Is calling a black person an n-word objectively offensive? what if that person is a white supremacist? Would s/he still agree it’s offensive?
Is pornography objectively offensive? most in US society don’t think it is. Is swearing offensive? again, it’s subjective.
So why make a big deal of causing offence, when it’s purely subjective as to what constitutes offence?
Because you want to affect people in such a way that the offensive act(s) stop. Condemnation is emotional persuasion. Any creature of empathy is going to be affected by emotional persuasions.
why should they stop? we act for ourselves, not others.
I care about others. What other people feel affects how I feel. And I don’t think I am alone on that.
Basic stuff.
indoz, why are you trying so hard to show that so much is subjective?
Thought and philosophies may be subjective–but the consequences of thought can be very objective. They can result in murder, cruelty, a demeaning attitude, war, genocide, etc.–all sorts of examples of man’s inhumanity to man. Isn’t it more beneficial to choose to live a life based on subjective thoughts that don’t lead to objective violence?
I will only address part of the answer, for there are a few parts.
One of the forms of behavior that is promoted in social structures is that an individual is not responible for how they react to the environment. This holding of environmentals, especially others, for how we react is deeply enforced. This has to do with the lack of awareness that we, as mind, do have a job to do and nobody else is responsible for doing it. From religioon and gods, to governments and family, there is this lack of “self-awareness.” This is one of the elements of lack of self-awareness, when we do not take tesponsibility for not only our own actions, but our own reactions as well.
So, you asked a particular question, which should lead to the the universal question of self. My entire project, which I post in audio-books, ebooks, videos, on language and reasoning, etc, is aimed to this end. What am I and what is the right way to be.
Most of what I do is not understood because people really do not pursue the time in work to understand even how to think or reason.
Now, some time ago, when I was studying within the Lucid Dreamstate, I asked your question this way, “Why is there subjective identification with reality?”
This was my answer. I was standing in state and asked the question, lighting was normal. Suddenly there was a blinding white light, so intense I could not even shut it out by closing my eyes. It scared me so much I tried to run, but I could not escape it. Then the light dimmed and I could see a field of tall flowers. Now the beauty of it pleased me and I went to play in the fieid and lost my awareness in state.
We are composed of two elements, emotion and reason. Too much of one and we cannot live. Too much of the other and we cannot live. One should study Plato’s model of the psyche, for one will eventually see a third element. We as self are not our reasoning, nor are we our emotion. We are something unseen something we cannot sense behind the two, effecting how the two come together and make our daily expressions. From this we can see levels of awareness ranges in man. Most are very unaware, some tend towards reason, others towards emotion. We should graduate to be aware of the self not as something senses, but as a hole where we can sense what is around it, but not in it, there in that darkness we will never see, is the I. And we improve the I, by learning how to correctly bring together what the I is not, reason and emotion.
The condemning is also subjective, even if it’s presented as objective. Democracy is simply direct or indirect legislation by a majority of subjects.
Anything is acceptable in life, I don’t really care.
Of course, as all things are subjective. so what?
The problem you raise here—of a big deal being made of causing offence—is only subjectively problematic. And isn’t the idea that all things are subjective only a subjective idea?
All human beings have a unique conception of life, it’s a fact not opinion.
Okay, that takes care of my question. But it’s not a fact that people’s making a big deal of causing offense is problematic.
If someone wants to cause offence then that is their call, but they have to be prepared for the consequences that that action may cause… is a simple equation.
It’s unlikely the black person is a white supremacist. But that said, white supremacists get offended by a whole host of things. I am not sure there is anyone who doesn’t not objectify their being offended. So I don’t think anyone can defend their offensive behavior on this ground.
Because people make a big deal about things that piss them off. Just like they do when people hit them.
Objectively, of course not, because it’s a matter of both intention on the one end and of interpretation on the other. Even if a majority of people would associate the word as instantly being offensive, regardless, it doesn’t point to any evidence of objectivity - only rigidity in a lot of people’s beliefs.
A big deal is made because it’s a relational phenomenon, not a philosophical exercise of the true nature of meaning. Not very many people are very adept at handling being criticized or dismissive beliefs and actions of others as it pertains to them. When, over time, a large amount of people use a word in a derogatory fashion, a strong association is made that continues to be supported by culture. Maybe it shouldn’t really be a big deal, but the fact is that people make it one, so it is.
I thought this was nicely thought out and worded.
Hitting someone in the face with a baseball bat is also not objectively wrong. But it is, as you say, a relational phenomenon, and one that is likely to generate anger in those who survive it. They will be offended by the idea that they deserved it - if they were, say, just walking down the street.
As offence is subjective, and logically anything can offend, then it stands to reason that curbing offence makes no sense. Perhaps people should take it if others offend them.
A big deal is made because it’s a relational phenomenon, not a philosophical exercise of the true nature of meaning. Not very many people are very adept at handling being criticized or dismissive beliefs and actions of others as it pertains to them. When, over time, a large amount of people use a word in a derogatory fashion, a strong association is made that continues to be supported by culture. Maybe it shouldn’t really be a big deal, but the fact is that people make it one, so it is.
[/quote]
Relational phenomenon? Hmm… isn’t a good “relational phenomenon” accepting that others will behave as they behave, and one shouldn’t get riled up by “offence”?
You asked why make a big deal over causing offense, and I answered that, regardless of rationalizations regarding the nature of offense being subjective, it’s a big deal because it is concerning relations between people, and, as such, it isn’t bound by logic, but simply how certain people perceive something to mean.
I agree that acceptance of others in this sense would be a great stance to have, but I don’t see how that could be defined as a “relational phenomenon” when a relational phenomenon would be something that occurs between two or more people. You could say that this attitude is a great way of approaching relating with others.
The idea is that a lot of other people might not see eye to eye with you. Hence offense being a big deal.
Well, my basic point is:
So why stop offence, if any action can offend?