** One writer defines privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others"
(A) Is this a good definition of privacy? Why or why not?
Privacy for me is not "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others" but rather "freedom from inappropriate intrusions of others". The first definition, which is that privacy ifs freedom from inappropriate judgment, appeals lesser substance for people or others can inappropriately judge us without crossing the line where our privacy starts. All judgments are inappropriate if not proven to be true. All of us are suspects and victims of these inappropriate judgments. Merely by looking, we inappropriately judge others. merely by looking at us, we are inappropriately judged by others. Most often, after prejudging someone we don't care anymore how true our judgments are that we dare not to spend time to prove the truthfulness of what we think. However, there are those who care enough to take evasive, immediate sometimes destructive, inappropriate and unreasonable actions to prove themselves that what judgment they have for someone is true. Then, inappropriate intrusions follow, violating others' right of privacy. Inappropriate judgments therefore for me, are causes of inappropriate intrusions that could destruct and disturb your privacy and not a direct cause of it. This realization therefore leads me to the conclusion that the definition of privacy as freedom from inappropriate judgment of others is not that good of a definition of privacy.
(B) Suppose we use this definition, should people have a positive right (claim right) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
Should people have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
Supposedly using the definition of privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others", I can say that people should have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy but should not have the positive right (claim right). This is because if people would have the positive right on this privacy, with that definition, everybody could claim that they should not be judged in anyway and they could also claim that they are inappropriately judged by others and that their privacy is disturbed. Basing on those claims of people, a more serious problem will arise where in anybody could point anybody accusing him or her of inappropriate judgment . On the other hand if negative right (liberty) would be given to the people, inappropriate judgment will be controlled and those inappropriate judgments without enough grounds and reason will have to be considered as fallacy. Another thing is that nobody got the authority to impose to someone that he/she should not be judged inappropriately. These would give the people the chance to exercise their right to choose what they think is good for them: to inappropriately judge others or not.
(A) Is this a good definition of privacy? Why or why not?
Privacy for me is not "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others" but rather "freedom from inappropriate intrusions of others". The first definition, which is that privacy ifs freedom from inappropriate judgment, appeals lesser substance for people or others can inappropriately judge us without crossing the line where our privacy starts. All judgments are inappropriate if not proven to be true. All of us are suspects and victims of these inappropriate judgments. Merely by looking, we inappropriately judge others. merely by looking at us, we are inappropriately judged by others. Most often, after prejudging someone we don't care anymore how true our judgments are that we dare not to spend time to prove the truthfulness of what we think. However, there are those who care enough to take evasive, immediate sometimes destructive, inappropriate and unreasonable actions to prove themselves that what judgment they have for someone is true. Then, inappropriate intrusions follow, violating others' right of privacy. Inappropriate judgments therefore for me, are causes of inappropriate intrusions that could destruct and disturb your privacy and not a direct cause of it. This realization therefore leads me to the conclusion that the definition of privacy as freedom from inappropriate judgment of others is not that good of a definition of privacy.
(B) Suppose we use this definition, should people have a positive right (claim right) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
Should people have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?
Supposedly using the definition of privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others", I can say that people should have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy but should not have the positive right (claim right). This is because if people would have the positive right on this privacy, with that definition, everybody could claim that they should not be judged in anyway and they could also claim that they are inappropriately judged by others and that their privacy is disturbed. Basing on those claims of people, a more serious problem will arise where in anybody could point anybody accusing him or her of inappropriate judgment . On the other hand if negative right (liberty) would be given to the people, inappropriate judgment will be controlled and those inappropriate judgments without enough grounds and reason will have to be considered as fallacy. Another thing is that nobody got the authority to impose to someone that he/she should not be judged inappropriately. These would give the people the chance to exercise their right to choose what they think is good for them: to inappropriately judge others or not.
