21 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Philosophical takes on cancel culture
It always reminds me of Bernard Williams' tongue-in-cheek objection to utilitarianism. A perfect utilitarian society, he argues, does *anything* to increase our maximal happiness -- including, of course, minor productions of pain to ensure the greater good. In this sense, such a society is *duty-bound* to commit what he calls "preventive acts". For example, the murder of would-be serial killers.
He argues that these preventive acts would pile up as the society becomes ever more desperate to ensure maximal happiness, and, ironically, it would result in a long term amount of general un-happiness. His critique is that utilitarianism essentially demands us to make each other un-happy; either by actual preventive action or at least by the constant threat of it. Evidently, such an internal ethical contradiction is unsustainable.
While his argument is rather outlandish, I'd say, it's eerily similar to the more pernicious aspects of cancel culture. While holding truly immoral people with power accountable for their actions is a well-desired goal, and a good use of our conjoint power as a public, there is certainly a dimension to cancel culture that reflects the dystopia of preventive acts that Williams imagines.
Why did trans twitter, for example, cancel ContraPoints so hard when all she did was collaborate with a well-known trans icon? Said icon did say a few problematic statements with his platform, but I find it hard to honestly believe he -- and much less ContraPoints herself -- was deserving of the public shaming that should be reserved to serious public threats.
There are bonafide transphobes, fascists and everything else in the world, and trans twitter finds itself cancelling one of their best known representatives on YouTube. It really makes you think about it.
I think it's an empirical depiction of Williams' hypothesis. Undeserved cancelling seems to stem from a culture ever more focused on the details, the far-fetched consequences and specifities of their goals, rather than the big picture, the true urgency of the situations, and the target that is get getting away under their noses. Both in terms of the actual unjust cancelling/preventive act and, most importantly, the strange climate of paranoia. Everyone watches each other, and becomes the punisher when the barest sign of transgression arises.
Comment by femto97 at 20/06/2020 at 18:58 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
He argues that these preventive acts would pile up as the society becomes ever more desperate to ensure maximal happiness, and, ironically, it would result in a long term amount of general un-happiness.
But then wouldn't that make it not the utilitarian thing to do? If it would ultimately bring about long term unhappiness, then utilitarianism wouldn't say to do that in the first place.