Mill’s Principle of Utility can be used to argue both for and against the use of filters in public libraries. Mill’s Principle of Utility says to seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate whole. Meaning, we must seek the solution that serves as a benefit for the majority. Happiness is the sole end of human action, and the test by which all conduct ought to be judged. The quantity of pleasure depends on each situation; it can be equal. Happiness is the sole end of human action. Preventing pain and promoting pleasure. How much benefit and how much harm would result in the lives of everyone affected, including us. This principle is based on utilitarianism.
Arguing for censorship in public libraries, you could argue that this is the best solution because it keeps users off of sites that can be deemed inappropriate or that could potentially cause controversy in the library. Those for censorship can argue that this will benefit the majority of users by protecting them from things they feel are inappropriate based on their perceptions. Now I’m not sure if I’ve ever met anyone who goes to the library to search for porn or Google’s ways to make bombs in public, but there might just be someone out there that is crazy enough to do it, and the Washington Library is making sure of that.
Now, if you’re against censorship, then you might argue that it benefits and creates happiness for the majority if the amount of censorship decreased. Students are given research projects about various topics these days and I would be very annoyed if I went to the public library to conduct research, and couldn’t because of the library’s strict policy. I believe that the censorship at the Washington Library is a bit excessive, but I do understand the need for some Internet censorship.
I believe that Confucius’s Golden Mean is a great way to describe this problem. It states that “moral virtue is the appropriate location between two extremes.” The libraries should find a central or middle point that allows users to be able to search things that are necessary for their lives. I think its fair to ban things that are inappropriate or subjects that could lead to potential harm.
Week 16 Blog:
No.
Stanzza Patterson 