Scottish Enlightenment

Scottish Enlightenment

Right	Section	Contents
Freedom of the Press	Philosophical Origins	Scholarly discourse on the impacts of a free press was one major contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment. The influential ideas of David Hume and Francis Hutcheson, among others, helped shape our understanding of the role of the press in politics and society. The preeminent scholars of 18th century Scotland were generally supportive of free and protected press for the sake of facilitating public discourse and maintaining a standard of public accountability for government officials and their conduct. David Hume’s essay Of the Liberty of the Press remains one of the period’s most important works of advocacy for a free, uncensored press. Hume bases his argument in concerns about maintaining societal function and avoiding societal breakdown. In explaining the function of the press in the public arena Hume writes: The spirit of the people must frequently be roused in order to curb the ambition of the court, and the dread of rousing this spirit must be employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing so effectual to this purpose as the liberty of the press, by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation may be employed on the side of freedom and everyone be animated to its defense. Put simply, Hume asserts that a free press helps protect against threats to liberty. When the public has open information about the conduct of their officials, citizens are better equipped to question what political behaviors actually seek to improve society. A free press therefore introduces new incentives for political behavior, and guards against infringements on freedom otherwise unknown to the public. A 2018 essay by Eckhart Hellmuth provides useful context for Hume’s work on press freedoms. The first prime minister of Great Britain, Sir Robert Walpole, instituted strict policies for publication from 1722 to 1725. According to Hellmuth, “Walpole did not limit himself to encouraging journalism that supported his policies, but went further and also tried to obstruct the opposition press” (p.106). Hume therefore developed his ideas in a political context “Where there was always a danger of the authorities exceeding their power, where permanent vigilance was required, [and] it made sense to use the press as a vehicle to balance power within the state, and this is exactly what Hume did” (Ibid., p.179). The British politics of Hume’s day exemplify the need for a free press as a check on centralized authority. However, the press serves another function within civil society at a more individual level. The second benefit of a free press, according to Hume, is that it helps prevent certain parts of society from becoming radicalized against their government. By facilitating open discourse about political affairs, the press provides a nonviolent opportunity for the public to air their grievances. “For Hume, consumption of the printed word was a rational act with a tempering effect. ‘A man’, he wrote, ‘reads a book or pamphlet alone and coolly. There is none present from whom he can catch the passion by contagion’” (Ibid., p.179). Here, Hume posits that a free press reduces the chances that citizens will be susceptible to the mob mentality and radicalization. This speaks to the broader theory that states who acknowledge political dissent experience less turmoil and violence than those who isolate it. Professor of political philosophy Marc Hanvelt has focused much of his research on Hume’s views on politeness, public discourse, and the press. He agrees with Hellmuth’s points about the press tempering public sentiments in calling it “a forum for the opposition of interests (...) by deflating factional bigotry” (2012, p.627). Hanvelt also provides his analysis of Hume’s Of the Liberty of the Press, paying close attention to the differences between the original and edited versions. The essay’s original conclusion declares a more explicit support for a free press: “Through the guarantee of liberty of the press, Hume argues, 'it is to be hope, that men, being every day more accustomed to the free discussion of public affairs, will improve in the judgment of them, and be with greater difficulty seduced by every idle rumour and popular clamour’” (Ibid., p.629). The omission of this sentence from Hume’s final version does not indicate a backtracking on his belief in a free press. Instead, the edit was made in an effort to “[bring] the essay into line with his philosophically-grounded objection to unbounded liberty” (Ibid., p.630). The introduction of a free press has many benefits, but it also exposes a society to the dangers of irresponsible journalism. Hume sought to acknowledge the dangers of both extremes and to add subtly to his support for press freedoms. In Hanvelt’s view, Hume still upholds the argument that an uncensored press benefits public discourse. While David Hume may have written the most direct commentary on the freedom of the press, he was not the only Scottish Enlightenment thinker who made contributions in that area. Francis Hutcheson is known for his work on moral philosophy, yet his theories can be applied in several ways to freedom of information and the press. A blog by the Centre for Privacy Studies in Denmark parsed the connections between morality, privacy, and modern press freedoms. According to Hutcheson, morality is dictated by what is happening around us, therefore we must be informed about the conduct or behavior of others in order to uphold common moral standards. The piece explains Hutcheson’s views on privacy by saying: “Hutcheson implies that following what is ‘natural’ or ‘nature’ is a way to achieve happiness, or else by being ‘virtuous’. (...) One could here infer, that hiding shameful vices is unnatural; so, in this sense, privacy is unnatural” (Moral Philosophy and Privacy 2020). This would be especially true with respect to the vices of government officials, which to some extent have an impact on all of society. Hutcheson also supports the use of speech in line with the common interest, suggesting that the press should be granted sufficient liberties as a medium of public speech. Furthermore, Hutcheson’s moral paradigm favors transparency, which remains one of the primary goals of a free press. The blog post paraphrases: “We must use speech with truth and fidelity in conversations otherwise we lose this advantage of social life (...) Hutcheson insists particularly on the fact that maintaining veracity in all our conversation is important to society” (Moral Philosophy and Privacy 2020). Despite not addressing the press directly, the moral philosophy of Francis Hutcheson contains theories on privacy, transparency, and truth that offer relevant insights on press freedoms. ReferenceS: Hanvelt, Marc. 2012. “Politeness, A Plurality of Interests and the Public Realm: Hume on the Liberty of the Press.” History of Political Thought 33 (4): 627–46. Hellmuth, Eckhart. 2018. “Towards Hume – The Discourse on the Liberty of the Press in the Age of Walpole.” History of European Ideas 44 (2): 159–81. Hume, David. “Of the Liberty of the Press.” In Essays: moral, political, and literary, edited by Eugene F. Miller. London: Oxford University Press, 1963. “Hutcheson’s Moral Philosophy and Privacy.” 2020. Centre for Privacy Studies. April 16, 2020. https://privacy.hypotheses.org/tag/francis-hutcheson.