2 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
View submission: Philosophical takes on cancel culture
[removed]
Comment by pimpbot at 20/06/2020 at 17:18 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'll address two specific items that you mention, each of which strikes me as playing an important role in this discussion.
Firstly, you assert that speech acts are fundamentally different than other sorts of acts. Well, isn't that pretty much the whole bone of contention? I would agree that it is, in a sense, traditionally accepted that acts of speech and other sorts of acts are importantly distinguished but this is for pragmatic purposes; and for my part I am skeptical that we should accept the distinction as categorically binding. The reason given for positing a fundamental difference -namely that, unlike other acts, speech acts uniquely stand in need of interpretation- doesn't seem coherent or compelling (notably, you hedge on this rationale yourself by adding the qualifier "in most circumstances"). All actions require interpretation. All actions connote responsibility. No qualifiers here.
Secondly, you mention good faith and the necessity of it in productive dialogue. Here we agree. Since I am someone who has, in the course of my own life, been mistaken about a great many things and who has defended positions I now regard as execrable, I am certainly inclined to be charitable and to allow people the space to develop and change. But I don't really see what this has to do with holding people accountable for their actions - especially as being held accountable is one of the main catalysts for personal change.
As I see it, the question here is one of proportional justice. Should someone who is egregiously wrong be drawn and quartered in the public square? Of course not. But can someone be shamed for holding shameful views - even if those views are held and espoused in "good faith"? Of course they can. This is how civilization works. Someone who really is operating in good faith would, it seems to me, take such an event as an opportunity to reflect on their own shortcomings, or at least to consider the possibility. Does this require a degree of self awareness and maturity that many people lack? Yes. Yes it does. But that is another can of worms.
Comment by bobthebobbest at 20/06/2020 at 20:15 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Yes, but speech acts are a fundamentally different category of action from other action, for the following reason: the impact of a speech act is (in most circumstances) mediated by the beliefs, desires, and values of its hearers.
This is a very dubious way to distinguish speech acts from other acts. Many non–speech acts are also easily characterized by this.
in ideal circumstances, good faith arguments between interlocutors don’t function like this; they are not best modeled by each interlocutor trying to do something to the other one (for example, convince them of a certain idea), but rather the interlocutors doing something together, such as establishing a certain fact or coming to an agreement on a political issue.
For a problematization of this line of reasoning, see Charles Mills’s “Ideal Theory as Ideology.”
Comment by BernardJOrtcutt at 21/06/2020 at 00:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
**Answers must be up to standard.**
All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules[1] will result in a ban.
1: https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.