At Finnbay, we believe in utiliberalism.
Utiliberalism contains best practices of utilitarianism and liberalism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts utilitarianism as:
and for liberalism:
While we see both philosophies to be promising of reaching to ‘an ultimate liberalism’, we believe that both of them are inadequate to explain the current world order as well as the importance of ‘pre-knowledge’ in exercising basic rights such as freeing or limiting freedom of speech.
On this page, we deal with how FINNBAY uses Utiliberal tools to justify managing personal and communal rights related to the freedom of existence of its content.
Both, liberalism and utilitarianism, are weak at proposing what action(s) needs to be taken where an act causes an individual and/or community a harm.
For example, a speech about an open racism, controversial question on sex, a political leader’s book or a religious leader’s picture may not be welcomed by all sorts of audience from different backgrounds.
Some may welcome others may loathe it.
Considering the fact that FINNBAY’s existence starts from online realm where extremely opposed cultures, traditions and ideologies challenge each other everyday on an unequal foot, most of the doctrines we are aware, will suggest such act to be either destroyed or freed to an extent (until a government wire/agency blocks it or its capital/commercial connections remove it).
In the practical sense, Utiliberalism’s solution is to create something like a firewall to prevent such “harmful” act(s).
Say, you have a controversial article from a political leader on FINNBAY.com. Say, at least 5% of the article’s total viewers openly pointed out that the article caused them emotional/physical “harm”. The visitors mostly come from Germany. They also point out that such political leader’s works are already banned in Germany and/or, say, the German government forces FINNBAY to take down the article. What should be done?
Utiliberalism dictates that we should simply warn any reader that comes across the article of its content and “potential effects” as put forward by those who believe that it is harmful; however, never ever to destroy or censor the article from anyone as long as it has the truth and only the truth in itself and/or serves for reaching the truth.
Then, it is left to the individual to decide whether to click to keep reading the article or not.
Demo: What do we mean? Imagine, you are about to click an article and you will receive the following message:
Dear viewer, the article you are about to view has received considerable amount of dislikes from religious communities in the origin of Christianity and Islam. The XYZ communities have contacted FINNBAY and supplied following XYZ information to disregard the information provided in this article. Thus, if you are religiously involved with Christianity or Islam, you may find below article disturbing, worse causing emotional and mental harm to you.
On Legalization of AbortionClick to view→
Decision of abortion must be left to the choice of mother. Because …
Apart from the children and mentally disabled, we believe that each individual is capable to make rational choices as long as they are shown potential consequences of their actions. It should be up to them whether to block or view any “entity” they come through while they are in online or offline realm.
At FINNBAY, We Are Utiliberal.