- Issues of free speech are involved.
- The two men have a right to state their opinion and a right to discuss it in a bar.
- The question becomes: Is this a private or public conversation?
- Since the conversation is occurring in a public space and is loud enough for John to overhear it, it seems to be public speech. It takes place in what John Stuart Mill would call the "public sphere"
- According to Mill, the bar is part of the public sphere and John then may have an obligation to speak his mind as a member of an open and pluralistic society, but this obligation is not ethically binding. John then has a right, but not necessarily an obligation to speak up. John’s entering into a conversation with the two men is “superpuragatory.”
- Still John best ethical action would be to engage the mean in a rational discussion about their contrasting views.
- His ethical obligation to speak is increased when one of the men directly addresses John. John’s right to speak does not depend on whether or not he is “right.” The same logic would apply even if the opinions are reversed.
Case #1 the essential question is whether it is right for them to be talking about homosexuality in the bar and whether john aught to go over and argue with them. The two main resolutions would be John aught to go talk to them (depends a lot on location if it is a bar or a bar where lots of homosexual people go then it’s a big difference). Also if he aught to just go ask them to be a little quieter with their opinions or if he should start a argument about beliefs.
The other resolution is that he aught not to go talk to them: You should keep to yourself in a bar and that he shouldn’t go and confront them because it is their business.
Jen's Bar Case Notes, 3/15/11
Position taken: John has the right, but not the obligation, to confront the men
--conversation took place in the public sphere—men not attempting to keep their voices down, conversing in a public space
--more generally, in the public sphere, anyone may enter into the conversation. They needn’t, but they may: this is the nature of the public sphere.
--that said, it doesn’t matter who has what opinion: were the positions reversed (John anti-homosexuality and the men pro-homosexuality), John would still have the right, though not the obligation, to confront the men.
--if John wants to avoid conflict, he could talk to the manager.
--case is different where there is severe danger and/or risk: then, John would have an obligation to confront the men.
General notes: This presentation was nicely structured. You might want to give other examples to show that your point generalizes (imagine if the men were racists, or neo-Nazis, etc).
Specific questions: What does it take for there to be severe danger and/or risk? Say I shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. Assuming that there is no fire, does anyone have the obligation to confront me? Or say that there was someone in the bar, George, that John knew was gay, but the men didn’t. However, if the men knew that George was gay, they would begin verbally abusing him. This looks like potentially a dangerous situation for George, depending on how the evening goes. More generally, the question is, precisely how do we draw the line between having a right and having an obligation in this kind of case? Also, you make a strong claim about the public sphere, but it’s not clear that a bar is entirely within the public sphere—bar owners, generally, have the right to refuse service. So the bar seems to be quasi-public, not fully public. Does this make a difference to your argument?
