Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

You know, react to criticism like grown adults rather than infuriated children?

There's a rather large difference, I think, between criticism and insult.

Is there? I look forward to you parsing these.

But when our deeply-held beliefs are insulted ...

I see. Musk deeply believed that US spending was unsustainable and he wanted to target spending in overseas countries because the money was needed to deal with the US's growing problems. You said he had "evil tendencies".

So your comment could be fairly considered an unreasonable insult rather than criticism.

I wouldn't mind you saying that if you did not take the "moral high ground" on all issues, if you accepted that when you think of others as "evil", they simply have different priorities.

[Pattern-chaser]

Another conflation: "mockery and protests". Mockery is ridicule/insult; protest is simply expressing one's opinions publically, with no insult involved or intended. [Although there are protestors who take advantage of the demonstration to offer their insults publically. ]

I'm not conflating anything. Both are two types of criticism that are often seen as insulting. Protest is not merely courteously expressing one's opinion, it is invariably hyperbolic involving ridicule and the shouting of slogans.

Yes, as I said, there are those who will take advantage of the demonstration to hurl verbal abuse. But most demonstrators don't.

Both are *not* types of "criticism". To call verbal abuse "criticism" is a euphemistic attempt to make a personal attack sound justified. It isn't, because it is *always* counter-productive. Criticism addresses the message; insults address the messenger. Although, as we have already discussed, there are some beliefs that are so deeply held that an insult to them is perceived to be personal. This is perhaps not rational, but it *is* human. It's typically human. It's part of what we do. So surely philosophers must take this into account? To deny empirical evidence is ... even more irrational?

I would say that satire is a form of mockery and yet a perfectly valid (non hateful) form of criticism.

Yes, your view is fully understood. I disagree.

I feel that you are being dishonest in deftly swinging between what was intended (by the accused), what was perceived (by the victim) and existed in actual fact (objectively). That allows you to avoid clarifying the distinction between valid criticism and hateful insults.

I don't think that's a fair accusation. For a start, "actual objective fact" can prove elusive, at best. Then we branch out into a discussion we've had before, as to the influence here of intention. I don't think I have ever tried to avoid the distinction between criticism and insult. It's not hard. If it's aimed at the message, and phrased with courtesy, it's criticism, and if it's aimed at the messenger, it's an insult. [With the deeply-held-belief exception we've also already discussed.]

Don't you realise that merely stating your opinion that Mohammed is not the final prophet of God is considered blasphemous to Islam and likely to be insulting to most devout Muslims?

I didn't realise that specifically, no, but I'll bet there are courteous ways of exploring the same subject. I have found, talking to real-world Moslems, that courtesy is pretty much all you need. And courtesy does not prevent any form of criticism, but only personal insults. Sorted.

You're living in a fantasy world in which you seem to think that somehow nobody ever gets offended by reasonably stated opinions. That you can make everyone happy by coming up a rule to separate good and bad speech, in which all good things can freely be said and no one will be offended by it.

You're living in a fantasy world in which you seem to think that the Freedom to Insult is something of value, worth defending. IMO, this is a bad mistake. Freedom of (Courteous) Speech — that's what's worth defending. Insults nurture and provoke, even cause, violence. Unless this is your intention, personal insults are entirely without value.

[Fried Egg]

Yes, as I said, there are those who will take advantage of the demonstration to hurl verbal abuse. But most demonstrators don't.

Both are *not* types of "criticism". To call verbal abuse "criticism" is a euphemistic attempt to make a personal attack sound justified. It isn't, because it is *always* counter-productive. Criticism addresses the message; insults address the messenger. Although, as we have already discussed, there are some beliefs that are so deeply held that an insult to them is perceived to be personal. This is perhaps not rational, but it *is* human. It's typically human. It's part of what we do. So surely philosophers must take this into account? To deny empirical evidence is ... even more irrational?

Since this is a thread about blasphemy laws specifically, and not freedom of speech more widely, I think we should just take it as a given that we're not talking about criticising the person, rather we're talking about criticising the (religious) belief.

But since when it comes to devoutly held beliefs, people struggle to (or incapable of) of making that distinction, we have a problem. You admit that this conflation is irrational (that they are therefore wrong to make that conflation), yet still insist we must treat criticism of religious ideas as if they were personal insults (and therefore not allow them) as you believe it's just human nature to react this way. Even though it seems to be mainly just Muslims that react this way (and not the followers of others religions).

You seem to accept the notion that it is important for a society to be able to criticise ideas, but not personal insults. But where people irrationally (and wrongly) conflate the two, you are willing to sacrifice criticism of ideas in order to protect people from feeling insulted. That's a trade off right there. One that you are willing to make and the rest of us (it would seem) are not.

You're living in a fantasy world in which you seem to think that the Freedom to Insult is something of value, worth defending. IMO, this is a bad mistake. Freedom of (Courteous) Speech — that's what's worth defending. Insults nurture and provoke, even cause, violence. Unless this is your intention, personal insults are entirely without value.

No, we're not talking about the freedom to insult here, we're talking about the freedom to criticise ideas, that some are wrongly choosing to conflate.

If you accept that criticism of ideas has value to society, it doesn't immediately lose it's value if someone else irrationally gets offended by it and takes it as a personal insult, does it? Therefore you're way off with your remark above.

Don't you realise that merely stating your opinion that Mohammed is not the final prophet of God is considered blasphemous to Islam and likely to be insulting to most devout Muslims?

I didn't realise that specifically, no, but I'll bet there are courteous ways of exploring the same subject. I have found, talking to real-world Moslems, that courtesy is pretty much all you need. And courtesy does not prevent any form of criticism, but only personal insults. Sorted.

Yes, there are many reasonable Muslims (most of them I'm sure). It's the unreasonable ones we're talking about here. The ones for which there is no distinction between criticising Islam and personal insults.

[Pattern-chaser]

Since this is a thread about blasphemy laws specifically, and not freedom of speech more widely, I think we should just take it as a given that we're not talking about criticising the person, rather we're talking about criticising the (religious) belief.

OK, then keep your criticism courteous, and all will be well.

But since when it comes to devoutly held beliefs, people struggle to (or incapable of) of making that distinction, we have a problem. You admit that this conflation is irrational (that they are therefore wrong to make that conflation), yet still insist we must treat criticism of religious ideas as if they were personal insults (and therefore not allow them) as you believe it's just human nature to react this way. Even though it seems to be mainly just Muslims that react this way (and not the followers of others religions).

Not so. Was there not a time, not too far into the past, when Christians did much the same? I don't know, but I would expect that most of the exclusive religions (we are right, so all others are wrong) are guilty of such conduct at some time?

You seem to accept the notion that it is important for a society to be able to criticise ideas, but not personal insults. But where people irrationally (and wrongly) conflate the two, you are willing to sacrifice criticism of ideas in order to protect people from feeling insulted.

No, I'm willing to curb our 'rules' to take account of the real world, in this case, this human trait we are discussing.

No, we're not talking about the freedom to insult here, we're talking about the freedom to criticise ideas, that some are wrongly choosing to conflate.

I would agree with this, except that I believe that you are including insults of all forms, but using the word "criticise" to refer to them?

[Fried Egg]

But since when it comes to devoutly held beliefs, people struggle to (or incapable of) of making that distinction, we have a problem. You admit that this conflation is irrational (that they are therefore wrong to make that conflation), yet still insist we must treat criticism of religious ideas as if they were personal insults (and therefore not allow them) as you believe it's just human nature to react this way. Even though it seems to be mainly just Muslims that react this way (and not the followers of others religions).

Not so. Was there not a time, not too far into the past, when Christians did much the same? I don't know, but I would expect that most of the exclusive religions (we are right, so all others are wrong) are guilty of such conduct at some time?

In the distant past, perhaps. Most religions have grown out of it - not so with Islam.

Going back 40 (plus) years to when "The Life of Brian" was released, there was plenty of criticism of the film and it was temporarily banned in a few localities but they didn't have to worry about death threats. As Terry Gillingham said: "But as you notice we were very cautious about offending any Muslims. We would say nothing negative about a Muslim, ’cause we’d get a fatwa after us."

We see this with how "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie was received. And we all know how different it would have been had he written a similar book about any other religion.

So, there is something uniquely hostile and intolerant in Islam of any criticism.

You seem to accept the notion that it is important for a society to be able to criticise ideas, but not personal insults. But where people irrationally (and wrongly) conflate the two, you are willing to sacrifice criticism of ideas in order to protect people from feeling insulted.

No, I'm willing to curb our 'rules' to take account of the real world, in this case, this human trait we are discussing.

That is exactly the same thing (albeit phased slightly different). But you're trying to deny that there is any kind of trade off.

I would agree with this, except that I believe that you are including insults of all forms, but using the word "criticise" to refer to them?

No, since we are talking about ideas and not people, the word "insult" cannot apply. Except when you conflate criticism of ideas with personal insults - which is what you are doing.

[Good_Egg]

To call verbal abuse "criticism" is a euphemistic attempt to make a personal attack sound justified. It isn't, because it is *always* counter-productive. Criticism addresses the message; insults address the messenger. Although, as we have already discussed, there are some beliefs that are so deeply held that an insult to them is perceived to be personal. This is perhaps not rational, but it *is* human. It's typically human. It's part of what we do. So surely philosophers must take this into account? To deny empirical evidence is ... even more irrational?

Let us suppose that, descriptively, you're right.

That amongst some group of "secular" people there is a clear distinction between insult to the person and criticism or disagreement with the ideas they hold.

And that there is a category of "religious" people with deeply-held beliefs for whom this distinction breaks down so that criticism/disagreement is felt as insult.

What follows from this ? What should the law be in such a situation ? What prescription follows from your description ?

Are you saying that the aim of the law should be peaceful coexistence between people of different religions, and that therefore the law should criminalise criticism of or disagreement with any deeply-held belief ?

Including belief-systems such as Marxism (on the basis that belief in this can be every bit as deeply-held as belief in a religion (in the narrow sense) ?

[Fried Egg]

Are you saying that the aim of the law should be peaceful coexistence between people of different religions, and that therefore the law should criminalise criticism of or disagreement with any deeply-held belief ?

Pattern Chaser obviously has some notion of a distinction between criticism that is insulting and criticism that is courteous. Criticism that addresses the message and not the messenger in both cases. But he provides us with no tools to help us to make the distinction. I can only assume he means it is judged in the ears of the one who hears it. If one takes it personally (even though it was not personal), it becomes an insult and therefore should be illegal.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Was there not a time, not too far into the past, when Christians did much the same?

In the distant past, perhaps. Most religions have grown out of it - not so with Islam.

...

So, there is something uniquely hostile and intolerant in Islam of any criticism.

First, I don't think it "hostile and intolerant" of someone to react to a perceived insult. Like other matters we are discussing here, I think it's typically and thoroughly *human*. We all do such things.

You do such things, when it seems appropriate to you. Not all of your beliefs are 100% intellectual. You have demonstrated here on this forum that *some* of your beliefs are associated with a significant emotional attachment.

This is normal. This is human. Some may assert that it is not rational. And perhaps they're right. But we all do it just the same. Should we, as philosophers, ignore this, and demand (?) that humans change their ways? Or should we accept the historical and empirical evidence, and formulate our philosophies to acknowledge and allow for it?

No, since we are talking about ideas and not people, the word "insult" cannot apply. Except when you conflate criticism of ideas with personal insults - which is what you are doing.

An idea can certainly be insulted. For example, if we refer to an idea as being "ridiculous", that's an insult. If the idea took offence, we would all be ... somewhat surprised. But someone with a deep emotional commitment to that idea might see matters differently.

"Conflating"? That's a bit steep! I am trying to do the exact opposite. I am trying to distiguish the two clearly, and to suggest that one is more than acceptable, while the other is quite unacceptable.

[Pattern-chaser]

To call verbal abuse "criticism" is a euphemistic attempt to make a personal attack sound justified. It isn't, because it is *always* counter-productive. Criticism addresses the message; insults address the messenger. Although, as we have already discussed, there are some beliefs that are so deeply held that an insult to them is perceived to be personal. This is perhaps not rational, but it *is* human. It's typically human. It's part of what we do. So surely philosophers must take this into account? To deny empirical evidence is ... even more irrational?

Let us suppose that, descriptively, you're right.

That amongst some group of "secular" people there is a clear distinction between insult to the person and criticism or disagreement with the ideas they hold.

And that there is a category of "religious" people with deeply-held beliefs for whom this distinction breaks down so that criticism/disagreement is felt as insult.

Yes, that category is humans, or humanity. There are many humans "with deeply-held beliefs...". The distinction does not "break down". It only fails to apply, I think?

What follows from this ? What should the law be in such a situation ? What prescription follows from your description ?

I'm not sure. It seems to make sense to ask that law-makers shall allow for typical human traits, and not to formulate laws that require humans to behave in a way that is not typically human. There is no point drafting laws that its subjects are unable to follow, yes? So that's the law-makers.

As for the people, I think they can and should expect just laws that aim to promote and maintain peaceful co-existence between us all. That's the aim. How closely it can be approached is a matter for the real world, I think.

Are you saying that the aim of the law should be peaceful coexistence between people of different religions, and that therefore the law should criminalise criticism of or disagreement with any deeply-held belief ?

Including belief-systems such as Marxism (on the basis that belief in this can be every bit as deeply-held as belief in a religion (in the narrow sense) ?

To the first half of your first sentence, yes. To the second part, the law should strive to achieve peaceful co-existence between all citizens.

Yet more euphemisms. The contentious thing we are considering is not "criticism of or disagreement with" something, it is insults.

[As I think we have already agreed, religion is only one example of the things to which we can become emotionally-attached. Another could possibly be Marxism, I suppose, although (to me) that seems unlikely. But maybe it's so...]

[Fried Egg]

First, I don't think it "hostile and intolerant" of someone to react to a perceived insult. Like other matters we are discussing here, I think it's typically and thoroughly *human*. We all do such things.

You do such things, when it seems appropriate to you. Not all of your beliefs are 100% intellectual. You have demonstrated here on this forum that *some* of your beliefs are associated with a significant emotional attachment.

This is normal. This is human. Some may assert that it is not rational. And perhaps they're right. But we all do it just the same. Should we, as philosophers, ignore this, and demand (?) that humans change their ways? Or should we accept the historical and empirical evidence, and formulate our philosophies to acknowledge and allow for it?

It is normal to become emotionally attached to some of our beliefs. No one is demanding humans change their ways. We just expect people to restrain their most violent and aggressive impulses, as most of us do most of the time.

I'm saying people don't have a right not to be offended, to to expect the law to protect you from being offended. If you get violent, or threaten violence, you should meet the full force of the law.

By the way, while I accept that I do get emotionally attached to certain beliefs, i do not think that I get offended when they are challenged (nor do I expect anyone to care if i did). I certainly don't get violent (or threaten violence).

No, since we are talking about ideas and not people, the word "insult" cannot apply. Except when you conflate criticism of ideas with personal insults - which is what you are doing.

An idea can certainly be insulted. For example, if we refer to an idea as being "ridiculous", that's an insult. If the idea took offence, we would all be ... somewhat surprised. But someone with a deep emotional commitment to that idea might see matters differently.

"Conflating"? That's a bit steep! I am trying to do the exact opposite. I am trying to distiguish the two clearly, and to suggest that one is more than acceptable, while the other is quite unacceptable.

But you're not helping us to distinguish them at all. How do we tell the difference between valid criticism and insults? Is it in the intent of the speaker? Is it in the perception of the hearer? Or something else?

[Pattern-chaser]

How do we tell the difference between valid criticism and insults?

I think I've suggested before, that if it's an ad hominem, it's an insult.

If the insult is directed at an idea, the idea can't take offence, so its only possible purpose is to insult those who hold belief in these ideas so deeply. In this discussion, this constitutes an insult.

Let's not forget that an insult contains no useful or meaningful information, only things written to offer offence, so it would be more than a stretch to call them "criticism". Criticism says rational and reasonable things, understandable using only reason and logic.

[Fried Egg]

How do we tell the difference between valid criticism and insults?

I think I've suggested before, that if it's an ad hominem, it's an insult.

If the insult is directed at an idea, the idea can't take offence, so its only possible purpose is to insult those who hold belief in these ideas so deeply. In this discussion, this constitutes an insult.

Let's not forget that an insult contains no useful or meaningful information, only things written to offer offence, so it would be more than a stretch to call them "criticism". Criticism says rational and reasonable things, understandable using only reason and logic.

It beggars belief how you can contradict yourself so baldly with a straight face.

If a criticism is valid and meaningful and not intended as an insult, it doesn't become invalid, meaningless and insulting just because someone happens to get offended by it.

What is it about deeply believing in an idea that magically transforms all criticisms of it into insults? Why does this devout belief suck all meaning and validity out of the criticism?

But even then your criteria of "ad hominem" doesn't hold up because you also exclude emotional criticism and mockery (such as satire) which is still directed at the idea (and not the person).

So your distinction is riddled with contradictions. I would accept this distinction if you were consistent about it. But you're not so I don't.

[Pattern-chaser]

How do we tell the difference between valid criticism and insults?

I think I've suggested before, that if it's an ad hominem, it's an insult.

If the insult is directed at an idea, the idea can't take offence, so its only possible purpose is to insult those who hold belief in these ideas so deeply. In this discussion, this constitutes an insult.

Let's not forget that an insult contains no useful or meaningful information, only things written to offer offence, so it would be more than a stretch to call them "criticism". Criticism says rational and reasonable things, understandable using only reason and logic.

It beggars belief how you can contradict yourself so baldly with a straight face.

I am unaware of any contradiction in my words. Please point it/them out, so that I can clarify?

If a criticism is valid and meaningful and not intended as an insult, it doesn't become invalid, meaningless and insulting just because someone happens to get offended by it.

Correct. Straw man.

What is it about deeply believing in an idea that magically transforms all criticisms of it into insults?

Misunderstanding. This part of our discussion relates to humanity and human behaviour, not to the ideas or the beliefs themselves.

Why does this devout belief suck all meaning and validity out of the criticism?

It doesn't. Another straw man, I think?

But even then your criteria of "ad hominem" doesn't hold up because you also exclude emotional criticism and mockery (such as satire) which is still directed at the idea (and not the person).

To direct ridicule at an idea has only one purpose, to demean and ridicule those who believe that idea. The idea itself cannot be offended, as we all know, so the "criticism" *must* be directed at those who believe the idea. It can have no other purpose.

So your distinction is riddled with contradictions. I would accept this distinction if you were consistent about it. But you're not so I don't.

My "distinction" is not a simple one, admittedly. I seek to distinguish constructive from destructive criticism. The former seeks to promote building and growing, while the latter seeks only to destroy, by any means necessary.

[Fried Egg]

I am unaware of any contradiction in my words. Please point it/them out, so that I can clarify?

I thought I already have (or have tried to).

You said the distinction between acceptable and non acceptable criticism was whether it was ad hominem. But it cannot be that simple because you you go on to say things like:

To direct[ly] ridicule at an idea has only one purpose, to demean and ridicule those who believe that idea.

What is the justification for this claim? That is an inference you are not entitled to make. Any more than you would be entitled to make the following claim: "To directly criticise an idea has only one purpose, to criticise those who believe that idea."

Sometimes the best way to show an idea that you believe to be wrong is to show how ridiculous it is (e.g. with the use of satire). You might disagree but one can still claim that was the intent. As long as it is the idea and not the person being ridiculed, it is not ad hominem and so one can use such methods without intending to upset the believer (even if it does).

But we can put the concept of ridicule to one side. Even carefully measured, rational criticism of an idea can cause offence to devout believers - why do you think we ever had the concept of blasphemy laws in the first place?

So still we are left with the question, what kinds of criticism (of ideas) are allowed and which are not?

I seek to distinguish constructive from destructive criticism. The former seeks to promote building and growing, while the latter seeks only to destroy, by any means necessary.

My understanding of the meaning of "constructive" criticism is pointing out ways in which an idea can be improved, rather than just pointing out ways in which an idea is flawed. Certainly criticising an idea constructively is nice but only really appropriate if you think the idea only needs to be tweaked. If you think the whole idea is irredeemably flawed, the only solution is it's complete rejection (i.e. the use of "destructive" criticism. Certainly I don't think this helps us form a basis for distinguishing which forms of criticism should be allowed by law.

If you are not saying that we should outlaw all criticism of ideas that happen to cause offence, and it does not depend on the intent of the person doing the criticising, what basis then does that leave us for making the distinction?

[Good_Egg]

PC said

As for the people, I think they can and should expect just laws that aim to promote and maintain peaceful co-existence between us all. That's the aim.

That's two aims - justice and peace. And whenever you have more than one aim, there's the possibility of conflict between them - furthering one aim by sacrificing the other.

Seems to me that laws - whether the law of the land, or school rules, or the rules that any parent makes in their home - do promote peace. They do it by a central authority (the state, the headmaster, the parent) punishing the escalation of conflict.

If you've had any dealings with boys you'll have observed a tendency for verbal disagreements to escalate into physical violence.

Law defines a set of crimes. It draws a line forbidding people to punish others for perceived slights by violence, by damage to or confiscation of property, by spreading lies about them etc. Thus discouraging the inevitable fallings-out between people from escalating into warfare.

I put it to you that tweaking the boundary - adjusting what can and cannot be legally said - does not "promote peace" because the function of discouraging the escalation into physical violence is fulfilled equally well before and after.

And that if the law prohibits insult to an idea that I'm emotionally invested in but not insult to an idea that you are emotionally invested in then it is unjust. Unless there is a clear and impartial principle that justifies distinguishing the two ideas.

E.g. protecting only religious ideas is unjust to atheists. Unless there is some factual difference between religious and non-religious ideas that both believers and atheists can recognise.