• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Being Offended by Something Grounds to Claim Being Harmed by it?

Is being offended by something sufficient grounds to claim being harmed by it?


  • Total voters
    46

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Is being offended by something sufficient grounds to claim being harmed by it? Is it sufficient grounds to claim being oppressed by it? Why or why not?

The question thus comes down to what kinds of opinion, if any, can be morally or ethically suppressed?

Over a hundred years ago, John Stuart Mill provided what I regard as a sound answer to that question. The example he used to make his point involved the English corn merchants. They were the bankers of his day. The merchants were often reviled, especially by poor people. Poor people perceived that the merchants frequently manipulated the market to drive prices up, making corn unaffordable to many, and had much to say about the fact. In turn, the merchants took offense at the things said about them, and sought to have such speech criminalized. Mill came to the defense of free speech by arguing that no one had a right to suppress opinions on the mere basis that such opinions were offensive to them, for to be offended was not to suffer actual harm. Only if someone’s speech was an incitement to do actual harm to someone could it be morally suppressed.

I follow Mill in believing that offense is not a basis for suppressing someone’s opinions. However, the obvious counter to that position is to argue that offense is actually harmful to the offended party. And that is what the American philosopher Joel Feinberg did in the 1980’s.

Feinberg argued that a person’s opinions can cause embarrassment, shame, fear, revulsion, shock, and so forth, in other people, and that those feelings can amount to actual harm done. He therefore urged that Mill’s “harm principle” be replaced with his “offense principle”.

Feinberg’s illiberal views seem to have been picked up on mostly by the radical Left. So far as I’ve heard, on many college campuses today, the notion that opinions which cause someone offense are actually injurious to them has largely prevailed over Mill’s harm principle.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Voted "Yes" (after changing my vote a few times).

This hinges as to whether we define harm as physical or psychological injury. words do hurt, as a form of psychological abuse. I am however uncertain as to whether this is in itself a case for censorship given the nature of the precedent it sets. it is clearly desireable that racist, sexist and homophobic language be eliminated, but this entails a "cultural revolution" of the sort Mao would think of. it means reverting to an anti-secular view of the state as perscribing an ideology for its population, where equality is not simple stated in law, but is enforced by ideological controls.

I'm having alot of difficulty at the moment over whether I can respect for all forms of "free speech", including hate speech, as it is directly contary to goals of social and cultural equality. it is however clearly a totalitarian measure.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Voted "Yes" (after changing my vote a few times).

This hinges as to whether we define harm as physical or psychological injury. words do hurt, as a form of psychological abuse. I am however uncertain as to whether this is in itself a case for censorship given the nature of the precedent it sets. it is clearly desireable that racist, sexist and homophobic language be eliminated, but this entails a "cultural revolution" of the sort Mao would think of. it means reverting to an anti-secular view of the state as perscribing an ideology for its population, where equality is not simple stated in law, but is enforced by ideological controls.

I'm having alot of difficulty at the moment over whether I can respect for all forms of "free speech", including hate speech, as it is directly contary to goals of social and cultural equality. it is however clearly a totalitarian measure.

As I see it, the issue is whether people can be harmed merely by speech that gives them offense. In other words, whether offense amounts to a measure or metric of harm. If that's so, what is to prevent me from suing you for daring to suggest that I am not the most handsome man on the planet, given how deeply it grieves and offends me to hear your opinion?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I agree with Mill on the issue, and unless something is calling for harm to another, then it shouldn't be censored, and things should always be put into context. Although I don't really consider it a liberal approach, but rather a common sense approach, because if you don't like something or someone the worst thing you can do is demonize and call for censorship, because the more you do the more it sells, and the more we want it.
Myself, having to deal with some "bothersome" opinions and thoughts, and being able to count on being used as a punchline by the media, it makes no sense to whine and complain about it. It gets nothing done, but people notice, and it does have the potential to make them have a stronger negative opinion. However, as history often shows, the only way for things to really change is for a targeted group to unite, become more normal throughout society, and demand better treatment. But of course, some people do need to learn how to take a joke.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that being ignored is much more offensive to me than a bad opinion of me. So can we outlaw ignore along with the giving of offence? Pretty please?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I get insulted all the time here.
Harmed by this?
Nah.....it's good for blood circulation.
I often have fun wondering about what the person is doing while they're posting some of the stuff, and wondering what sort of person it takes to post some of the stuff that is posted here.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I voted 'Yes'. There seems little doubt to me that one can be harmed by words. The bigger issue for me is what, then, is the implication and action we should take?
We seem in very real danger of 'fixing' harmful speech, and killing free speech.

0e459b8.jpg
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I voted 'Yes'. There seems little doubt to me that one can be harmed by words. The bigger issue for me is what, then, is the implication and action we should take?
We seem in very real danger of 'fixing' harmful speech, and killing free speech.

0e459b8.jpg
There is a big difference between being offended which is what I think this thread is about and offending someone. If the offence is done for the purpose of offending then I agree it is wrong. Many times telling the truth is offensive and I think that kind of offence is not wrong. I think in that case being offended is wrong.

On the forum, there is a master offender but I think he always tells the truth. I am not hurt by his words though sometimes they hurt a little.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Is being offended by something sufficient grounds to claim being harmed by it? Is it sufficient grounds to claim being oppressed by it? Why or why not?

The question thus comes down to what kinds of opinion, if any, can be morally or ethically suppressed?

Over a hundred years ago, John Stuart Mill provided what I regard as a sound answer to that question. The example he used to make his point involved the English corn merchants. They were the bankers of his day. The merchants were often reviled, especially by poor people. Poor people perceived that the merchants frequently manipulated the market to drive prices up, making corn unaffordable to many, and had much to say about the fact. In turn, the merchants took offense at the things said about them, and sought to have such speech criminalized. Mill came to the defense of free speech by arguing that no one had a right to suppress opinions on the mere basis that such opinions were offensive to them, for to be offended was not to suffer actual harm. Only if someone’s speech was an incitement to do actual harm to someone could it be morally suppressed.

I follow Mill in believing that offense is not a basis for suppressing someone’s opinions. However, the obvious counter to that position is to argue that offense is actually harmful to the offended party. And that is what the American philosopher Joel Feinberg did in the 1980’s.

Feinberg argued that a person’s opinions can cause embarrassment, shame, fear, revulsion, shock, and so forth, in other people, and that those feelings can amount to actual harm done. He therefore urged that Mill’s “harm principle” be replaced with his “offense principle”.

Feinberg’s illiberal views seem to have been picked up on mostly by the radical Left. So far as I’ve heard, on many college campuses today, the notion that opinions which cause someone offense are actually injurious to them has largely prevailed over Mill’s harm principle.
No, not a chance. "Harm", according to every source and dictionary I've looked at, refers specifically to physical harm.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The verb, not the noun, was used in the OP. What definition is given for the verb.
: to cause hurt, injury, or damage to (someone or something) : to cause harm to (someone or something)

Whenever I am insulted on the forum I really do feel hurt. But I am not offended. Hopefully I get better at doing what I do.
 
Top