by Chris Alexion, Copyright September 10, 2006, all rights reserved. 346 views
As we look at the censorship question as it's typically posed, I think we're given two similar choices dressed in different garb. Take this rendering, for example: "Should literature inculcate accepted values, or should it expand children's understandings by exposure to a variety of ideas?" The catch is that both viewpoints involve a hidden morality.
In the first half of the argument, which we'll call Side A, the censor holds that books should teach "accepted" values; hence controversial ones are banned or criticized. The underlying presupposition here would be that books should reinforce the morality already existing in the community, and the censor imposes this morality on others.
But the free thinker also has hidden ethical presuppositions. For instance, let's say we take side B and say that literature should expand children's understandings though new ideas. Note the should. In other words, Side B is actually saying that literature carries with it an ethical and aesthetic obligation. We "ought to" conceive of literature in this way; anything else would be wrong. And the advocate of B imposes this morality on others.
While some form of imposed morality is inescapable, I think a "free-market" approach to books would ensure that these desicions are made on an educated basis, and by those who have the children's best interests at heart, beginning with parents.
-----No comments yet.