Identify the principle | Worked example

- [Instructor] So columnist is saying or writing, "Although there is and should be complete freedom "of thought and expression, that does not mean that there "is nothing wrong with exploiting depraved popular "tastes for the sake of financial gain." Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principle cited by the columnist? All right, let's read these. The government should grant artists the right to create whatever works of art they want to create so long as no one considers those works to be depraved. So choice A is saying, "Hey, artists should be able "to create whatever they want as long "as they don't offend people or are considered depraved "according to certain people." That's not what the columnist is saying. He says, "There is and should be "complete freedom of thought and expression," so that means that anyone should be able to express themselves however they see fit. What the author is saying, what he or she is saying is that even if you have a right to make something that might be offensive to some people, or that might be appealing to the baser instincts of some people, you have the right to do it, it still doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with it, so I would rule out choice A. You have the freedom to whatever you want, and the government can't restrict things that it deems to be depraved. People who produce depraved movies have the freedom to do so, all right, this reads well so far, but that means that they also have the freedom to refrain from doing so. This isn't exactly what it's saying. Obviously you have the freedom to do something or not do it, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it in terms of freedom, but it's saying, "Hey, they have the freedom "to do so, but it still doesn't mean that you can't "pass judgment on them." You can't stop them from doing it, but you could still say, "Hey, I don't think what you're doing is great." So I don't like this choice, either. There should be no laws restricting what books are published, but publishing books that pander to people with depraved tastes is not thereby morally acceptable. This one's looking interesting, 'cause it parallels what the columnist says. There should be no laws restricting what books are published, so in the publishing realm, no one should stop you from publishing whatever you want, but if you publish books that pander to people with depraved tastes, this is very similar to exploiting depraved popular tastes. If you make a book that's, you know, some people would consider trashy in some way, that still doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable. You can do what you want, we shouldn't restrict it, but that doesn't mean that I have to say it's morally acceptable. So this one is looking good. Let's look at choices D and E. The public has the freedom to purchase whatever recordings are produced, but that does not mean that the government may not limit the production of recordings. No, we can definitely rule this one out, because the columnist definitely says, "There is and "should be complete freedom of thought and expression," and this writer over here is implying that the government has a right to limit the production of recordings, so I would rule that one out. And then finally, choice E. One who advocates complete freedom of speech should not criticize others for saying things that he or she believes to exhibit depraved tastes. No, this is not what they are saying. They're saying, "Look, you can advocate for freedom of speech," but that means that you can still criticize someone's work. You can still say, "Hey, you're exhibiting depraved tastes "or you're appealing to people's baser instincts." So that's not what the original columnist said, so we can feel good about picking C.