A problem with the subtext of political correctness?
Hello Rabbi,
Recently, I had the opportunity to reflect on the fundamental principle in the context of political correctness and came across a problem. I think the rabbi would agree that the fundamental moral principle underlying this concept is: “to lie in order not to harm people.” When I asked myself – according to Kant’s categorical imperative (which I tend to hold to), or at least according to one of his formulations – is this a principle that I would want to become universal? I must say that the intuitive answer that came to mind was yes, and I didn’t even have any problem with it. That is, I can imagine a situation in which people lie to other people in order not to harm them. Furthermore, most people I listen to, when they talk about the problems with political correctness, usually argue about the consequences and harms to which it leads and therefore it is problematic/immoral. But if I am a deontologist, I cannot zigzag between the two interpretations according to my needs and agendas. As the rabbi often said: “If something is true, it is true. Are the consequences problematic? Let’s deal with them,” and I completely accept that. So, I have to judge the problem in deontological terms, but I don’t really feel a problem in principle with lying to people in order not to hurt them. However, the matter is a bit more complicated, because the principle includes two very important moral obligations 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 that I’m pretty stuck here. How do you decide between two equally important values?
thanks
Political correctness is not just a lie to prevent harm. It is a minimization of the phenomenon. First, in many cases it is a denial of reality and not just a lie. Second, sometimes it is simply a preference for certain expressions over others (African-American instead of Negro or black), which is not a lie at all. The phenomenon itself is annoying and harmful, and therefore, even in terms of the categorical imperative, I would not like to criticize it. It does much more harm than good because it does not allow problems to be addressed (because it denies their existence).
And beyond that, truth has value in itself, not just for avoiding harm. Political correctness ignores it entirely. They also encourage populations to be harmed as a policy, thereby creating the very problem they are trying to solve.
And finally, the categorical imperative can be played with in many ways. You decided to ask whether we want to lie in order to prevent harm. Why don’t you ask whether we want to lie at all? (You understand that here the answer was different.) Incidentally, Kant opposed lying in general, even when it comes to saving lives, for precisely this reason (and I disagree with that, of course). Where does the line of the phenomenon you are examining cross?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
