Topics Ethics

Question I'd like to follow up something that was discussed in question 4096 (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4096). In Richard Heck's response to a question about the term "vulgar" he gives an example of an English slang term "gyp" meaning to cheat, which was derived from gypsy. As he mentions, this is considered offensive to gypsies. And, as he also mentions, many non-gypsies are not familiar with this issue and mean no disrespect to gypsies when they use the term. Heck goes on to say "One would not be blameworthy for that usage, but, once informed of its consequences, one should stop using the term." So my question is where is the line here? What if someone "informs" me that XYZ group is offended by some action I take. What if I'm not sure they're correct? What if actually some XYZs are offended and others are not? Does it matter how many people are in the XYZ group, and whether I believe they will actually witness my action? A considerate person wouldn't want to needlessly offend anyone, but at some point one gets tired of walking on eggshells because someone somewhere may be offended. What's a good way of determining how I should bend my habits to avoid giving offense to others?

Accepted:
June 25, 2011

Comments

All of these are good questions, but we should distinguish two issues. The first issue is as to the moral facts. I claim that if you come to know that use of some term is offensive to the members of some group, then you ought not to use that term. It's an entirely different question, of course, whether someone's telling you does lead you to have such knowledge, or whether your refusing to believe them might be unreasonable, and so forth.

Questions about how many people in the group find use of the term offensive are another matter. We might well suppose, for example, that some people of gypsy descent are unaware of the origin of the term "gyp", or that some American Indians might be unaware of the origin of the term "Indian summer". Others might be aware of the origin, but think very few other people are, and so not themselves find use of the term to be offensive. So, well, it's complicated. I haven't thought about this deeply, but I'm inclined to think that the issue here isn't one of numbers, though, as it is of what is reasonable and unreasonable. I.e., even if it is only a few people who take offense, if they do so on perfectly understandable, reasonable grounds, then that is enough, whereas, even if many people take offense, but do so for silly reasons, then that seems different. And, of course, people might disagree about what's reasonable. But these things can be discussed, and my own view, practically speaking, would be that one should err on the side of the offended.

All of that said, I think the worry about "walking on eggshells" is unfounded. I did say, explicitly, that one would not normally be blameworthy for using a term in ways others (reasonably) found offensive. Of course, there is a kind of wilful ignorance that might make one blameworthy, but I don't think you have to take the initiative here, and make sure you're not using any term in a way that someone might find offensive.