THE IMPORTANCE OF TOLERATING OFFENSE

SHANE D. COURTLANDASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PHILOSOPHYDIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY

ON LIBERTY

JOHN STUART MILL – (1806-1879) Publishes On Liberty in 1860 “That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are

warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (13)

FREE DISCUSSION “[T]here ought to exist the fullest liberty of

professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” (n19)

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (20)

FREE DISCUSSION

Reasons: “If the opinion is right, they are

deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth” (20)

“if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” (20)

ASSUMPTION OF INFALLIBILITY“First the opinion which it is attempted to

suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (20-1)

HOW TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE

The Pepsi Challenge

DEAD DOGMA VS. LIVING TRUTH

“Waiving, however, this possibility — assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument — this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.” (37)

THE

“Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain.” (24-5)

SO WHAT?

Obviously, at a university, we are against censorship!

Not so fast, it has become acceptable to silence other people/views that are deemed as offensive

WHERE CENSORSHIP COMES FROM

There is a common presumption that censorship comes from civil and/or ecclesiastical authority (state or church)

But –ignored is that such censorship is usually backed large mobs of people “But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society

collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.…[T]here needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.”  (8)

FAHRENHEIT 451 “It didn’t come from the government down. There was no

dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!” (58) “You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we

can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right?…Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, to the incinerator.” (59)

50th anniversary edition, Bradbury writes: “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches.” (176-7)

CENSORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Under the pretense of “being offended” students (and some faculty):Sought to get people firedDisinvited speakers

(https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2014/)

Shouted down speakers Tried to change rules/regulations to

silence others

CENSORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

WHY DOES THIS MATTER? The Millian reasons we just discussed Presupposes the infallibility that Mill warns us about:“[J]ust who is supposed to decide what speech is ‘bigoted’ and what speech is merely ‘critical.’ Why is that a ‘bigoted suggestion rather than an unpopular opinion? What’s the difference? And who is to say? The anti-bigotry people never approach the question directly, because doing so would show them up. The answer is : we, the right thinking, are the one’s who will say who is and isn’t bigoted. Whenever anyone says that bigoted or offensive or victimizing or oppressing or vicious opinions should be suppressed, all he is really saying is, ‘Opinions which I hate should be suppressed.’” (Rauch 134-5) (emphasis added)

ADDITIONAL REASONS TO TOLERATE OFFENSE

Epictetus – “Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must believe that you are being harmed. If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation. Which is why it is essential that we not respond impulsively to impressions; take a moment before reacting, and you will find it is easier to maintain control.” (Enchiridion)

Marcus Aurelius -- “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him.” (Meditations)

ADDITIONAL REASONS TO TOLERATE OFFENSE

By focusing on how offended you are, you may miss valuable lessons

WHAT CAN WE DO

Encourage intellectual diversity Diversity in sexual orientation, gender,

race, and the like, are important … but it is not necessarily what gets us the Millian goodness.

Imagine if we had the same doctrine taught by an extremely diverse set (i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) of individuals….

WHAT CAN WE DO

In a modern university setting -- which type of student gets a better education:LiberalConservative

WHAT CAN WE DO We should view those that disagree with us differently…

How we view them: “The truth is obvious – If you don’t see it, then you must be either crazy, stupid, or acting in bad faith.”

How we should view them: “The world is a complicated and messy place – I should expect that intelligent individuals would come to different conclusions.”

FINAL THOUGHTEducation, when done right, is not pain free:

“[The pursuit of knowledge] thrives on prejudice no less than on cool detachment. It does not give a damn about your feelings and happily tramples them in the name of finding truth. It allows and – here we should be honest – sometimes encourages offense. Self-esteem, sensitivity, respect for others’ beliefs, renunciation of prejudice are all good as far as they go. But as primary social goals they are incompatible with the peaceful and productive advancement of human knowledge. To advance knowledge, we must all sometimes suffer. Worse than that, we must inflict suffering on others.” (Rauch 19)