Modern Australian
The Times Real Estate

.

Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with

  • Written by Hugh Breakey, President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics. Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre., Griffith University
Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with

Earlier this week, 150 high-profile authors, commentators and scholars signed an open letter in Harper’s magazine claiming that “open debate and toleration of differences” are under attack. Signatories included JK Rowling, Margaret Atwood, Gloria Steinem and Noam Chomsky.

While prefacing their comments with support for current racial and social justice movements, the signatories argue there has been a weakening of the norms of open debate in favour of dogma, coercion and ideological conformity. They perceive

an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

Sackings, investigations and withdrawn words

The letter’s signing by Rowling comes in the wake of widespread backlash against her controversial comments on transgender issues and womanhood.

Actor Daniel Radcliffe (“Harry Potter” himself) joined a chorus of disapproval of her comments, arguing they erased “the identity and dignity of transgender people”. Employees at Rowling’s publisher subsequently refused to work on her forthcoming book.

The Harper’s letter invoked similar cases of what it saw as punitive overreactions to unpopular views, suggesting they formed part of a larger trend:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

The reference to editors being fired is perhaps the most well-known recent incident. Last month, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton calling for the military to provide an “overwhelming show of force” to restore order in US cities during the protests over the killing of George Floyd.

The piece’s publication attracted immediate criticism for promoting hate and putting black journalists in danger. In response, the editorial page editor emphasised the newspaper’s longstanding commitment to open debate, arguing the public would be better equipped to push back against the senator’s stance if it heard his views.

This defence failed, and within days he resigned.

Read more: In publishing Tom Cotton, the New York Times has made a terrible error of judgment

Push-back against push-back

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Harper’s letter has received spirited critique. Some commentators noted past cases where the signatories had themselves been censorious. Others argued that any perceived threat was overblown.

Indeed, the link the open letter makes between a repressive government and an intolerant society may seem a long bow to draw. There is a world of difference between the legal prohibition of speech and a wave of collective outrage on Twitter.

Yet, it is nevertheless worth considering whether important ethical outcomes are threatened in a culture of outrage, de-platforming and cancelling.

Some speech requires consequences, but which speech?

Almost everyone would agree some types of speech are beyond the pale. Racial slurs don’t deserve careful consideration. They require “calling out”, social censure and efforts at minimising harm.

Rather than objecting to outrage per se, the Harper’s letter asserts there is a broadening in the scope of views that attract punitive responses. This seems plausible. In recent scholarly work on the tensions between censorship and academic freedom on university campuses, both sides of the dispute acknowledge that in the current environment virtually all utterances offend someone.

Yet, perhaps there are good reasons for this broadening of scope. In each of the cases raised in the letter, there were seemingly sensible reasons for applying social sanctions. These included judgements that:

  • the speech was morally wrongful

  • the speech was gravely offensive

  • the speech would have seriously worrying consequences. It was “unhelpful”, “harmful”, “damaging” or “divisive”.

For someone who is genuinely concerned that speech is wrong in these ways, it will seem not just morally permissible to take action against the speaker. It will feel obligatory.

Read more: No, you're not entitled to your opinion

Caution about consequences

But several concerns arise when we attach punitive consequences to people’s speech based on its perceived moral wrongfulness (as opposed to simply arguing it is mistaken or false).

First, claims of moral wrongfulness in a debate assume immediate urgency and distract from the debate itself. For example, let’s say in a debate about immigration, one person says something that offends another. Discussion of the original issue (immigration) will be bracketed until the issue of moral wrongdoing (the perceived slight or offence) is resolved.

Second (except in obvious cases), claims about wrongfulness, offensiveness and harmfulness are all open to debate. As philosopher John Stuart Mill once observed:

The usefulness of an opinion is itself a matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself.

Third, allegations of wrongdoing create heat. Few people respond constructively to allegations of wrongdoing. They often retaliate in kind, escalating the conflict.

In a less politicised environment, a contentious claim might be treated as a contribution to a debate to be considered on its merits. But in our current climate, the same claim creates only angry allegations flying in both directions. As a result, the claim isn’t considered or debated.

Should this worry us?

If we think a person’s view is wrong and immoral, we might suppose there is no great loss about a debate being derailed. But there are genuine ethical concerns here.

First, public deliberation is a source of legitimacy. The fact that different views are widely heard and inclusively considered provides a reason for accepting collective decisions.

Democracy itself assumes citizens can hear different arguments, evidence and perspectives. If significant parts of the political spectrum are no longer tolerated, then social institutions lose this important type of legitimacy.

Read more: Actually, it's OK to disagree. Here are 5 ways we can argue better

Second, listening to others with different opinions, and engaging with them, can help us understand their views and develop more informed versions of our own positions.

On the flip side, being consistently outraged by opposing viewpoints provides a ready reason not to consider them. This feeds directly into confirmation bias and group-think.

Third, shaming people can cause a “persuasive boomerang” to occur. When people feel others are trying to control them, they can become even more attached to the view others are trying to combat.

None of these concerns categorically rule out attaching punishing consequences to hateful or harmful speech. But they do imply the open letter has a point worth serious attention. Seeing mistaken views as intolerable speech carries genuine ethical costs.

Authors: Hugh Breakey, President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics. Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre., Griffith University

Read more https://theconversation.com/is-cancel-culture-silencing-open-debate-there-are-risks-to-shutting-down-opinions-we-disagree-with-142377

The Different Career Paths in a Law Firm: From Clerk to Partner

The legal profession offers a structured yet diverse career path, with opportunities ranging from entry-level positions to esteemed leadership roles...

The Importance of Exercise for People with Disabilities: Adaptive Workouts

Exercise is a fundamental part of maintaining physical and mental wellbeing, and this holds true for people of all abilities. For individuals with d...

Planning a Construction or Renovation? Don’t Overlook the Plumbing!

Building or renovating your home is an exciting journey—designing layouts, selecting finishes, and watching your space come to life. However, while ...

Bathroom Tiling: Trends, Materials and Installation Tips

The world of bathroom tiling has come a long way, with new trends, improved materials, and innovative installation techniques, making it easier than...

Best Products to Increase Hair Density: What Really Works?

Do you want thick, voluminous hair? We get you!! There’s just something about a full head of hair that makes you feel more confident. But what do...

The Cost of Back to Base Security in Sydney: Is It Worth the Investment?

Sydney is a fantastic place to live. The beaches, the cafes, the culture. There’s a reason people are willing to pay premium prices for a spot in ...

Australian Workplace Engagement Declines Amidst Shifting Employee Priorities

Global leader in employee engagement and HR technology, Reward Gateway, has today released its second annual Workplace Engagement Index. The report...

The Right Mix: 5 Tips for Choosing Products Your Customers Will Love

Photo: Marcella Marcella / Unsplash Crafting the perfect product offering is difficult. You need to strike a delicate balance between building a busi...

Septic Tank Pump Out Cost: What to Expect in 2025

The size of the tank, the location and the rates charged by the service provider all affect how much a septic tank pump out will cost. Every thre...

How Machine Learning is Personalizing Orthodontic Treatment

Orthodontic treatment has seen a significant transformation over the past few decades, largely due to advancements in digital dentistry and artificial...

From Backend Logic to Frontend Magic: Merging Software Development and Web Design

Software design and web development go hand in hand in today's computer age. Backend logic is used for functionality, and frontend design makes soft...

Australians who want to buy their first home need concrete saving stratagems for their deposit

Many Australians aspire to own a house but face significant obstacles while trying to save for the necessary deposit. Given the increase in property...

Key Factors to Consider When Choosing the Right Professional Indemnity Policy for Your Business

"Unlock the secrets to choosing the ideal Professional Indemnity Policy for your business. Understand the critical considerations!" A Professional ...

Skills in Demand (Subclass 482): The Employer-Sponsored Work Visa for Skilled Professionals

Businesses in today's globalized economy are always looking for qualified individuals to fill important positions. Employers in Australia can fill ...

Recent Study Reveals Which Psychological Problems Affect Different Age Groups

In recent years, the wider community has started talking more about mental health, and for good reason. In Australia alone, 42.9% of people between ...

The Ultimate Guide to Flyscreen Windows: How to Keep Your Home Bug-Free in Style

Keeping your home free from insects doesn't mean sacrificing style or comfort. Flyscreen windows offer an effective solution to maintain a bug-free ...

Dating after separation - the do's and don't's

After a romantic split you move forward with plans for fresh dating relationships. The present moment brings excited feelings since you look toward ...

What to Look for in a Reliable Junk Removal Service

Choosing the right junk removal service can feel overwhelming, especially with so many options available. Every year, households and businesses genera...