Taking Offense
How is my lifestyle choice anybody else's business?
If I'm not involving minors or coercing anybody or exploiting the vulnerable, if I'm not hurting you or anybody else (Sure we can get into a philosophical argument about whether you can or should be able intervene in my "hurting" myself*).
You say it offends your sense of morality or religion? Most religions and moral philosophies of my acquaintance espouse a tenet that is some variation of the Golden Rule: Basically, treat others as you would prefer to be treated.
Hard to imagine you'd want someone else evaluating your actions based on a set of principles you didn't subscribe to and judging you as somehow unworthy of participation in society or deserving of ostracism, punishment, banishment, or worse being less than human and perhaps deserving of death.
Or maybe you say it offends you personally? Now that starts to stray into "snowflake" territory. We have many rights guaranteed by our Constitution and there are other "rights" that come to us by participation in civil society.
But in a free and open society that espouses principles of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship (or not to), everyone is granted some specific rights; but among those rights is most emphatically not a right never to feel offended.
If I'm not involving minors or coercing anybody or exploiting the vulnerable, if I'm not hurting you or anybody else (Sure we can get into a philosophical argument about whether you can or should be able intervene in my "hurting" myself*).
You say it offends your sense of morality or religion? Most religions and moral philosophies of my acquaintance espouse a tenet that is some variation of the Golden Rule: Basically, treat others as you would prefer to be treated.
Hard to imagine you'd want someone else evaluating your actions based on a set of principles you didn't subscribe to and judging you as somehow unworthy of participation in society or deserving of ostracism, punishment, banishment, or worse being less than human and perhaps deserving of death.
Or maybe you say it offends you personally? Now that starts to stray into "snowflake" territory. We have many rights guaranteed by our Constitution and there are other "rights" that come to us by participation in civil society.
But in a free and open society that espouses principles of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship (or not to), everyone is granted some specific rights; but among those rights is most emphatically not a right never to feel offended.
Offense comes from within. No one can offend you without your assent and cooperation.
Despite moans to the contrary, no one is forcing you to feel or believe anything against your will, you just aren't allowed to make others lives miserable because of your beliefs and feeling offended.
Say I find quadriplegics offensive (and don't kid yourself, there are those who apparently feel such folks should be institutionalized or worse..."drains on society", and all...)
Further, say I'm also a merchant who sells...oh, I don't know...wedding cakes? Should I then be permitted to refuse service to a quadriplegic person who's marrying their high school sweetheart?
Some might say yes, I should be able to refuse such service. If the culture disagrees with their stance the penalty for doing that will be disapproval and loss of business, possibly even to failure. Some say that should be sufficient deterrent.
The arc of history shows us that waiting for such outcomes to arise merely from cultural shifts is sometimes inadequate to the situation.
Southern slavery might have ended of its own accord eventually due to cultural shifts. Similarly, segregation might have.
Sometimes though, it seems maybe the dissonance between what we believed ourselves to be as a people, and what we saw in practice, just didn't add up and something had to give.
*Beyond some hackneyed questions of conventional morality, at what point does my self harm end up harming others because I end up requiring resources to ameliorate the consequences of my self harm.
If someone rides a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up with a serious head injury are they allowed to suffer because they chose not to take the precaution? How much precaution is sufficient? Who decides?
Do we take the stance of "you made your bed..." and leave such folks without ANY resources? Are there degrees and levels? Are some forms worse than others (e.g. overeating, medical self-neglect vs. tobacco smoke vs. alcohol/drug abuse)?
Some might say yes, I should be able to refuse such service. If the culture disagrees with their stance the penalty for doing that will be disapproval and loss of business, possibly even to failure. Some say that should be sufficient deterrent.
The arc of history shows us that waiting for such outcomes to arise merely from cultural shifts is sometimes inadequate to the situation.
Southern slavery might have ended of its own accord eventually due to cultural shifts. Similarly, segregation might have.
Sometimes though, it seems maybe the dissonance between what we believed ourselves to be as a people, and what we saw in practice, just didn't add up and something had to give.
*Beyond some hackneyed questions of conventional morality, at what point does my self harm end up harming others because I end up requiring resources to ameliorate the consequences of my self harm.
If someone rides a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up with a serious head injury are they allowed to suffer because they chose not to take the precaution? How much precaution is sufficient? Who decides?
Do we take the stance of "you made your bed..." and leave such folks without ANY resources? Are there degrees and levels? Are some forms worse than others (e.g. overeating, medical self-neglect vs. tobacco smoke vs. alcohol/drug abuse)?
Comments
Post a Comment