Q&A: A Problem with the Doctrine of Political Correctness?
A Problem with the Doctrine of Political Correctness?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently I found myself reflecting on the basic principle underlying political correctness and ran into a problem. In my view, the Rabbi would agree that the fundamental moral principle at the base of this outlook is: “to lie in order not to hurt people.” When I asked myself—according to Kant’s categorical imperative (which I tend to accept), or at least according to one of its formulations—whether this is a principle I would want to make universal, I have to say that the intuitive answer that came to mind was yes, and I didn’t even have any problem with it. That is, I really can imagine a situation in which people lie to other people in order not to hurt them. Moreover, most people I listen to, when they talk about the problems with political correctness, usually argue about the results and damage it leads to, and therefore that it is problematic / immoral. But if I am a deontologist, I cannot zigzag between the two doctrines according to my needs and agendas. As the Rabbi has said more than once: “If something is right, it is right. Are the consequences problematic? We’ll deal with them,” and I fully accept that. If so, I need to judge the problem in deontological terms, yet I do not really feel any principled problem with lying to people in order not to hurt them. However, the matter is a bit more complex, since the principle includes two very important moral duties that conflict with each other: on the one hand, “not to hurt people,” and on the other, “to tell the truth.” I have to say I’m pretty stuck here. How does one decide between two values that are equally important?
Thank you
Answer
Political correctness is not just lying in order to prevent hurt. That is an oversimplification of the phenomenon. First, in many cases this is a denial of reality and not just a simple lie. Second, sometimes it is merely a preference for certain expressions over others (African-American instead of “Negro” or “Black”), and that is not a lie at all. The phenomenon itself is annoying and harmful, so even from the standpoint of the categorical imperative I would not want it to exist. It brings much more harm than benefit because it does not allow problems to be addressed (since it denies their existence).
And beyond that, truth has value in itself, not only as a way of avoiding hurt. The champions of political correctness ignore that completely. They also encourage groups to be offended as a matter of policy, and thereby create the very problem they are trying to solve.
And finally, with the categorical imperative you can play around in many ways. You chose to ask whether we would want lying in order to prevent hurt. Why not ask whether we would want lying at all? (You understand that here the answer would have been different.) By the way, Kant opposed lying as such, even when it comes to saving lives, precisely for this reason (and of course I do not agree with that). Where exactly is the line of the phenomenon you are examining?