A selective view of the relationship of censorship and free speech to the individual and society. The author does not take for granted that censorship is wrong, but equally what he has written is in no way an apology for censorship. He offers no solution to the problem of the proper extent of censorship in a society. Instead, he hopes to show that censorship, and more widely, other restrictions on freedom, cannot be considered in a self-contained way but have implications (...) of which the advocate of unrestricted freedom for the individual in matters of opinion seems surprisingly unaware. (shrink)

In his article, ‘Milgram's Shocking Experiments’, in Philosophy 52 , Professor Steven C. Patten rejects Milgram's evidence for a Hobbesian view of human nature on three grounds: that the claim that a large number of the subjects in the experiments were not deceived is not convincing, that there is a conceptual conflation by Milgram of two senses of obedience, and that a proper understanding of kinds of authority will explain in an acceptable way the behaviour of most of the small (...) number of subjects who might remain to support Milgram's conclusions. Patten's arguments in support of all three grounds are unsatisfactory. (shrink)