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
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Monky11 »

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/)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Political correctness is an easy target - everyone dislikes being shut down, whether it concerns men, women, gays, people with disabilities, the military, the flag, climate change (not not allowed to be spoken about in the White House) ... whatever myriad sacred cows and taboos there are.

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.
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 23rd, 2018, 8:55 pm Freedom of speech and freedom not to be offended need to be balanced
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.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

"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".
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 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.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

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

Post by Spectrum »

Monky11 wrote: January 23rd, 2018, 9:08 pm 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.
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.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

I think it's fair for a society to classify something as too offensive (and likely stupid) to be talked about. The real problem with "offensive speech" in these times is that it's just being used to shutdown alternative opinions. It's not like "you called me a **** and I have a right to be protected from that", it's actually just a way of shutting down people's alternative philosophical opinions. In a perfect world we could discuss it being a right to not be offended, where people were only offended by baseless, unconstructive attacks but since we don't live in that world, we can't possibly take such a right seriously.
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 »

In response to Ms Newman’s question why his right to freedom of speech should trump a person’s 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.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: January 23rd, 2018, 9:48 pm
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 ...
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?
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

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

Post by Frost »

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.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Note that many Peterson fans see his nuanced stance as carte blanche permission to trample over other's sensitivities simply because they can - and now they feel vindicated, even though that was not JP's intent.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

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

Post by Spectrum »

Greta wrote: January 24th, 2018, 10:14 pm Note that many Peterson fans see his nuanced stance as carte blanche permission to trample over other's sensitivities simply because they can - and now they feel vindicated, even though that was not JP's intent.
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.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
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 »

Who are the 'liberal left'?
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?
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

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

Post by Frost »

Greta wrote: January 24th, 2018, 10:14 pm Note that many Peterson fans see his nuanced stance as carte blanche permission to trample over other's sensitivities simply because they can - and now they feel vindicated, even though that was not JP's intent.
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.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

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

Post by Frost »

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.
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.
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