What is Offensive?

People argue passionately about what is offensive and whether or not anything offensive should be banned.  But passion without reason tends to end in an incoherent mess.  Consider the following:

 

·      Should everyone – in the name of art, religion, freedom – be allowed to behave as they wish regardless of how offensive others may find it? Should racists, sexists, homophobes be given free rein to taunt and denigrate others in the most offensive manner?

·      Should everyone – in the name of tradition, sacred teaching, decency – be supported in stopping others from behaving in any way they find offensive? Should calls for racial equality, same sex marriage, rejection of creationism, all be ruled out as some people may otherwise be offended?

·      What about people, who demand to have the right to be offensive as they wish AND the support in banning others from being offensive in any way they would not tolerate?  How can anyone even begin to reconcile such arbitrary and conflicting demands?

 

The fact is that different people at different times find different things offensive.  If everything deemed offensive subjectively is to be banned, then few acts can escape from being banned as someone, somewhere, in sound mind or not, may well find it offensive.  Trying to differentiate what is truly offensive in itself from what is wrongly so regarded is futile since the nature of offensiveness is inherently subjective.  What we must recognise is that being offended by something does not necessarily render that something ban-worthy. 

 

How then should we respond when people complain about offensive behaviour they have encountered?  This question can only be answered in relation to our understanding of what kind of society we want to live in.  If we are to have any rules, assessments, and sanctions that are to apply to everyone, then it is a societal – rather than individual – matter as to what should be done.

 

This moral understanding of appropriate behaviour changes over time, but it does not mean that it is incapable of developing in a thoughtful direction.  If society is predominantly influenced by unreflecting views which overlook cruelty and neglect but hang on tightly to oppressive prejudices, then it could end up condemning as unacceptably offensive any expression that does not conform to some arbitrary sense of ‘purity’ or ‘tradition’, while concerns with, for example, racist or sexist behaviour will be dismissed as symptoms of over-sensitivity and misguided outrage.  But if society is moving towards greater thoughtfulness that brings with it deeper awareness of the difference between the manifestation of nastiness, callous neglect, or spiteful provocation, on the one hand, and the inherently harmless acts of people seeking love, creativity, or recourse against injustice, on the other; then that difference will be discerned and reflected in the rules and policies being advanced.

 

It is society that sets the norms regarding what causes of offensiveness should be restrained, and what should be allowed.  The challenge for us is not to come up with a definition of ‘offensiveness’ that can be used universally as the basis for banning behaviour that fits with it.  Instead, our endeavours should be directed towards promoting the moral culture of thoughtfulness, mutual respect, and generosity of spirit.  And we need to spread that ethos both educationally (so more people come to appreciate it) and politically (so governing institutions will act to safeguard it).