Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
In response to Ms Newman’s question why his right to freedom of speech should trump a person’s right not to be offended, Peterson said: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. (…) You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.” (https://www.dailywire.com/news/25985/wa ... stigiacomo) To Ms Newman’s credit she did not attempt to push the point, what was a wise thing to do as she would be committing what Jürgen Habermas called a ‘performative contradiction’. Peterson’s argument is almost a textbook reference to Discourse Ethics, a transcendental-pragmatic position developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel (more on Discourse Ethics here: http://culturalanalysis.net/2017/12/24/ ... -is-right/).
According to Apel (Selected Essays: Ethics and the Theory of Rationality. Humanities Press International, 1996), “Humanity is in essence linguistic, and therefore depends always already for its thinking on consensual communication.”(p211) “The logical justification for our thought” therefore commits us to “understand arguments critically” and to “mutually recognize each other as participants with equal rights in the discussion.”(p29) The claim of ‘right not to be offended’ is incompatible with these conditions, as it either monopolises the discussion (makes a subjective demand of another to limit expression) or precludes understanding (if both parties claim offence). In any case, subjective judgement about what is offensive cannot even hypothetically be the basis of a normative principle (Setiya, Kieran. Explaining Action. The Philosophical Review, 2003. https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philoso ... m=fulltext). Setiya shows that subjective judgement provides only explanation of our reasons, not their objective justification.
There is a deeper logical consequence to Apel’s premise that all meaning, and therefore all thinking, is a product of public deliberation. If we were limited only to discussing things we already agreed on then no new meaning could ever emerge, no evolution of rationality, language or consciousness would be possible, because the process of transition from meaninglessness to meaningfulness would be barred. Deliberation is possible only if there is a mutual capacity to tolerate disagreement, but its application transcends disagreement even if explicit resolution cannot be achieved. It makes us who we are for ourselves and for one another, being the basis of our existence as thinking, conscious agents: a necessary condition of everything we believe in and of everything we value.
If disagreement can be used as a justification of personal offence than this is not an indictment on the subject-matter, the truth-claims or the value-commitments we disagree about, but an indictment on the possibility of rational justification of being offended. By imposing limits on what can be publicly discussed, on what claims can be defended, on what words can or must be used, deliberation is shut down, and little by little our meaning and therefore our identity fade away… in the ‘safe space’ of non-contention. The ‘right not to be offended’ entails that we value our existence, or our identity, but it also entails active nihilism, a pursuit of non-existence and non-identity, therefore a contradiction. If we do value our existence then we are rationally committed to accept the necessary condition of our existence – tolerance of disagreement – even if we don’t like how disagreement sometimes makes us feel.
(This is an abridged version of my article originally posted here: http://culturalanalysis.net/2018/01/19/ ... -offended/)
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
If, for instance, a person is stupid but done nothing wrong, is it preferable to be considerate than to tell them they are stupid to express your right to freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech and freedom not to be offended need to be balanced and sometimes the vulnerable and weak need protection. Some will suggest that the vulnerable should not be protected by left to survive or not, and hopefully their views will remain consistent when they themselves are old and vulnerable.
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
The argument is not about ‘what we should or need to do’ but rather ‘what limits of speech we must submit to’. I also question whether ‘freedom not to be offended’ is even hypothetically justifiable.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
The freedom to not be psychologically assaulted, just as we currently have the "freedom not to be physically assaulted".
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Greta wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 9:14 pm "Offended" is a weak word. "Psychological assault" is the issue, being just as harmful as physical assaults and taking many lives via suicide.
The freedom to not be psychologically assaulted, just as we currently have the "freedom not to be physically assaulted".
If Offense necessarily equals Assault, then the argument demonstrates that this is a necessary kind of assault for humanity to exist, therefore not an Assault at all in the culpable sense. But your suggestion is a category mistake to start with: assault is a criminal-normative term defined by culpable intention to autnonomously cause objective harm; offense is subjective therefore not normative, even if harm eventuates, if it involves harm then it amounts to either self-harm (if it is within your capacity to resist feeling offended) or mental pathology (if you lack that capacity). But that goes well beyond the scope of the original argument.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
I believe it is more effective to balance 'freedom of speech' with 'limits to free speech' taking into account the respective consequences.
The appropriate application of Morality and Ethics to freedom of speech is this;
Objective absolute Moral Law: "Freedom of speech is absolutely permissible, no ifs and buts" which is complemented with the following;
Relative Ethical Maxim: The exception to the above Objective absolute Moral Law is only permissible within the following limits [as listed].
An example is the often stated 'One is not free to shout Fire! in an enclosed cinema packed with people.' Hate elements related to humans that cannot be changed e.g. hate speech on race, sex, and other can be limited.
Thus within the absolute moral right to have Free Speech, humanity must collectively debate [continually] and come up with a list of limits to Free Speech.
I do not agree the 'Right not to be offended' should be a limit to Free Speech.
The reason is being offended is very subjective.
I believe the issue with freedom of speech in recent times is due to complains from Muslims. This is because religious matters are driven by highly sensitive triggers that involve a matter of heaven or hell. Thus any slight criticisms of religion it will trigger these sensitive spots and create insecurities within theists.
The fact is Islam itself has inherent malignant evil elements and the religion has inspired SOME of its believers who are evil prone to commit terrible evils and violence. When these evil acts are so evident, it will naturally invite criticisms which in turn will trigger psychological insecurities. To maintain psychological security, Muslims use the 'right not to be offended' stave off/shut down such deserving rational criticisms of their religions.
The question of 'offended' is a psychological issue and should be dealt with psychologically on the person who offend and the person who feel offended.
"Offending" speeches related to religious matters [one can change one's religion] should be highlighted for special considerations and studied in its full perspective to trace the root causes and finding the effective strategies to resolve the issue.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
You see the thing is that although she said that she doesn't believe that for a second. She is not having a conversation with Peterson. She is acting in the manner which got her her job in the first place and, I assume, in the manner which she hopes will further her career.In response to Ms Newman’s question why his right to freedom of speech should trump a person’s right not to be offended,
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
But giving offence does not equal verbal assault, although the notions can be confused either way.Monky11 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 9:48 pmIf Offense necessarily equals Assault ...Greta wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 9:14 pm "Offended" is a weak word. "Psychological assault" is the issue, being just as harmful as physical assaults and taking many lives via suicide.
The freedom to not be psychologically assaulted, just as we currently have the "freedom not to be physically assaulted".
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?
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Monky11 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2018, 8:28 pm Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, known for his critique of political correctness and offense-sensitivity in the context of higher education, has presented a formidable defence of his position in a recent interview with Cathy Newman.
In response to Ms Newman’s question why his right to freedom of speech should trump a person’s right not to be offended, Peterson said: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. (…) You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.” (https://www.dailywire.com/news/25985/wa ... stigiacomo) To Ms Newman’s credit she did not attempt to push the point, what was a wise thing to do as she would be committing what Jürgen Habermas called a ‘performative contradiction’. Peterson’s argument is almost a textbook reference to Discourse Ethics, a transcendental-pragmatic position developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel (more on Discourse Ethics here: http://culturalanalysis.net/2017/12/24/ ... -is-right/).
According to Apel (Selected Essays: Ethics and the Theory of Rationality. Humanities Press International, 1996), “Humanity is in essence linguistic, and therefore depends always already for its thinking on consensual communication.”(p211) “The logical justification for our thought” therefore commits us to “understand arguments critically” and to “mutually recognize each other as participants with equal rights in the discussion.”(p29) The claim of ‘right not to be offended’ is incompatible with these conditions, as it either monopolises the discussion (makes a subjective demand of another to limit expression) or precludes understanding (if both parties claim offence). In any case, subjective judgement about what is offensive cannot even hypothetically be the basis of a normative principle (Setiya, Kieran. Explaining Action. The Philosophical Review, 2003. https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philoso ... m=fulltext). Setiya shows that subjective judgement provides only explanation of our reasons, not their objective justification.
There is a deeper logical consequence to Apel’s premise that all meaning, and therefore all thinking, is a product of public deliberation. If we were limited only to discussing things we already agreed on then no new meaning could ever emerge, no evolution of rationality, language or consciousness would be possible, because the process of transition from meaninglessness to meaningfulness would be barred. Deliberation is possible only if there is a mutual capacity to tolerate disagreement, but its application transcends disagreement even if explicit resolution cannot be achieved. It makes us who we are for ourselves and for one another, being the basis of our existence as thinking, conscious agents: a necessary condition of everything we believe in and of everything we value.
If disagreement can be used as a justification of personal offence than this is not an indictment on the subject-matter, the truth-claims or the value-commitments we disagree about, but an indictment on the possibility of rational justification of being offended. By imposing limits on what can be publicly discussed, on what claims can be defended, on what words can or must be used, deliberation is shut down, and little by little our meaning and therefore our identity fade away… in the ‘safe space’ of non-contention. The ‘right not to be offended’ entails that we value our existence, or our identity, but it also entails active nihilism, a pursuit of non-existence and non-identity, therefore a contradiction. If we do value our existence then we are rationally committed to accept the necessary condition of our existence – tolerance of disagreement – even if we don’t like how disagreement sometimes makes us feel.
(This is an abridged version of my article originally posted here: http://culturalanalysis.net/2018/01/19/ ... -offended/)
It is sad that this even needs to be said. The Liberal left is so confused about the concept of rights and have been pushing for such ridiculous "right claims" that we may begin to see a reaction against Natural and Human Rights which is dangerous. If rights are whatever someone feels like, then it may be best to start to eliminate them.
Part of the problem is not understanding the ontological or logical structure of rights. Almost everything out there is terribly confused and mainstream philosophical literature is the worst. The logical structure of rights dictates that they cannot be epistemically subjective, and any such "right claim" that is epistemically subjective, like being offended, is illegitimate. This does not require that rights involve only ontologically objective harm, but it is absolutely necessary that it be epistemically objective.
It is also a terrible confusion to think that rights are not absolute. That rights are absolute is a consequence of their linguistic subjective ontology and the logical structure of language. They are not "prima facie" or "conditional." The Right of Freedom of Speech is absolute, but you cannot violate the rights of others by speech.
With that said, I have never watched an interview in which the interviewer was so completely and thoroughly destroyed intellectually. It was a pleasure to watch considering the ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy of the host and the ideology which she represents.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
I don't think there is a "carte blanche permission" because certain restrictions on hate speech re racism, sexism, others which are false/fallacious are still rationally appropriate to be restricted. I believe JP would agree with that??
I have argued 'hate speech' should be limited within free speech because one cannot change one's race and gender one is born with.
Anything else that is open to change should not be limited, any one can engage and discuss their related issues freely. I am very concern with limitations on speaking freely about religion. There should be no restriction of speaking of religion because one can change one's religion and more so when God is illusory and an impossibility.
Those who feel offended over an illusion and impossibility such as God should review their state of sensitivity psychologically. It is the same for those of mixed gender and sexuality.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
For example let us imagine I observe a crime committed by an individual who says they are a Christian. Should I go to the police and say Christians are committing crimes?
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
It was interesting to see that it was Newman's feminist supporters that proved to put out far more violent hateful comments:
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22 ... ice-versa/
Not trying to condone any violent comments, but it's quite understandable for there to be some harsh language and name-calling when you have an ideology that has been actively working to suppress the liberty of people that disagree. Yet the response of Peterson supporters is far less violent and hateful than the people that oppose him and have actively worked to harm his career and shut down his events that are part of his income (as well as lobby for laws that enforce compelled speech). I'd say Peterson's followers seem rather tame in comparison to those they are opposing. Not saying their behavior is good, but the whole calling in a security team because someone called her a stupid bitch on twitter is a bit ridiculous. I think it's a combination of a PR stunt to shift the attention away from how thoroughly she was destroyed as well as some of the same ideology that was destroyed in the interview that treat women as delicate little flowers that need a fainting couch and smelling salts.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
I have never seen anywhere that Peterson advocates restricting hate speech. In fact, considering his experiences, I'm quite sure he is against restricting hate speech for the simple reason that Bill C16 passed in Canada that permits fines and possible jail time for calling someone a "he" instead of a "she." He has always said how limiting free speech in this way leads to totalitarianism and we continue to see more and more laws being created. Hate speech should never be restricted. It is a social moral issue, not a legal issue.Spectrum wrote: ↑January 25th, 2018, 3:26 am
I don't think there is a "carte blanche permission" because certain restrictions on hate speech re racism, sexism, others which are false/fallacious are still rationally appropriate to be restricted. I believe JP would agree with that??
I have argued 'hate speech' should be limited within free speech because one cannot change one's race and gender one is born with.
Anything else that is open to change should not be limited, any one can engage and discuss their related issues freely. I am very concern with limitations on speaking freely about religion. There should be no restriction of speaking of religion because one can change one's religion and more so when God is illusory and an impossibility.
Those who feel offended over an illusion and impossibility such as God should review their state of sensitivity psychologically. It is the same for those of mixed gender and sexuality.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023