Is it ever good to take offense at something?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Is it ever good to take offense at something? » Is it ever good to take offense at something?

Is it ever good to take offense at something?

Is it ever good to take offense at something?

lukeprog
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 24, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/04/08 - 11:33 PM: Subject: Is it ever good to take offense at something?	#1
I haven't been offended by anything in years. Long ago, I decided that taking offense was (1) never useful, and (2) always harmful. Am I wrong? As far as I can tell, taking offense at something is a sneaky attempt to grab the moral high ground without truly engaging the issues presented. If the "offender" is wrong, then the best response is to simply rebut him, not get offended. Of course you can do both, but the "getting offended" part only makes things messy and annoying. Then again, I had similar feelings about the uselessness of anger, until I read Greta Christina's "Atheists and Anger."

Bobard
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/05/08 - 02:40 AM:	#2
You present this question as if we have a choice in the matter. I do not believe we do. Offence and anger are part of our instinctive emotional reaction to a subject under discussion. Our choice is whether to represses the emotional response or not and if so, to what degree. As to their usefulness: I suggest they provide the emotional energy and drive to engage in intellectual debate which makes them an important component of your position. Personally I find it difficult to engage on a subject that I am apathetic about. Notwithstanding the above I agree with your point about the moral high ground although I think it is futile to even engage with anyone who is using overly emotional argument as they are unlikely to accept your rebuttal even if it is correct. Using offence and anger (in fact any emotional argument) is simply a sign of intellectual immaturity which I equate with a child crying to add weight to their request for more ice-cream.
_____________________ never argue with an idiot or a drunk

JayDe01
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/05/08 - 03:30 AM:	#3
I think Bobard has a great point, emotion is a very important part of life, and there is nothing we can do to not feel emotion. Emotion drives humans in life. But to the issue of not taking offense - it is definitely worth taking offense at some things, SOME THINGS. Who doesn't loathe a person who can be tipped into a frenzy by the slightest thing. But if you do not take offense at somethings, you clearly have no morales or beliefs that can be offended, and a person without these is lost.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 152

Posted 05/05/08 - 04:40 AM:	#4
Emotion is a thought process any person of rational mind can and should control.Controlling emotions in a calm environment consist of nothing more than controlling your thought processes. Decide whether you are or aren't going to become angry about someone cutting in line. Decide whether a sunset makes you happy or sad. The 'instinctive reactions' you speak of are difficult but you can be trained to react differently, or not to react at all. If I were to have the instinctive human reactions to the sight and smell of blood (fear, anxiety), I wouldn't be very good at my job. If a video game player ducked at the sound of gunfire instead of mashing a button, it'd be game over. If you accept that emotions are controllable, then you see that offense is a manipulative tool of the intolerant. It is still sometimes acceptable. I become offended at torture. I become offended by child abuse. I chose not to accept these things, and will use any tool I have to prevent them.
_____________________ It is what it is.

Bobard
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/05/08 - 06:50 AM:	#5
Absolutely Relative wrote: Emotion is a thought process any person of rational mind can and should control. <...> Decide whether you are or aren't going to become angry about someone cutting in line. Decide whether a sunset makes you happy or sad. Emotional responses come from a much deeper part of the consciousness. We don’t decide to be happy or angry, we are happy or angry and then decide whether to repress it or not. The reason I stress this is because the distinction is important - ofcourse good debate is dispassionate – but every participant has, to some degree, a repressed emotional agenda and it is important to recognise that both in ourselves and our own arguments and that of the other disputants. You claim, like myself, to be offended by torture, does this make you more, or less, able to rationally argue against it? Does this make you more, or less, motivated to rationally argue against it? I suspect you may answer: more able, to both questions - I certainly do. This is the positive influence of a controlled emotional response within debate and in the terms of the OP does indeed have value. The only worrying conclusion is that there are very few truly dispassionate debates and those that are, are held by apathetic disputants.
_____________________ never argue with an idiot or a drunk

lukeprog
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 24, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/05/08 - 08:09 AM:	#6
You present this question as if we have a choice in the matter. I do not believe we do. I think we can choose anger or offense. I know I can. And decades of experimental data in cognitive-behavioral psychology supports this notion. These days, I don't even have to consciously "suppress" being offended. There's just no experience of offense in the first place. When I hear about female genital mutilation, I do not get offended anymore. Offense is not my emotional reaction. Rather, it strikes me as an unncessary and injust, and worthy of being combated. I do not combat it myself because I have chosen other battles; ones I know more about and experience more directly. Namely, religion. And I fight these battles - by promoting rationality and exposing inconsistent thought & fallacy - even though I no longer "take offense" at anything religion does. When an in-closet Christian gay friend tells me that he feels that god hates him and that he is an abomination, I do not feel offended about what the church has done to this poor man. Rather, I rationally assess that this is unnecessary and destructive, decide it is a situation I am personally interested to influence, and I engage it. There is no offense involved because that would only make things messier and less pure. I suggest [offense and anger] provide the emotional energy and drive to engage in intellectual debate which makes them an important component of your position. Personally I find it difficult to engage on a subject that I am apathetic about. In the above example and many others, I have the energy and drive to engage in intellectual debate and charitable activism regarding religious abuse even though I do not take offense (or, incidentally, get angry). Does nobody else have this experience? Lacking anger and offense does not make me apathetic. I care a great deal. The battle for critical thinking is one of my great passions in life. And I don't need anger or offense for any of this. Perhaps I'm an anomaly. Or perhaps all humans could act this way if basic responses like offense or anger were ever questioned. I feel like Ron Paul. Everyone else is debating what kinds of offense are legitimate, and I'm the only one asking whether it is necessary at all. (No, I'm not the only one. But I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you still think offense is necessary and good, and whether not taking offense is possible for most people.) But if you do not take offense at somethings, you clearly have no morales or beliefs that can be offended, and a person without these is lost. I have many morals and beliefs, I just chose not to let them be offended. Offense is one of dozens of possible responses, and I think it is an unnecessary one. If you accept that emotions are controllable, then you see that offense is a manipulative tool of the intolerant. It is still sometimes acceptable. I become offended at torture. I become offended by child abuse. I chose not to accept these things, and will use any tool I have to prevent them. Do you think you are better able to prevent torture and child abuse by using the tools of anger and offense?

JayDe01
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:58 AM:	#7
I agree with the opinion that critical and clear thinking is very important, because simply getting angry at something is not going to solve it. lukeprog said he 'chooses not to let [his beliefs and morals] be offended'. Are you therefore repressing that feeling of anger that you recognize, or do you say you no longer even feel offense? Because i find this idea strange that you have become completely apathetic, especially about topics you have an opinion on!

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 152

Posted 05/06/08 - 10:38 PM:	#8
JayDe01 wrote: I agree with the opinion that critical and clear thinking is very important, because simply getting angry at something is not going to solve it. Which is why it is important to be in control of your emotions. When I choose to become offended, I always bear in mind why I am offended. I am aware what offense has been committed against my sensibilities. I must be able to explain it rationally and clearly. The anger and offense is a tool, and a manipulative one that I would never dream of using in a civil discourse. lukeprog wrote: Do you think you are better able to prevent torture and child abuse by using the tools of anger and offense? Yes. [I'll assume you disagree] I can argue dispassionately about torture. I can tell you how it is ineffective and immoral. I can justify that as well. I could, if I so chose, watch you torture a prisoner and explain calmly how that is the wrong thing to do. I would not so choose. I will argue with you, I will physically stop you. I will rant and rave and become [seemingly] so out of control and disruptive that I will force you to stop and deal with me. I will attempt to cow you into shame at your atrocious actions. I will become offended.
_____________________ It is what it is.

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1359

Posted 05/07/08 - 12:29 AM:	#9
JayDe01 wrote: But if you do not take offense at somethings, you clearly have no morales or beliefs that can be offended Yes, that is, indeed, what offense means in ethics. Offensive acts are offensive because it goes right through the heart of moral beliefs.
_____________________ I achieved nothing. ---The Optimist

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 736

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:33 PM:	#10
After someone has stuck a 45 up your nose and threatened your life after calling into question your families genetic make up amongst other interesting adjectives you tend to have a diferent point of view about what exactly is offensive and what is better to let slip. Offense and insults are like gifts that you don't want, let the other person worry about their worth. Edited by SIR2U on 05/07/08 - 07:38 PM
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

The_Omnissiah
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Location: Hay River, NWT
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:20 PM:	#11
I have to say, I believe that without human emotion (which I believe to be key to proper and true being) life would not be as it should be, and therefore could by some be considered to not be life at all. If you are repressing your emotions to the point that you cease to be offended, then can you ever turn your offense back on? Are you stuck as such? I believe a life without offense would not just be boring, but almost inhuman. I think that offense originated as a defense mechanism in early humans to protect both their ideas, and way of life. Of course, it had it's negative side effects, but it's all part of being human. This all taken together makes me think that a life without offense (which could lead to a life without emotion!) would be...not necessarily inhuman...but subhuman. Something less. You would end up a hallow husk of what you once where. Just my two cents, don't take offense -Omni
_____________________ "When neither love nor hate are in the game, woman is but a medocre player." -Neitszche "Compromise is the first step on the road to subservience." -Me "A wise man has something to say, a foolish man has to say something."-Anonymous

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:52 AM:	#12
YEs, we cannot let ourselves be walked on, therefore if you aren't offended, why would you choose to prevent it if you're lacksadaisical about everything coming at you?

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 736

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:12 PM:	#13
omnissiah wrote: If you are repressing your emotions to the point that you cease to be offended, then can you ever turn your offense back on? Are you stuck as such? And what happens to you if nobody insults you? Do you have to insult yourself? omnissiah wrote: I believe a life without offense would not just be boring, but almost inhuman. Damn I knew I was missing something in my life, I'll have to find someone to insult me before I start walking on all fours. omnissiah wrote: I think that offense originated as a defense mechanism in early humans to protect both their ideas, and way of life. What? So we go around insulting people and expect them to accept our way of seeing things or let us live to continue doing it. omnissiah wrote: This all taken together makes me think that a life without offense (which could lead to a life without emotion!) would be...not necessarily inhuman...but subhuman. Something less. You would end up a hallow husk of what you once where. As I stated earlier I have had enough of being insulted. So I should be starting to shrivel up and turn into a slug anytime soon. Get real my friend. Insults are nothing more than cowardly ways of doing things you are too scared to do with your hands. Why should I worry about the words of some jerk that has not got the balls to try and hit me or thinks that I am less than him. The oldest adage that I can remember, is "Sticks and stones may break my bone, but words will never hurt me."
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.