tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5989132581339257240..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The utilitarianism of ridiculeLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-64967000549450611512015-01-24T04:53:53.984-07:002015-01-24T04:53:53.984-07:00Just to recap, Matthew...
I am in agreement with ...Just to recap, Matthew...<br /><br />I am in agreement with you: every action that is immediately harmful, and every action that we have good reason to believe might have indirect harmful consequences must be used carefully: we need to have good positive reasons, both in general and in particular, to believe that the eventual good outweighs the immediate and potential harm.<br /><br />My point here is basic: first, that the immediate and potential harm do not <i>necessarily</i> render the technique of ridicule morally unacceptable, and definitely the fact that one is ridiculing <i>religion</i> does not by itself render religious ridicule unacceptable.<br /><br />You bring up a lot of important details of the particular situation in your comments, and I don't want to give the impression that your details are unimportant: they are of the highest importance. I suspect that overall, the case for a lot of ridicule of Islam is still justified despite those details, but I have not yet made that argument, so I cannot expect to convince you of my underlying thesis.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-22921060597121487492015-01-23T18:03:02.825-07:002015-01-23T18:03:02.825-07:00Can ideas, themselves, ever possibly be harmful? I...<i>Can ideas, themselves, ever possibly be harmful? It's only the actions that result from those ideas that actually cause harm, no?</i><br /><br />Well, sure. But ideas are real, material things, and they have causal properties. It's a metaphorical but seemingly unproblematic usage to say "this is harmful" to mean "this has harmful effects."Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-70211817966107583842015-01-23T09:03:59.303-07:002015-01-23T09:03:59.303-07:00Wait a sec, what am I saying? Can ideas, themselv...Wait a sec, what am I saying? Can ideas, themselves, ever possibly be harmful? It's only the actions that result from those ideas that actually cause harm, no?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-41939774931870908652015-01-22T07:27:39.902-07:002015-01-22T07:27:39.902-07:00I think we mostly agree. I'll just note that ...I think we mostly agree. I'll just note that when I think about moral principles, I try to think about them with the understanding that we all have blind spots, we all have gaps in our knowledge, understanding, or sympathies. We all have cultural assumptions and prejudices. We're all fallible. I agree, for example, that homophobes are factually wrong, but to me, the object of moral philosophy is to develop a better way of living with others despite our inherent fallibility. We're all wrong about something. <br /><br />I'm fortunate to know some wonderful, kind, thoughtful & intelligent people who are also Muslim. If I were to ridicule the Muslim religion, I would focus on ridiculing the *ideas* that are harmful, and be careful to do so in a way that doesn't perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice that I know many Muslims face in this country.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-21124582769151330212015-01-21T05:34:08.974-07:002015-01-21T05:34:08.974-07:00It's just that there's a greater level of ...<i>It's just that there's a greater level of responsibility to consciously avoid the reinforcement of stereotypes, and especially the demonizing or dehumanizing of any minority group.</i><br /><br />Agreed. Definitely, ridicule is often used <i>just</i> to harm; and purely harmful uses are clearly wrong. And ridicule can be misused, with sincere intent to do good, but without good effect, which is again clearly mistaken or negligent, and therefore wrong.<br /><br />The question is, however, whether ridicule is, in certain circumstances, always so problematic that its use in those circumstances is so often wrong that its use is categorically unjustified.<br /><br /><i>Homophobes tend to think LGBTQ people have a choice.</i><br /><br />But they're factually wrong.<br /><br /><i>Immigrants usually emigrate more out of necessity (economic or even physical danger) than out of any real choice.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but it is not always the case that they immigrate to the country that's causing their move. (Latin American emigration to the US being a notable exception).<br /><br /><i>[T]hat which a person from a dominant cultural group sees as relatively harmless and justified ridicule of a minority group is often far more harmful than they imagine.</i><br /><br />Harmless ridicule is, I think, a contradiction in terms. The point of ridicule (when it is not simple assholiness) is at the least severe to shock the victims, and at most severe to delegitimize them, both of which are <i>a priori</i> harmful. (I do not think ridicule should ever be used <i>just</i> to be "funny" except between people who are personally very close.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54792887046770587592015-01-20T06:43:38.962-07:002015-01-20T06:43:38.962-07:00Also, FWIW, I agree with you that the killing of t...Also, FWIW, I agree with you that the killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists represents not just an offense against the general prohibition against killing, but a real loss for the world.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-40476602679209113612015-01-20T06:34:17.400-07:002015-01-20T06:34:17.400-07:00This post sets me on edge. The issue, for me, is ...This post sets me on edge. The issue, for me, is not about the ridicule of religion, per se, but the ridicule of any minority group by members of a dominant group in a given region. Which isn't to say that minority groups should be immune from ridicule. It's just that there's a greater level of responsibility to consciously avoid the reinforcement of stereotypes, and especially the demonizing or dehumanizing of any minority group. <br /><br />Does all ridicule reinforce stereotypes, or demonize or dehumanize its subjects? No, certainly not. But when a person in a dominant cultural group ridicules a minority group, they tend to be less aware of the stereotypes and prejudices that the targets of their ridicule face, and less aware of the harm they might be contributing to, not just in terms of the short-term hurt feelings of the members of that minority, but also in terms of the long- and short-term consequences of stereotypes, prejudice, demonization and dehumanization. <br /><br />Ridicule can contribute to a general social climate of hate, intolerance, and violence against members of a minority group. This is true regardless of whether people are members of that minority group by choice or by circumstance. <br /><br />The whole issue you make of choice is a sticky wicket. Homophobes tend to think LGBTQ people have a choice. Immigrants usually emigrate more out of necessity (economic or even physical danger) than out of any real choice. And religion, for many people, is synonymous with culture and family background. And that which a person from a dominant cultural group sees as relatively harmless and justified ridicule of a minority group is often far more harmful than they imagine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-32569384567294498412015-01-19T08:17:53.555-07:002015-01-19T08:17:53.555-07:00Thanks for the thoughtful (as ever) discussion. It...Thanks for the thoughtful (as ever) discussion. It did occur to me though that there is a very real immediate positive result of ridicule, which is missed when only taking into account the ridiculer and ridiculee: if someone expounds a claim that is portrayed as being entirely reasonable, though in fact isn't, then ridicule can inform the onlookers of the fact that the claim is not in fact universally seen as entirely reasonable. This means that an act of ridicule can - potentially - have an immediate and large effect on public perception of a given claim (and/or person).<br /><br />This still of course involves the immediate negative harmful effect of ridicule, but it pairs it with a (potentially much larger - depending on the specifics) positive effect.Alain Van Houthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14413623255587280299noreply@blogger.com