Topics Ethics

Question In a public place, let us say a dormitory common area, should I be expected to constantly watch my tongue for fear of offending a strictly religious peer of mine? I could understand being expected to not jabber about how I hate God right outside her door, but does she have a right to demand I respect her beliefs when talking about subjects taboo for her in a said common room? I never go out of my way to offend her, but her beliefs structure is so strict she may explode on me for talking about and number of topics from Wicca to cyborgs. Where do I draw the line where she is forcing her beliefs on me and I am disrespecting her? She has a short temper and I have a very hard time compromising. Any suggestions?

Accepted:
April 10, 2007

Comments

One liberal conception of how to delineate the proper freedom of expression among conflicting views insists that people have the right to offend each other, and (more positively) that there is a mutual respect inherent in disagreement, even when that disagreement causes offence. Now, if that's the broad political idea in which you situate you're own personal interactions with the friend you describe, then it seems to me that you have a purely personal decision to make about how much offence you're ready to cause/put up with, even if the friend's responses are illiberal in that sense that she doesn't recognize your right to express views that offend her. On this picture of things, you are entitled to any respectfully expressed disagreement with her, but how much you choose to enact that right is a personal matter. (You might simply decide to opt for the peaceful life and avoid the subject.) If, however, her view is that you are not entitled to express your opinions, then you are in disagreement with her not only on the first order substantive religious questions you mention, but also at the second order level, in relation to the framework political idea of what mutual respect consists in.

In terms of supporting freedom of expression within such a friendship, finding a shared framework for discussion (e.g. the idea that expressions of utter disagreement can be respectful) seems paramount. (Another way of thinking about it is to separate respecting people from 'respecting' their views. One can respect people who have views one profoundly disagrees with. Perhaps that's a potentially good basis from which to proceed?)