The morality of Offensiveness

#1
Is it morally blameworthy to offend someone?
Is it morally neutral?
Morally praiseworthy?

Why/why not?
To what extent should we avoid offending others?
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#2
I think the entitlement to offend others should be placed under Rights instead of Morality.
It would be more consistence that way.
 
#5
Is this about me? :hohoho:
Nah. I offended some feminists a few days ago, because I quoted the Illiad when Zeus threatened to beat Hera.

They were like "that's not funny take it down before you offend someone or hurt someone's feelings."

And I responded:

A- I laughed. But humor is subjective
B- Can you argue that offensiveness is an inherent evil? (If people are offended by you having sex should you not have sex in order to not offend them?)
C- It wasn't my intent to hurt anyone

A large flame war between me and some angry females ensued.
 

Zero Phoenix

The Second Coming of Hazama
#6
Nah. I offended some feminists a few days ago, because I quoted the Illiad when Zeus threatened to beat Hera.

They were like "that's not funny take it down before you offend someone or hurt someone's feelings."

And I responded:

A- I laughed. But humor is subjective
B- Can you argue that offensiveness is an inherent evil? (If people are offended by you having sex should you not have sex in order to not offend them?)
C- It wasn't my intent to hurt anyone

A large flame war between me and some angry females ensued.

Can't expect much else from uncultured Amazons.
 
#9
I agree with “Kaze's” first post: It would be more concise to discuss rights, as opposed to morality. It is easier to think of whether someone has a legal right to slap you, instead of whether or not it was morally correct. Since, however, you seem more focused on the moral side of things, I shall start there...



Before I begin, I have to make it clear that I am one of those slobs otherwise known as a moral relativist. In other words, I think that what is right, wrong, good., bad, justice, or injustice is relative and up to the individual. Morality lacks an objective justification. As such, there is no objective right and wrong. Of course, this only remains so if a god fails to exist. The second an omnipotent god exists, he can act as an and objective frame-work and give any moral concept a justifiable grounding. As you might have guessed, I am an atheist.



Consequently, I don't believe that, say, the act of walking up to a person and slapping—or even killing them—is inherently wrong in the objective sense. Yes, I view it as detestable. But what good are my words here? The fact is, actions do not naturally hold a moral value of any kind. Nor do concepts, ideas, and the like. Humanity creates these moral values. Without humanity, there wouldn't even be the conceptualization of moral conduct versus immoral or amoral.



That's not to say that I think there should be no concept of right and wrong. I believe that everyone should have their own moral code; and naturally this is going to edge towards the social or biological influences around or in you. However, I accept the fact that nothing is inherently moral or immoral. Such things are merely tags we humans like to slap on various things for the sake of individual needs and social conformity/cohesiveness.



Now, is it you legal right to slap someone, or kill them, or offend them? There is an objective standard to base this answer on; human created, but it exists. Given this, I think that while it may be morally ambivalent to slap someone (Did you have a reason for it? Is there even a right and wrong?), you can safely say that most societies don't give the right to unwarranted violence.
 
#10
I agree with “Kaze's” first post: It would be more concise to discuss rights, as opposed to morality. It is easier to think of whether someone has a legal right to slap you, instead of whether or not it was morally correct. Since, however, you seem more focused on the moral side of things, I shall start there...



Before I begin, I have to make it clear that I am one of those slobs otherwise known as a moral relativist. In other words, I think that what is right, wrong, good., bad, justice, or injustice is relative and up to the individual. Morality lacks an objective justification. As such, there is no objective right and wrong. Of course, this only remains so if a god fails to exist. The second an omnipotent god exists, he can act as an and objective frame-work and give any moral concept a justifiable grounding. As you might have guessed, I am an atheist.



Consequently, I don't believe that, say, the act of walking up to a person and slapping—or even killing them—is inherently wrong in the objective sense. Yes, I view it as detestable. But what good are my words here? The fact is, actions do not naturally hold a moral value of any kind. Nor do concepts, ideas, and the like. Humanity creates these moral values. Without humanity, there wouldn't even be the conceptualization of moral conduct versus immoral or amoral.



That's not to say that I think there should be no concept of right and wrong. I believe that everyone should have their own moral code; and naturally this is going to edge towards the social or biological influences around or in you. However, I accept the fact that nothing is inherently moral or immoral. Such things are merely tags we humans like to slap on various things for the sake of individual needs and social conformity/cohesiveness.



Now, is it you legal right to slap someone, or kill them, or offend them? There is an objective standard to base this answer on; human created, but it exists. Given this, I think that while it may be morally ambivalent to slap someone (Did you have a reason for it? Is there even a right and wrong?), you can safely say that most societies don't give the right to unwarranted violence.
You've claimed a very solid position. . . let's see if I can't chip away at it. No promises I'll succeed, but I do plan to try.

This argument really reminds me of similar arguments in aesthetics . . . you know that age old debate of

"Can there be an aesthetics expert?"
"Can we objectively say that the Taj Mahal is more aesthetically beautiful than the Hello-Kitty theme house?"

I am struck by the wrong-ness or incomplete-ness of the ethical codes of so many. Their ethical failings, in my mind come due to a lack of skill in navigating ethical truths, because understanding ethics can be greatly enhanced by an intelligent analysis of the actions in question. In fact, the question of morality can be claimed to be even more objective than aesthetics, because while it is close to impossible for one person to convince another that music they cherish is aesthetically inferior, it is far more easy to demonstrate and argue that someone's morals are objectively inferior by showing that individual logic that they had not taken into account.

(More people have broken down into tears after realizing their moral failings than people who have been convinced that Mozart wasn't aesthetically good. If morality was relativistic, then why, so often, do people have revelations that their morals were incorrect, after hearing the perspective of another person?)

If no one can be said to have a stronger ethical understanding then why is there such an Overwhelming instinct to say something like "Noam Tromsky" is morally superior to "Enter name of serial rapist here"?

Clearly, the instinct to claim that Noam is superior to a rapist is a strong one. It must derive from something.

Morality, at it's core is an intellectual pursuit. Some people are better equipped for intellectual pursuits than others. Stating something like this when it comes to science and math is not a leap is not controversial, so why would it be controversial here?

I also find myself fumbling with questions like "Can I argue that rape is not objectively immoral?"

With things like murder, robbery, etc, I can imagine hundreds of examples in which those would be morally permissible. But rape? . . . never (Not that I have thoroughly tried lol).

Another point. If morality is truly relativistic as you claim. . . why is it then are children so very often (clearly) morally uniformed. Children often act, ignorant of the moral wrongness of their actions, and clearly, they are "taught" the immorality of their actions by superiors. It is almost universally understood that morality NEEDS to be taught to children.

If morality were relativistic, it couldn't be taught. Yet clearly, children are taught and molded into morality by their parents. That is, I'd argue, because morality is an intellectual problem at it's core, and like any intellectual problem it requires experience and intelligence to unravel.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#11
Finally, some serious points has been raised.

This thread has an inherent double flavors;
- If the opening post were to be taken from philosophical point of view, then this thread stays here.
- If not, then this thread would be more appropriate to be moved to the Lounge where the atmosphere is more lighthearted.

In any case, for now - I'll try to help keep this thread as a philosophic question.



Before we can clarify the issue here, we need to define what is "Morality" first.
Therefore, please give us your understanding of the word.
 
#12
Finally, some serious points has been raised.

This thread has an inherent double flavors;
- If the opening post were to be taken from philosophical point of view, then this thread stays here.
- If not, then this thread would be more appropriate to be moved to the Lounge where the atmosphere is more lighthearted.

In any case, for now - I'll try to help keep this thread as a philosophic question.



Before we can clarify the issue here, we need to define what is "Morality" first.
Therefore, please give us your understanding of the word.
My understanding of morality is that of ethics. Namely, the question: "What ought we to do".

So in that sense, my thread asks the question "Ought we to offend?".

I am, of course, approaching this from a direction of ethical objectivism, which, attempts to describe a system of ethics/morality which would could be applied to all of mankind rather than from only a single PoV or situation.

My fascination with ethical objectivism should explain why I can sometimes be so insufferably moralistic. I take the following of ethical rules to be extremely important.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#13
A Wittgensteinian approach seems adequate in resolving the question posed in the opening post.
If Morality is defined as "What ought we to do?", then the next step for me is to ask these:
- Who are these "we"?
- Why are these "we" entitled to decide on what ought and ought not to do?
 
#14
A Wittgensteinian approach seems adequate in resolving the question posed in the opening post.
If Morality is defined as "What ought we to do?", then the next step for me is to ask these:
- Who are these "we"?
- Why are these "we" entitled to decide on what ought and ought not to do?
We are the entire human race.

It is not an entitlement, but a calling to discover a rule-set which can objectively and comprehensively encapsulate what is right and wrong from an intellectual perspective.
 
#15
To reply to the most important thing first...
Before we can clarify the issue here, we need to define what is "Morality" first. Therefore, please give us your understanding of the word.


Likely the best thing, me thinks...
I am using “morality” in two senses:
1.) The normative sense. As used when I talk about personal morals, convictions, and the like. And...
2.) The descriptive sense: As used when I describe the collective social and cultural moral concepts of certain groups.



Both are openly dynamic in the sense that they are constantly influenced by outside factors and themselves.
When I talk about morals, morality, and what is moral, I mean what people view as “appropriate or inappropriate” within relation to their normative moral codes or the collective descriptive moral codes. In other words, so as not to be trapped in the “bottle”, I am attempting to best use morality in the two ways it is often referred to in common speech. Since you brought up Wittgenstein, I thought it good to throw this in the air ;).



It's nice to see someone shoot a reply my way for once. Someone other than Kaze or Core, that is.
I do, however, find some serious flaws in your logic. Allow me to clarify my position a bit more while refuting some statements you made...



You've claimed a very solid position. . . let's see if I can't chip away at it. No promises I'll succeed, but I do plan to try.


I only ask that you give it an attempt :3 Thank you. My blades are a bit rusty, so this might hurt a little. If done right thought, you shouldn't feel a thing ;)

This argument really reminds me of similar arguments in aesthetics . . . you know that age old debate of
"Can there be an aesthetics expert?"
"Can we objectively say that the Taj Mahal is more aesthetically beautiful than the Hello-Kitty theme house?"


Alas, I noticed that too! However, you should know that my opinions on aesthetics are not at all philosophical. They are neurological and psychological >.<. Either way, I'm a relativist in that regard to.



(More people have broken down into tears after realizing their moral failings than people who have been convinced that Mozart wasn't aesthetically good. If morality was relativistic, then why, so often, do people have revelations that their morals were incorrect, after hearing the perspective of another person?)


Why do some people get into fist-fights when you tell them that J-Pop is crap? Both have strong reactions, neither your example or mine point to anything objective however. A psychopath, moreover, is not likely to be convinced of any moral wrongness. And if he is, and weeps over it, that reaction is subjective in-and-of-itself as well. It doesn't mean he was actually wrong, to be sure. All it suggests is that the person reacted to something. A reaction does not provide logical proof of anything in this case, as both the reaction and the cause can, and likely are, relative.

If no one can be said to have a stronger ethical understanding then why is there such an Overwhelming instinct to say something like "Noam Tromsky" is morally superior to "Enter name of serial rapist here"?


Nothing in moral relativism stops people from holding strong opinions. Some strongly believe that lizard aliens are controlling the world. Does that hint at a truth? Not likely. Even if a moral code is culturally prone, by the way, it is still relative in the sense that it is not based on objective reasoning. Ergo, while most may view Chomsky as a moral genius, and that may be the cultural norm, it does not mean that he actually is. Or that such a idea is anymore moral than any other. It is simply people caring about their opinions.


Clearly, the instinct to claim that Noam is superior to a rapist is a strong one. It must derive from something.


Yeah, an assumption or opinion based on relative views. Value is also a human concept, and is thus just as subjectively inclined as morality.

Morality, at it's core is an intellectual pursuit. Some people are better equipped for intellectual pursuits than others. Stating something like this when it comes to science and math is not a leap is not controversial, so why would it be controversial here?


I am confused what you mean in this above passage. Sorry T.T Could you clarify?

I also find myself fumbling with questions like "Can I argue that rape is not objectively immoral?"

With things like murder, robbery, etc, I can imagine hundreds of examples in which those would be morally permissible. But rape? . . . never (Not that I have thoroughly tried lol).


Some people undoubtedly view rape as moral. Misogynists, for one, could hold this view. It contradicts with my moral code, and with the larger, societal moral code. Both, however, are subjective. I can no more objectively say rape is wrong than I can say “Jazz is better than blues.” what I can say is that rape is a breach of the unseen, social contract, and that it infringes upon the legal rights of the victim. Thoroughly much better than saying that it is “Morally wrong”.

Another point. If morality is truly relativistic as you claim. . . why is it then are children so very often (clearly) morally uniformed. Children often act, ignorant of the moral wrongness of their actions, and clearly, they are "taught" the immorality of their actions by superiors. It is almost universally understood that morality NEEDS to be taught to children.


This actually helps prove my point. If morality was innate and natural, it would be present the second the kid popped out of the slot. It's not. The child needs to grow up in the environment to learn the local and cultural morals. What's more, if the kid were raised in one place, he would likely have different views of right or wrong. Take adultery for example. In most Western countries, it is viewed as extremely immoral. Yet in Eskimo societies, wife-sharing is viewed as perfectly normal for a single (Or multiple) instance. Depending on which environment the kid was raised in, he would adopt a differing set of morals. Even if they conflict. Ergo: morality is relative.

If morality were relativistic, it couldn't be taught. Yet clearly, children are taught and molded into morality by their parents. That is, I'd argue, because morality is an intellectual problem at it's core, and like any intellectual problem it requires experience and intelligence to unravel.


Morality is reality and thus has to be taught. As my above argument shows, this is really in support of my thesis.



For what's worth, your argument somewhat reminded me of the ontological argument for the existence of god... Not sure why, but it seemed structured the same in a not-so-apparent way x] Perhaps I haven't drank enough tea is all.
 
#16
I apologize for not arguing conventionally. I feel though, as if what I'm saying is not being understood in the spirit in which I mean it. . . as if our brains are wired differently.

Imagine, if you would, the perfect universal moral code. This code exists as an ideal. . . as an abstract. Obviously, this code is not designed to fit a culture, because then it would cease being universally applicable. When I mean universally applicable, I mean exactly that: Universally applicable.

As in, if we found humans on mars, whose culture, in no way, resembled our own. . . that this perfect universal moral code would apply to them in the same respect that it applies to us. I'm not saying that they would agree with the code. That's not what I mean by applicability.

This code also is not something that exists within humans (as in, it is not an organic emotional reaction). It exists only in potential, in abstract, and it often violates our natural reaction. That is what I mean when I say the pursuit of morality is an intellectual one.

I was born with a yearning for this code stamped into my subconscious, a desire to find objective morality a perfect moral standard. I am not claiming, by any means, that I hold such a code. . . only that I am in hot and constant pursuit of it.

"we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.
In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow."


-Noam Chromsky

Now the question of this thread becomes (at least from my own understanding of this potential moral code), "If we set out to make a universal standard for morality that crosses all boundaries of culture and experience. . . where would offensiveness fit into such a standard. Would This ideal moral framework condemn it or allow it?

My knee-jerk reaction is to answer "Considering the subjective nature of offensiveness any conceivable act, no matter how harmless or even how beneficial could be potentially be viewed as offensive. Therefore, an objective moral code would not assign blameworthiness to the evocation of offense in another unless it is in direct violation of a higher moral imperative (through causal relationship)."

However, I would most likely conceed that "intentionally evoking offense in the pursuit of maliciousness" would probably fall under the evil of maleficence and under the objective framework be considered blameworthy.

This is what I mean when I say I am an insufferable moralist.
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#17
For instances like this, I would refer to Aristotelian ethics and rule utilitarianism. According to these two philosophies, it would in fact be unethical to offend one another, as they do not contribute to the greatest number of happiness. Given that morality is a tad bit subjective, an ethical standpoint would be the closest i would get to offering anything of substance to this debate.
 
#19
How do you know that this rule-set exist?
It exists in abstract as an ideal. . . it is not morality as an "is" but it is a morality as a "should be". Even if it's impossible to achieve it is not impossible to strive for. Something need not ever have existed to be striven for.

I also try to the greatest extent of my abilities to govern my actions in such a way. When I act, i ask myself "Is this action morally acceptable from an objective standpoint?" and then think deeply on the subject.

It is how I live my life.

Why would I want to give in to my emotions and subscribe my own subjective standards of morality upon others? Does it not make sense to seek an objective morality that is superior and fairly governs people from any background?
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#20
It exists in abstract, even if it's impossible to achieve it is not impossible to strive for.

I also try to the greatest extent of my abilities to govern my actions in such a way. When I act, i ask myself "Is this action morally acceptable from an objective standpoint?" and then think deeply on the subject.

It is a way of living, honestly.
In order for your thesis to be true, the rule-set must innately exist within each of us and its existence can be distinguished with our personal feelings, interpretations or prejudiced - therefore why it is objective.

But I am not aware of either of these, can you explain why?