What would you call this way of thinking?

Question

I beleive that, if a principle does not hold true in the most extreme, absurdly exaggerated case, then it is not a sound principle to live by.

For example, I believe in freedom of speech. I beleive in it so strongly that I will defend the right to free expression of absolutely anyone. The KKK, NAMBLA, Jerry Falwell, I would defend Hitler himself's right to put his horrible messages out. I'd then do everythign in my power to counter them, but I would not tolerate -any- infringement of their rights. And anyone who would not step up to that plate does not deserve to enjoy their own freedom of speech, in my opinion.

I tend to think the same way about most political or religious ideals, my own or those espoused by others.

What would you call that sort of extremist philosophy?

And am I the only one who thinks like this?

Answer 1

What you are referring to is a condition of maximum 'negative freedom'. Negative freedom is distinguished from others in that this is the freedom allowed to you by society and government. It is freedom from being stopped by others. Every law or custom that exists and is enforced is a stricture on your negative freedom.

Yet, you do not wish this negative freedom for everyone... just those who also allow it to others. In other words, you are interested in 'reciprocation'. In some circles, this is also known as the 'Golden rule' - you get what you give you others.

And since even you recognize this as a rather extreme philosophy, I suppose I would describe it as 'extreme reciprocal negative freedom'. But that's me.

As you can probably see from other replies, there are few who advocate unrestricted negative liberty for anyone. Most philosophers who seem to have addressed the point (Hobbes, Locke, and Berlin are good examples) came to the conclusion that some restrictions on negative liberty were a necessary evil for the function of society. As such, I don't think you'll find a handy one-word description of your philosophy out there... though some might see it as just a hair off anarchy.

Answer 2

This absolute philosophy is not tangible and cannot be used in all cases at all times. The example you give is freedom of speech, and as you may or may not know even that is limited to the circumstance of the words. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, or inciting those you are speaking with to some form of violence or riot is and should be considered and act against consequence and should be acted against.

While it is good to have solid beliefs, to take anything to the extreme is not only unwise, but unfair not only to those around you but to you as well. There are no absolutes anywhere in nature, and though this has generated a good amount of debate it has always held itself to be true. All things are subject to change with time. We cannot with any absolute certainty know that all things will always be the way we perceive them now. Therefore we cannot for certain maintain our absolute value as being eternal.

It is good to examine a principal in the extreme to find its limits and to understand that it is sound in its ideal but not in its extreme. All things will be what they are, and no matter what we think, or do we cannot change that basic fact. Though this may sound like an absolute statement, it is not, it is statement of variability, and is always subject to change.

Answer 3

I would call this Integrity...

"To begin with, "extremism" is a term which, standing by itself, has no meaning. The concept of "extreme" denotes a relation, a measurement, a degree. The dictionary gives the following definitions: "Extreme, adj.—1., of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average. 2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree."

"It is obvious that the first question one has to ask, before using that term, is: a degree—of what?

"To answer: "Of anything!" and to proclaim that any extreme is evil because it is an extreme—to hold the degree of a characteristic, regardless of its nature, as evil—is an absurdity (any garbled Aristotelianism to the contrary notwithstanding). Measurements, as such, have no value-significance—and acquire it only from the nature of that which is being measured.

"Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity—both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average"—equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

"The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely—particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)"

Answer 4

My philosophy is adaptation, your philosophy is like stone, while it my hold strong under some it will be crushed by others. Be like water, changing to whatever is best, a stone cannot destroy water but water can destroy stone.

Answer 5

The freedom of speech, as with all other freedoms, comes with responsibility. Use it wisely.

Answer 6

I'd say you're a liberal extremist with alarmingly dictatorial tendencies. There's probably a club somewhere.

Answer 7

you are an irrattional extremist with leftist leanings. your way of thinking is no better than any others particularly your belief that people that don't agree with you should be denied things.

its dictatorial and angry. its not a very good way of thinking.