Meeting on being "offended"

On Wednesday, we had a discussion on the topic of being offended by religion and cultural practices.

It was a varied discussion and a number of interesting points came up which also triggered other thoughts afterwards.

1.  We do not "respect" other people's religious believes so much as we tolerate them.  In a liberal society, we are all free to believe and practice what we like so long as it does not interfere with others.  Therefore, we respect other people's right to their believes and we tolerate it even if we disagree with them.

2.  The difficulty comes when one person's believes interferes with the activities of other members of society.  The current matter of a Canadian christian university wanting to have a law school only for those who will take a heterosexual vow is an example of that conflict.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/trinity-western-blasts-n-s-ontario-law-societies-1.2622913

3.  There are always members in society who are powerless to act.  Children brought up in a particular religious belief have no choice or ability to decide.  Should other members of society be offended by how some children are being raised?  Should we be offended by religious and cultural practices in other parts of the world?

4.  Being offended is largely an emotional response and logic tends to be called in afterwards to justify this emotional response.  Should cooler heads prevail, we likely see other nuances of the situation, other situations that we should be more offended by, and perhaps a better more constructive response than the confrontation likely coming out of being offended.  Perhaps a typical anger management tactic of counting to ten, take a deep breath to relax, may allow us to have time to think and formulate a better response.

5.  Part of being emotionally responding to confrontation is to automatically demonize the other side and separating the argument into simple good guys bad guys and black and white arguments. This leads to further alienation with the other side, preventing progress towards understanding and resolution.

6.  There is also a definite element of loyalty to one camp or the other in taking offense from a statement or action by others. The typical partisan response by the left or right wing is very often more showing allegiance to one's community and not wanting to be proven wrong then plain listening or understanding what was said or had happened. Again, we need to leave our pride and emotional baggage to get more productive action together with the other side.

7.  There are groups that are easily offended because of their believes and strict rules of conduct. They view toleration of other believes as wrong, or even unprincipled. This strikes at the heart of the liberal society.  It is difficult to tolerate a group that will not tolerate other groups.  The result is either the dominance of the intolerant group and disappearance of the tolerant group. Controlling the intolerant group before it gets dominance is essential to the future of a tolerant society.

8.  Should Islamic countries be offended by the relative nudity displayed in western countries?  Should the western countries be offended by women not being able to drive in some of the Islamic countries? These are manifestations of the underlying different values of the two systems.

9.  The so called western liberal democracies actually need to be very intolerant of some things.  Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, (yes, even religious believes) is one of the principles a tolerant society cannot give up and still be a tolerant society.

10.  The big difference seems to be whether this intolerance is based on some crowd based commonly held ethic or sourced by dogma from a holy book or a totalitarian source.

The chaos of group decision making versus the dependence of a single source (believed to be perfect but maybe not!) 

I am offended ! (part 1)

This coming Wednesday (Apr 23) at the Ideas Cafe, we will discuss how people are offended from the perspective of the offended and the offender.


For part 1 we will deal with offense arising from the politics of religion and culture.

Blasphemy is a sin for the religious and a crime in countries with strong religious influences.  To refer to their deity in anything by respectful terms is unthinkable.

Yet atheists want to question the existence of these very deities and the fundamental value system that is based on holy books anchoring these believes.

Should this discussion be considered as a freedom of expression by the atheists or blasphemous remarks that offend the religious?

When someone is offended,  is the offender stepping into other people's sensitivities or is the offended too thin skinned ?

No one likes to be challenged, especially about something that they fervently believe in.

At times we are justified in defending our belief and value systems while occasionally, it is beneficial to face these challenges and discover the weakness in our believes that has been covered by our allegiance to these believes.

Is it always wrong to be too easily offended?

Should we not be offended by fragrant disregard for justice and civil disorder?

But one person's view of civil society may be another person's sense of restrictive society where dissent cannot be openly displayed.  Burning the national flag and defacing public statute of historic figures may be seen as anarchy by those offended but simply expression of time for change by others.

Then there is the meeting of different cultures.

Canada as a multicultural society is adept at accepting and managing the different cultural practices and values.  Where these practices are at odds with each other, the "reasonable accommodation" approach is used to deal with these conflicts on a case by case basis.

Thus the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have Sikh members retaining their turbans.

But where is the reasonable accommodation for the deep gulf between the religious and the atheists?

How can one religion get along with the other religions when each of them believes that they believe in the one true god while all others are pagans and cults?

Faith is supposed to remove all doubt so there really is no room for any other religion but one's own.

The pacifists among us will say that it is more important to get along and conflict should be avoided at all costs.  However, not being offended by any circumstance amounts to not having any principles that we want to uphold and defend.  We will be taken advantage of by other believes and cultures that aggressively assert themselves.

So, should I be offended from time to time?

April 9 - Minimizing harm and ethical lying

This coming Wednesday we will be discussing the balance between minimizing harm and ethical dishonesty.

Let's face it, lying is a fact of human life. even Kant, who became famous as a philosopher partly due to his believe that one should never lie, evaded the truth when being questioned by his emperor about on loyalty.

In a previous discussion elsewhere when discussing honesty, Shula had proposed that rather than the principle to never lie, that it is better to minimize harm.

Human existence is too complicated for a simple principle to be honest without exception. 

If there is a murderer at your door wanting to know if you are harboring his intended victim, your honesty about the victim's existence in your home will do more harm than the benefit of protecting your principle.

As Andrew also said at the discussion then that he will never trust his secrets with anyone who never lies as this person will have to expose the secrets when asked.

Even scientific research with the "love drug" oxytocin show people lie more when they are under the influence of this drug.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26771703

Then there are the social situation where the unpleasant truth is avoided, covered, or whitewashed over.

So it is logical to say minimizing harm is a more practical principle than sticking to honesty whatever the circumstance. 

But minimizing harm itself is a complicated concept.

How do we measure harm?

How do we sum up the overall harm to various parties?

How do we weigh this sum total of harm against our reputation as an honest person? the need to uphold integrity and social stability?

We need to know that most of us are honest most of the time to maintain social order. 

Without honesty there is no trust.  Without trust, there is no collaboration; we are back to everyone for oneself and the law of the jungle.

Modern social structures like paper money, democratic government, and commerce simply cannot exist if we don't think that the systems are largely honest with occasional lapses that we agree as acceptable exceptions.

Perhaps minimizing harm comes down to being dishonest in situations that others will also be dishonest in similar situations.  It is a value judgment that most others will sympathize and agree with.

I maintain my trust with someone who is dishonest because I understand the circumstance around his being dishonest and I may make that same choice to be dishonest but it is a rare exception to us being dishonest.


If so, does minimizing harm depend on group consensus?  A person of principle may be quite alone and his exception to the principle of being honest may be too restrictive by popular standards.

Is this principled person leading us to a more honest society or is he just impractical?

How do we minimize harm? to the people involved in the immediate circumstances or also to the trust relationship we have with others?  What about the overall level of trust that is being eroded when dishonesty is disclosed?

How do we deal with future possibilities of dishonesty now that we allow that ethical lying is necessary and even beneficial?