Home > Society & Lifestyle > Morals, Values & Norms > Social Values & Norms
Do humans have the right to offend?
Results so far:
| No | 45% | 460 votes | Total: 1033 votes | |
| Yes | 55% | 573 votes |
No
by Rosemary Redfern
Created on: December 02, 2010 Last Updated: December 03, 2010
To offend is to go against the accepted norms of a society. It might be breaking the law or being unpleasant to someone else. Breaking the law comes under one category, unpleasantness comes under another. We have rights to protect us from the illegal actions of others. Consideration should protect us from unpleasantness.
With rights come responsibilities. There is much emphasis on rights these days but little mention of responsibilities.
Offending comes in many forms. It might be a deliberate insult or it might be an accidental comment or action which is misinterpreted by the recipient. Because we all think differently, attribute different meanings to words and actions, are considering other things or mishear, it is easy for offense to be taken where, perhaps, none was meant. It is the subject of much comedy, amusing from the outside, uncomfortable on the inside.
Part of the ability to offend comes with the issue of trying to be the most important person. The feelings of others are ignored, as long as the speaker or activist feels they are making the point they want. There is a strong human drive to be the alpha person.
Because humans come with many cultural beliefs and experiences, not only national but within groups inside the borders of a country, there are many versions of behavior which is acceptable. When another does not know what someone else feels is polite within their cultural ambiance it is easy to cause offense. At the same time if someone from the same culture feels slighted by another, a deliberate rudeness can be a retaliation for a perceived offense. There are no rules to stop this behavior beyond good manners.
A responsibility we all have to make our societies run smoothly is good manners. The definition is ‘to cause no embarrassment to another’. If we lack respect for another person we might feel it is our right to break this responsibility and be offensive to that person. We might have a grudge against someone and feel we can decry them at every opportunity. To destroy another’s reputation is malicious. What is not perceived by the offender is that while they may achieve their objective of damaging another, they are diminished by their hatred. Inside they know they are failures.
To ask if humans have a right to offend is a fair question, but the answer lies not in what is said and done but in how the words and actions are interpreted by the recipient. Sometimes it is difficult to establish a common language, thought process or understanding with another person or group. Then offense is easy to do because there is a willingness to misinterpret.
Learn more about this author, Rosemary Redfern.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
by Lucius Trae
Created on: October 11, 2010
Democratic societies are founded on a variety of principles, one of which advocates the maximization of individual freedom. Freedom is restricted, however, in cases that it is deemed necessary to do so. The clearest cases are those involving violence towards others; no one has the freedom to violently harm innocent people, for example. If harm is a reason to consider restricting human freedom, many people have thought "offense" should fall under the category of a legitimate freedom.
As philosophers like John Stuart Mill have pointed out, this is a problematic view. It is necessary that society promote tolerance towards the thoughts and activities of others. If someone decides to burn a flag, for instance, they might be making a political statement. Is it necessary to desecrate a flag? Probably not, but that is coming from someone who doesn't engage in such activities. Those who do may feel it is necessary to be offensive in order to be noticed and heard; they may be wrong, but we can't always be certain that's the case.
Most people wouldn't be harmed if some laws were established against offense. The burning of flags, religious texts, desecration of sacred objects, etc. These are all examples of things people hold in high regard - though not all people. In many cases, people seem to offend people for no reason. The majority of people engaging in these "shock" tactics are doing it for money, and they'll often be open about that. Someone might argue that offending people is typically done for juvenille reasons.
While that may be true, it's also true that society changes over time. As history shows us, people have introduced controversial ideas that were met with social criticism. When these ideas were able to spread throughout a given society, people worked towards bringing about positive changes. The civil rights movement could be considered such an example. However, the freedom to offend people also applied to organizations like the KKK, which have had a considerably high presence at various historical moments. Given that democracies tend to produce decisions favored by the average person, there will inevitably be a problem. There is no means for people to distinguish between outdated beliefs and brilliant ideas with certainty. People may censor a brilliant mind because the person says things people find offensive that are nonetheless true. Even the intellectual "elite," if it exists, makes mistakes. Part of accepting offensive behavior is recognizing one's own fallibility.
America is a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. In fact, it's arguable that America ensures more freedom of speech than the average democratic society. This isn't because America is more advanced, necessarily. A variety of European countries, for instance, have laws against hate speech (Canada does as well). Some countries have made Holocaust denial illegal. That seems reasonable, perhaps, but the supporter of "the right to offend" is wary of setting a precedent. What criteria can be used to ensure only bad or false ideas are censored? And even if such a criteria is found, is it justified to censor others? That is another debate entirely, though it generally fails to engage interest since the "criteria" in question isn't sufficiently established within law.
Learn more about this author, Lucius Trae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley