violently.
Individual liberty does not come automatically and freely. Brave souls have fought and sacrificed their lives for it. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Many have wrongly quoted this in support of violence by those oppressed. The context of Jefferson's quote was during the Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts, an armed rebellion against the government raising taxes during a debt crisis. Jefferson had noted such uprisings are often founded by ill-informed groups. According to Jefferson, "the remedy was to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." Liberty is not to be taken likely. It has to be protected from the government. This does not necessarily mean a call for bloodshed. Jefferson's thoughts alluded to people who fight for liberty, though often ill-informed, are patriots and deserving of being given the facts and pardoned.
A balanced view is to see Iris' actions in this light. Whether one agrees with her or not, her advocacy against the novel mRNA vaccines comes from the place of the heart with the interest of the community. It is the brave and selfless soul that is willing to make the sacrifice to fight for a belief in the interest of others. Iris' belief is not about toppling a government, but for more respect to alternative narratives about the dangers of the novel vaccines in the face of evidence suppressed by unseen hands. Thus far, Iris has acted within the bounds of law and rules and regulations. The MOH has not "set them (her) right as to facts, pardon and pacify them (her). MOH has refused to discuss the mounting evidence being presented on the dangers of the vaccines and the data on deaths and injuries arising from its use.
Whether a democracy or dictatorship, governments may allow some leeway for such advocacies. Granted it is never an easy task to draw the red line. It seems the red line in advocacy and activism according to the MOE, is harm to the public. The MOE now wants to make Iris' case a teaching moment, which in my opinion, is great. I have always preached the utilitarian use of teaching moments.
(b) And in the final sentence "We advise members ..." Surely RGS never send out any advisory of the sort?
Given only 8 marks are allocated to the question, I suspect students are not expected to dwell into a critical exposition of Mill's Harm Principle because that would have demanded inappropriately more time. The expectations of the examiner seems to be for students to define the harm principle and substantiate it with the example of Iris' acts. The "Source A" is framed like a leading question, that is, the examiner is looking for a confirmation answer. In other words, if this were a lesson in critical thinking, it is actually being suppressed. The students are actually being led to regurgitate what's been told.
This is actually a 'loaded question' which is a complex question with a presupposition of an unverified assumption. It is a trick question often found in debates and social online arguments. It sets up an assumption that forces one to accept and thus entrapped to respond in accordance with the agenda of the questioner. An example is the Israel-Palestinian conflict. A typical question is "Israeli genocide has seen 30,000 Palestinians killed, mostly women and men. Why are you supporting Israel?". The statement is unverified (how do you know 30,000 figure is correct? How do you know majority is women and children?) but it forces one to side with Palestinians, assuming one is not a genocidal maniac.
The presupposition in 'Source A' makes two assumptions. Firstly, the MOH's opinion is assumed absolute. The reality is there are serious questions raised by medical experts. How is it wrong to bring contrarian views into the public domain? Note that Iris never assert her opinions, how could she, being a non-medical person. She was sharing other professional expert views. Secondly, YouTube and Facebook's opaque grounds for suspension are assumed absolute. It is a fact these Big Techs use some AI to detect violations of their guidelines. It is also a fact these Big Techs are involved in political activism. Liberal partisanship bias have been built into their AI algorithms. Everyone, except fools, have woken up to this fact long time ago.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." John Stuart Mill's Harm PrincipleGiven this basic understanding, as I am sure this is the level of instructions to students, I would think the model answer is something like this:
"The vaccines are safe and prevent you from being infected with Covid-19. Iris Koh spreads misinformation that the vaccines are ineffective and has dangerous negative effects. For this reason, Facebook and YouTube have taken many of Iris' posts down for breach of their community rules. Clearly, Iris' false claims are harmful as some people may be influenced by her and refuse to take the jabs, thus exposing them to risk of Covid-19 infection. Under the harm principle, which states blah..blah..blah... the MOH is clearly justified to take action against Idris."
The question is this. Is the MOE twisting the harm principle to elevate the government's role in suppressing the rights of individuals? The harm principle is actually a fundamental tenet of liberal philosophy, you know, the 'me me me and government out of my way' ideology.
JS Mill's book "On Liberty" is a philosophical view on individual freedom and autonomy. Personal liberty is the freedom of speech and the right to live life as one wishes. Individuals are capable of making rational choices. People should be allowed to take personal responsibilities, to learn from their own experiences, their mistakes, their failures. Social progress is possible only if there is a diversity of opinions and lifestyles. The government should have limited capacity to interfere into the individuals' space. Mills obviously was aware unfettered individual liberty leads to anarchy. And so he made the distinction of the actions of individuals into 'Self-Regarding' and 'Other-Regarding' types. Self-regarding actions affect only the individual, non-self regarding actions affect other people. The intrusion of the government should only be allowed when other-regarding actions of an individual does harm to others.
Laws and rules and regulations set the boundaries for the individuals. These are absolutes laid down by the government which in many cases, curtail individual liberty. In the case of a democratically run country, it is the tyranny of the majority. Is this bad? Well. show me a better system. Under a dictatorial regime, it is a social control tool wielded to stay in power.
As we live in a democracy, we have to accept the limitations to individual freedom fenced up by laws and rules and regulations. It is however, incumbent on everyone who cherish individual freedom to be constantly aware of government overreach. This means taking an interest in current affairs, seek knowledge, share information, and express opinions. Those with great conviction, often driven by what they feel are the interests of the community, pursue advocacies and activism. The pursuit of Iris is to be seen in this context.
History has shown such pursuits often has a life of their own. Advocacies and activism lead to agitations that germinate movements and then a wholesale rebellion. A good example is ancient China's Yellow Turban Rebellion (184-205 CE). Deep-seated social and economic ills, bureaucratic corruption and natural disasters led to great suffering and discontent by the peasantry and poor people. Taoist teachings influenced the idea of a 'Great Era'. From a message of healing and religious ceremonies it grew into a movement against the Han Dynasty and a revolution for change. The rebellion was put down by the government violently.
Individual liberty does not come automatically and freely. Brave souls have fought and sacrificed their lives for it. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Many have wrongly quoted this in support of violence by those oppressed. The context of Jefferson's quote was during the Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts, an armed rebellion against the government raising taxes during a debt crisis. Jefferson had noted such uprisings are often founded by ill-informed groups. According to Jefferson, "the remedy was to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." Liberty is not to be taken likely. It has to be protected from the government. This does not necessarily mean a call for bloodshed. Jefferson's thoughts alluded to people who fight for liberty, though often ill-informed, are patriots and deserving of being given the facts and pardoned.
A balanced view is to see Iris' actions in this light. Whether one agrees with her or not, her advocacy against the novel mRNA vaccines comes from the place of the heart with the interest of the community. It is the brave and selfless soul that is willing to make the sacrifice to fight for a belief in the interest of others. Iris' belief is not about toppling a government, but for more respect to alternative narratives about the dangers of the novel vaccines in the face of evidence suppressed by unseen hands. Thus far, Iris has acted within the bounds of law and rules and regulations. The MOH has not "set them (her) right as to facts, pardon and pacify them (her). MOH has refused to discuss the mounting evidence being presented on the dangers of the vaccines and the data on deaths and injuries arising from its use.
Whether a democracy or dictatorship, governments may allow some leeway for such advocacies. Granted it is never an easy task to draw the red line. It seems the red line in advocacy and activism according to the MOE, is harm to the public. The MOE now wants to make Iris' case a teaching moment, which in my opinion, is great. I have always preached the utilitarian use of teaching moments.
When I was a young teenager brought up with Buddhist values, I was not really spiritual and did not cared much for religion other than respecting the cultural aspects. I had thought a good place in the afterlife is destined for me simply by a life of mantra of 'do no harm unto others'. What could be wrong with this simple principle? But I was wrong.
What the sage pebble said about the downside of 'do no harm unto others' is reverberated in the criticisms of Mill's Harm Doctrine.
There is no objective definition of harm, it is open to subjective whims. Something that constitutes harm is seen differently by individuals and cultures. It may also be seen differently under different contexts. The avoidance of harm may lead to harmful consequences. In Iris' case, the vaccine may cause harm. An elderly person who then does not take the vaccination may contract Covid-19 and dies. On the other hand, MOH's pro-vaccination view is to prevent harm. But a vaccinated person may be harmed by the vaccines.
It is a principle of inaction, ie avoidance of duty. This idea of avoiding harm provides no guidance in situations of complex ethical dilemmas. The best illustration is the 'trolley dilemma'.
Ethical decisions often requires trade-offs. Avoiding harm to some may be causing harm to others. The 'harm principle' provides no guidance on how to manage this. The best illustration is abortion. Not wanting to harm the woman's rights means taking the life of an unborn.
Ethical dilemmas are often context dependent. Again in the case of abortion as example, it may be necessary to abort and kill the unborn to save the life of the mother.
Mill's focus of liberty on 'self-regarding' acts leads to the idea of social atomism which sees society as the aggregate of self-interest individuals. Individuals, or groups of individuals, might well argue some self-interests as 'self-regarding' and in so doing, avoid their responsibilities to society. For example, Seventh Day Adventist may say conscription is harm to them as their religion forbids the carrying of arms.
As I have learnt from the sage pebble, I hope RGS students understand the harm principle cannot be applied per se in most issues which often involve moral complexities with variant outcomes and ethical dilemmas of moral ambiguity. As for the school, I like it that they take a teaching moment to educate students but I hope the difficult topic has not been approached only at the superficial level that 'no harm unto others' is absolute. For the MOE, I hope the question did not come from political motivation. Lastly, as for Iris, I hope she looks beyond the narrow scope of perceived personal injury and make peace with her alma mater, and make it a win-win outcome for all if students of RGS go beyond a simplistic understanding of the harm doctrine and examine the real life multi-faceted complexity of MOH's claims against her advocacy.
Addendum:
As if for proof of my point about MOH's reliance on Facebook's suspension on posts for breach of their Community Guidelines is blind faith, my attempt to publish this on my FB page was met with instant, and I really mean instant, take down. Judge for yourself. Is the content here educational or offensive?
As if for proof of my point about MOH's reliance on Facebook's suspension on posts for breach of their Community Guidelines is blind faith, my attempt to publish this on my FB page was met with instant, and I really mean instant, take down. Judge for yourself. Is the content here educational or offensive?
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like
blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the
button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs
there. Thanks.