Radio talk show host Dennis Prager, in referring to his days as a lecturer before his talk show career, mentions the first time someone said, during the Q&A period after his lecture, “I’m offended by what you said.” At this he was puzzled, never having heard someone say such a thing in that context. “I understand that you differ with the outlook of my lecture, but why would you be offended by it?”
In our present time it’s quite common to hear people say that they are offended by someone’s opinion about a given subject or governmental policy advocacy or their religious beliefs. How did we get to this point where disagreeing with an opinion or advocacy for a political or economic position or religious/ethical view means also taking personal offense at the statements by their interlocutor? Certainly there are philosophical, political and ethical concepts which engender outrage, disdain and even contempt. Communism, totalitarianism, the writings of the Marquis de Sade, the work of NAMBLA (the north American man/boy love association that advocates for the social and legal acceptance of pedophilia and pederasty) all fall under that category. But that’s not offense. Offense is a personal affront, an insult, most often preceded by the words, “you” or “you are…” It is not, nor should it ever be simply a disagreement over issues or opinions. It is caused by an ad hominem attack in its truest sense, which means “to the man”—not an idea or opinion, but an insult of his or her character or person.
As to how we got to this sorry state, where people so often take personal offense at the statements of other’s opinions on political/cultural/religious matters, and consequently seek to censor or ban their speech, there are several antecedents, ideas and cultural trends which not only contributed to it, but were perhaps necessary for its development.
The first would be what I have called the “new morality” of which I have written in me Christian thought blog: https://donmitchell.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-morality-part-1.html (and here) https://donmitchell.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-morality-part-2.html. What follows from an acceptance of this morality based entirely on feelings is philosophical hierarchy of feelings—and therefore of the good/bad distinctions of this moral structure. A simple statement of the structure of the morality of feelings goes like this: that which makes me or someone for whom I care about feel good is good=righteous; that which makes me or someone for whom I care about feel bad is bad=evil. From this proceeds the concept that the highest good is having good feelings, and the worst evil is making someone have bad feelings. This has led people to attribute more moral weight to having the “right” feelings—in this equation substitute feelings for thoughts or ideas as demonstrated by the more often used phrase, “well, I feel,” rather than, “I think”—about any number of issues: same sex marriage, global climate, transgenderism, Socialism, etc. This then leads them to morally condemn—not as mistaken but as evil—those who express different opinions on these issues. This is why they almost universally attribute “hatred” as the motive for anyone holding opinions—or “feelings”—different from those on their end of the cultural/ideological spectrum. Because they deem hatred as one of the greatest of evils. Ironically they feel not only justified, but somehow ennobled and infused with moral superiority in “hating” those they have deemed as “haters.” In taking personal offense at the opinions and statements of others who differ with their own they are psychologically rewarded with a sense of self-righteousness, a sense that they are an heroic figure standing up to the forces of evil.
Tragically these ideas are being inculcated to our young, the idea that they should become, not just angry but personally offended, and rail against these perceived injustices. And from this we get Greta Thunberg standing before the United Nations in 2019, a 16 year old girl, sneering at the assembled national representatives, all of whom were many decades older than her with an accumulated life experience orders of magnitude beyond hers, and intoning to them, “how dare you!” She is merely a symbol now of the countless adherents to the new morality who take every opportunity to say “I’m offended!”
The added dimension to this—the danger of this phenomenon—is the reward obtained; this the sense of of self-righteousness and moral superiority sets up a feedback loop incentivizing more anger, more virtue signaling of offense and condemnation of the offender, more Greta Thunbergs pointing the finger of vilification and screeching, “How dare you!”
