 |
||||||||
|
1/03/2003 02:10:00 AM | Timothy Offensive baby talk? Jon says he answered the question about babies below, but is our revulsion at baby flesh eating really dependent on brain diseases and Garg's running speed? Jon's account is utilitarian and a case could be made that no one is hurt by eating dead babies. How does allowing the eating of stillborn babies lead to the downfall of the social order in which people actively kill each other? Continuing the ridiculousness, what if we only allow the eating of people who weren't killed? If we're only utilitarian, wouldn't regulation of baby flesh eating help eliminate baby meat tainted with brain diseases? Is my suggested opposition to baby flesh eating on the basis of dignity coherent? (No one has addressed whether Channel's 4 broadcast of a picture of an artist eating a baby somehow also upset the dignity of the baby, or offends our sensibilities and morals like the artist themselves did.) Let's talk about race... Perhaps it not best to follow comments about eating baby flesh with a post about the old topic of offensiveness! My thoughts aren't complete, but I'll post what I have, as Jon Eisenman shed a few tears earlier (and below) when I didn?t respond to his post on 'ghetto party, the sequel' (brought up by Kumar. I had said: "somehow we have to figure out the spirit in which we should approach claims of being justifiably offended." Jon responded: "Statements can be wrong or right without a criterion for offensive/inoffensive. Should blacks be offended by this statement? Well, I wouldn't be offended if Trent Lott said Jews should be made into soap. I would find the remark, even in light of recent (circa 60 years) history, to be ridiculous, misguided, and stupid, but it wouldn't offend me. Would I exercise my right to free speech in vocally resisting this idea? Yes. But it wouldn't be on the grounds that it's "offensive." It would be on the grounds that it's "wrong." So I think if someone wants to show that the adoption of speech patterns by white suburbanites is wrong, they are not doing it by showing that it is offensive. They will need to show that just the vocalization of those words causes harm (I'll take mental harm, too) to blacks." I'm a little confused by Jon's statement. He has a rather black and white view of things: things are either wrong or not wrong. Apparently we replace the word 'offensive' with 'wrong' with no problem at all: the only 'offensive' things that should be condemned are ones that are flat out 'wrong': all other offensive things are not 'wrong' and merely refer to people's feelings getting hurt, making the category of 'offensive' unnecessary and even harmful. Part of my 'philosophy', or rather the spirit in which I tend to think we should approach these things, is that what is 'offensive' or not is not simply always 'right' or 'wrong' but comes through conversation and moral learning, learning that involves talking with other people and groups and hearing their perspectives. I?m not trying to be a relativist, but to say that moral progress often comes as a result of learning experiences and from facts and views we couldn?t have known about beforehand. It's nice Jon's mother told him not to take offense, but we can learn lessons from each other and not just our parents? perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.