![]() Charles Blue (01:44)Ĭan you tell us what did you set out to study and why? Nathan Cheek (01:49)Ībsolutely. I have with me, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University and lead author on this paper. I’m Charles Blue and you’re listening to Under the Cortex today. This paper suggests that there is a balance that can be achieved and that psychology can help policymakers promote public health, safety, and well being when crises and disasters strike. Restricting freedoms may have negative consequences for behavior and health. A new article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, however, suggests there may be unintended consequences. ![]() The worthy objective of these restrictions is to protect people by imposing limits on what they are free to do. This is even in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food safety regulations. During the Pandemic and other natural disasters, many actions are taken by governments to save lives at the cost of certain liberties. This quote is therefore more accurately a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending statement than a quote supporting the absolute preservation of freedoms. Though often used rhetorically to denounce impositions or laws restricting certain behaviors, Franklin was actually referring to a specific tax dispute. There is an often misstated and misunderstood quote by Benjamin Franklin, which reads, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety. One of the authors, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University, explains how there may be a balance that can be achieved and how psychological science could help policymakers promote public health, safety, and well-being in times of crisis.Īuto-generated transcript Charles Blue (00:12) A paper published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, however, suggests that restricting freedoms may have other unintended negative consequences for behavior and health. These compromises also happen in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food-safety regulations. It proposes a different way to think about this relationship-one based on an old text of evolutionary biology: the idea of a “hostile symbiosis.” And it proposed categories of surveillance that might even enhance, rather than erode, liberty.Īnd not only does it, like the blog post, detail the history of that famous Franklin quotation, it also gives the surprising history of Justice Robert Jackson’s famous warning about turning the Bill of Rights into a “suicide pact.During the pandemic and when other natural disasters strike, governments may curtail certain liberties in an effort to save lives. It is a broad examination of the relationship between security and liberty-and an attack on the idea that the two exist in some sort of “balance” in which a gain in one will tend to come at the expense of the other. The larger paper, however, is worth reintroducing too in the context of the current conversation about the NSA’s data-mining programs. The history of the quotation is, indeed, interesting it actually does not mean what people (including Snowden) use it to mean. In what were to be the last words of the interview, he quoted Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |