Introduction
“The one who wants to be offended will be offended in any case.” The phrase is a topic of debate among philosophers around the globe. The main idea of this statement is that being offended is a choice that the offended person makes. Many people feel that being offended is something that originates from within our own minds and social and that we ourselves elect to feel wronged by others. Others feel that being offended cannot help but occur when someone has done something offensive, and is a kind of a priori natural phenomenon. This paper reviews the countering views and adopts a stance on which it deems to be the more sound.
Moral Standards
Some philosophers argue that those who believe it possible to not be offended are deluding themselves. They argue that, while in some cases people can claim to not be offended, in any instance where an action truly breaches their most deeply-held moral standards, they will feel offense as instantaneously and deeply as if they’d been physically hit (Johnson & Shane, 195). According to these philosophers, being offended is not a choice, but a primal response rooted in the reptilian brain.
Defining the Offense
Other philosophers argue that taking offense happens at the conscious level. And it happens after we have defined the offense. They say that our perceptions of reality and the viewpoints that frame our belief systems ultimately determine whether the actions of others are offensive to us or not. According to an article published in a philosophy blog post on the 16 November 2008, feeling offended comes as a choice when the victim feels that the offender is crossing their personal beliefs (Farrington & David, 15). Examining this, let’s say that the beliefs of a particular religion differs from those of another. The members within the group accept certain codified modes of behavior, while those of another do not. While in religion A, one might be required to cover one’s head in a holy building, in religion B, one might be required to remove anything covering one’s head. Focusing on this example, we see that the opposite behaviors can lead to offense or not. This indicates, that at least at a superficial level, the stimulus that leads to the offense is a conscious cultural construction, which would tend to indicate that one’s receptiveness to the offense is elective.
Control Over Reactions
People have all the necessary faculties enabling them to control their reactions towards the various stimuli encountered at the societal level. Submitting to be offended is the result of reacting to a situation without considering one’s own agency in the given situation. Often, we fall victims to offensive behaviors because we allow our emotions to respond automatically without us endeavoring to consciously contain or frame the situation at the level of the superego (Johnson & Shane, 195). Certainly, in cases of deliberate provocation, the feeling of taking offense is challenging to overrule. Nevertheless to be insulted by the insulting person can be made into a conscious choice through the exercise of logical and objective analysis. This occurs when we closely examine our emotional reactions and consider the root causes of them, as a doctor would examine a patient’s illness. That is to say, self-awareness, which leads to self-control is the primary factor determining whether we will empower ourselves to exercise our own agency. Being offended is a feeling we choose to experience or at least experience, by neglecting to exercise our power to choose.
Conclusion
This paper argues that ultimately it is up to the individual to feel offended or not. Feeling offended comes as a result of our world views and perceptions about things based on our cultural backgrounds – things like religion and ethics frame these perspectives. It is also clear that being offended, while it may initially come without thought, is something we can ultimately control through self-awareness and adequate preparation. While it may be true that taking offense occurs at a primal level of the brain, ultimately, we have agency over how this part of the brain reacts to the offensive stimuli, as the offensive stimuli is generated by culture.
References
Farrington, David P. “Introduction to integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending.” Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. Routledge, 2017. 11-24.
Johnson, Shane D. “How do offenders choose where to offend? Perspectives from animal foraging.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 19.2 (2014): 193-210.
What Else is There to Write About on This Kind of Topic?
Without a doubt, there are many avenues to explore related to this topic. If you’re having difficulties structuring your diagnostic essay essay or find yourself getting lost in the ocean of thesis statements and transition words, then feel free to turn to us. Our writers have many years of experience and will be glad to help you. Moreover, we have helpful tools, such as an AI writing checker and a college essay title generator that you can use free of charge. For now, feel free to look through these concepts and see if there’s one that sparks enough to make you want to explore it further in an essay.
Arguments for intentional offense-taking
- Social and cultural context. Different groups and individuals have varying sensitivities and interpretations of words and actions. Someone familiar with offensive language might not react as strongly as someone who isn’t.
- Personal experiences and biases. Past experiences, personal beliefs, and biases can influence how individuals perceive and react to potentially offensive stimuli. Someone with the past experience of feeling discrimination might be more attuned to similar situations, for example.
- Strategic offense-taking: Some individuals might choose to be offended as a tactic to gain attention, sympathy, or leverage in social or power dynamics. This can be seen in online outrage culture or political discourse.
- Confirmation bias: We tend to interpret information in ways that confirm our existing beliefs. Someone predisposed to finding certain things offensive might selectively focus on aspects that support their interpretation.
Arguments against intentional offense-taking
- Universal human emotions. Basic emotions like anger, hurt, and sadness are involuntary responses to perceived threats or harm. While the intensity and expression might vary, the initial emotional reaction likely isn’t a conscious choice.
- Empathy and social norms. Most humans have an innate capacity for empathy and understanding the perspectives of others. Even if unintentionally offensive, the speaker’s intent and context can influence how much offense is taken.
- Psychological factors. Mental health conditions like anxiety or depression can heighten sensitivity and lead to misinterpretations or overreactions to perceived slights. In such cases, the offense-taking might not be a conscious choice.
- The role of language. Language can be ambiguous and open to interpretation. What one person finds offensive, another might not, highlighting the subjective nature of the offense and the challenges of clear communication.
Additional aspects to explore
- The role of power dynamics. Are certain groups or individuals more likely to have their feelings of having been offended deemed legitimate compared to others? How does power imbalance influence perceptions of offense?
- The concept of microaggressions. Subtle, often unintentional biases or prejudices embedded in everyday interactions can cause cumulative harm and raise questions about individual vs. societal responsibility.
- The evolving nature of the offense. What used to be considered acceptable language or behavior might now be offensive due to changing social norms and awareness. How do we navigate this evolving landscape?
The importance of open communication and education. Can open dialogue and cultural sensitivity training help mitigate unintentional offenses and promote understanding?
Photo by Burst from Unsplash
