Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
LazyPasta
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: February 8th, 2018, 4:56 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by LazyPasta »

Surely isn't there a simple answer to carry forward in our actions while we search for a clean cut answer?

"Offensive" is subjective. Someone who is gay and has suffered abuse due to they sexuality may be simply more offended by the word "f*ggot" than say a straight person who has never had any trouble with sexuality or abusive language.
Just as easily, someone who is white may claim they feel "offended" by a black person starring in a movie.

Surely, there is no consistent sense of moral when it comes to being "offensive", making a set of rules or human rights incredibly restrictive to pin down; this takes away freedom.

Hope reliable are ones morals to have total freedom of speech, and expect responsible and respectful use of freedom, with freedom of consequence?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by LuckyR »

Frost wrote: February 7th, 2018, 12:44 am
Greta wrote: February 7th, 2018, 12:39 am Your views are orthodox, standard libertarian fare.

Do you disagree with any of the Libertarian Party's platform? https://www.lp.org/platform/

You are simply arrogant and smug as you cling to your cliched, blinkered so-called "education" while airing the ignorant notion that no one should have to pay tax, and speaking about tax as if it's theft, as though all the shared infrastructure would appear and be maintained automatically.

You seem more deft in your abuse than in debate. You could have shown me how I was wrong to label you a libertarian - if that was true - but you did not. It's easier to just abuse.
Ahh, coming from the woman that instead of addressing the actual economic issues presented is attempting to label me and insult that label. **** off you stupid bitch.
It is too bad that he gave up so easily. There are intelligent arguments to be made for and against any subject. If, that is, one is intelligent enough to find one. The curse words when translated equal: "I ran out of cogent arguments". Again, too bad.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Monky11 »

Greta wrote: January 24th, 2018, 7:29 am
Monky11 wrote: January 23rd, 2018, 9:48 pm

If Offense necessarily equals Assault ...
But giving offence does not equal verbal assault, although the notions can be confused either way.

Consider the physical equivalents of verbal acts and the situation seems more clear. Is the speech the equivalent of an accidental bump on the street, a playful nudge made in good faith or an aggressive push? Are the words spoken the equivalent of accidentally stepping on a person's foot or deliberately standing on it?
Ok. I understand what you meant now. I agree that there is a valid distinction here. For example, if I would repeatedly tell someone who is suicidal to kill herself that would amount to intentional harm or at least to culpable negligence. This is precisely what law regulating culpable speech tries to prevent without impinging on debate in good faith about controversial issues. The original post was focussed on the kind of restriction that some want to impose on free speech even if exercised in good fait, that is, in pursuit of the truth. I agree that speech can be abused and in some cases can amount to intentional harm when one is aware of a particularly vulnerable, irrational state of another person. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be the case of a professional therapist intentionally poking to expose inner dynamics of someone’s psyche for their own benefit.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Monky11 »

Thank you all for engaging in this discussion and my apologies for being absent the last couple of weeks. I grave been obsessively working on some new material which I will post here shortly. I will try to catch up with all the comments over the next few days.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Monky11 »

I'm not sure if Peterson's argument necessarily invokes Habermas' thinking, or if it just rests on the long history of contractualism (something for which Habermas has been criticized too). In any case, he is right about this. There's no right not to be offended, because usually one can decide, almost arbitrarily, what is offensive. It becomes just too easy and convenient (to the point of laziness) to raise the "offense" card every time one wants to shield any view from criticism.

I also think your distinctions of "ethical pluralism" and "ethical elitism" were right on the money. As you said, they can only be resolved in violence, which is pretty much how it is unfolding these days.
Yes, the link to Habermas (and Apel) does not automatically follow from what Peterson said, but I think it is analysable in those terms and we stand to benefit from analysing the problem of free speech in those terms. I also agree that Habermas and Apel have presented far more analytical developed positions, but there is much value to Peterson’s lowbrow stance; it reaches an incomparably wider audience, who would find Habermas and Apel incomprehensible, or just too hard to follow.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: February 14th, 2018, 5:44 am
Greta wrote: January 24th, 2018, 7:29 am
But giving offence does not equal verbal assault, although the notions can be confused either way.

Consider the physical equivalents of verbal acts and the situation seems more clear. Is the speech the equivalent of an accidental bump on the street, a playful nudge made in good faith or an aggressive push? Are the words spoken the equivalent of accidentally stepping on a person's foot or deliberately standing on it?
Ok. I understand what you meant now. I agree that there is a valid distinction here. For example, if I would repeatedly tell someone who is suicidal to kill herself that would amount to intentional harm or at least to culpable negligence. This is precisely what law regulating culpable speech tries to prevent without impinging on debate in good faith about controversial issues. The original post was focussed on the kind of restriction that some want to impose on free speech even if exercised in good fait, that is, in pursuit of the truth. I agree that speech can be abused and in some cases can amount to intentional harm when one is aware of a particularly vulnerable, irrational state of another person. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be the case of a professional therapist intentionally poking to expose inner dynamics of someone’s psyche for their own benefit.
Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully :)
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Monky11 »

Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully :)
Same here. But the original question is about being prohibited to use our discretion in such matters and be either prohibited from speaking or, worse, being compelled to say things that we do not believe are true (which is one of Peterson’s objections).
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Count Lucanor »

Monky11 wrote: February 14th, 2018, 7:27 am
I'm not sure if Peterson's argument necessarily invokes Habermas' thinking, or if it just rests on the long history of contractualism (something for which Habermas has been criticized too). In any case, he is right about this. There's no right not to be offended, because usually one can decide, almost arbitrarily, what is offensive. It becomes just too easy and convenient (to the point of laziness) to raise the "offense" card every time one wants to shield any view from criticism.

I also think your distinctions of "ethical pluralism" and "ethical elitism" were right on the money. As you said, they can only be resolved in violence, which is pretty much how it is unfolding these days.
Yes, the link to Habermas (and Apel) does not automatically follow from what Peterson said, but I think it is analysable in those terms and we stand to benefit from analysing the problem of free speech in those terms. I also agree that Habermas and Apel have presented far more analytical developed positions, but there is much value to Peterson’s lowbrow stance; it reaches an incomparably wider audience, who would find Habermas and Apel incomprehensible, or just too hard to follow.
I'm sure he connects easily with that wider audience, but I'm not sure that's necessarily positive, having in mind that he presents himself as a sophisticated intellectual, which he's not. He helps to lower the bar. While pretending to be countercultural, he is actually a good old reactionary, in some way in the same fashion of those he criticizes.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: February 14th, 2018, 7:19 pm
Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully :)
Same here. But the original question is about being prohibited to use our discretion in such matters and be either prohibited from speaking or, worse, being compelled to say things that we do not believe are true (which is one of Peterson’s objections).
But that happens constantly. Try arguing with a patriotic American saying that the US is the "greatest country in the world". Try noting that flag burning is not a big a deal because it's just a piece of cloth (is it so outrageous that known enemies act like enemies?). About a decade ago, try saying that the Iraq invasion was immoral and a huge mistake in certain circles and you'd be accused of disloyalty - "with us or against us". Today one is not allowed to mention the terms "foetus" or "climate change" in the White House.

Usually one will operate within set boundaries for the sake of social order and peace unless one makes a career of questioning and analysing as does Peterson. He doesn't need to "choose his battles" because he has the time to speak about just about everything. However, if one is, for instance, going to use up one's time and energy outside of one's duties inflicting hard truths and public humiliation on some poor androgynous wretch, then we need to ask why we don't also challenge patriotic or conservative political correctness so much? Perhaps it's because the latter has serious "teeth".

One is always more inclined to give the unvarnished truth to a small, androgynous person than an aggressive six-foot "good old boy" patriot who loves his guns. By the same token, people will rarely adjust their path when walking for a mere bird that is in their way. They simply walk through as though the bird didn't exist, with the bird will be forced to flee. However, if a crocodile or snake lay in their path there would be much more respect shown. Are the latter predators are no more deserving of respect than birds? Birds are actually the more sensitive and intelligent animals.

My response to the realisation that I'd spent my life being a bully, was to walk around birds and other small animals (within reason) - to pay more attention to the birds, paying them the same respect that I would a snake in the same situation. For me, the analogy largely holds when it comes to humans and their relative empowerments.

So I have zero problem with being "forced" to show respect because that is my general aim these days. I still fail plenty because it's clear to me that bullying is quite an engrained and unconscious behaviour, very natural. It seems to me that, when it comes to humans, the main aim is to be less natural - less wild, more civilised, gentle, aware, empathetic and analytical.

However, it's clear that the regulatory approach has not been well handled, underestimating submerged resentments, and thus provoking opposition. It's easy to be wise with hindsight, I guess. I suspect that the answer is not to focus on targeted oppressed groups so much as on courtesy and consideration generally. This leaves a need for balance between courtesy and honesty. We need to retain the capacity to say that the king wears no clothes. This comes down to subtlety, I suspect.

There is a way of pointing out that the king wears no clothes (or the "queen" is wearing odd ones) that involves respect for the others' unique journey, which will include tact, consideration and a strong intent to fairly represent rather than mischaracterise, which seems to be quite common in today's public discourse. Honesty is key, but not brutal honesty.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Eduk »

Actually it was interesting to watch Peterson 'debate' the elected officials who are placing the law he was objecting to in place.
Both sides seemed slightly surprised at the other.
My take was that Peterson didn't understand how they could be so dense as to not get his point. While they didn't understand how Peterson could be so dense as to take it all at face value.
This is probably the cynic in me but the officials are conducting politics. They have no intention of applying a law like that to someone they see as reasonable, a category Peterson would fall into.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Burning ghost »

Cannot wait to see his talk with Russell Brand! That should be a riot!!! Will at the very least be funny to watch ... Brand does actually make some good points in general when he chooses to drop his clown act, but he also seems quite naïve in some respects (from my pov.)

Anyway, look forward to it. Apparently being released on Saturday - Popcorn at the ready! haha!!
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021