Paving the way to a better wrold or teh end of free speech? Political correctness reviewed

Keywords
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Issue Date
2019-07-03
Language
en
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
One of the most frequently heard arguments in the debate about political correctness is that political correctness conflicts with freedom of speech and is therefore objectionable. According to Mill’s harm principle, which states that speech and behaviour can only be rightfully restricted if it prevents serious harm to others, the restrictions political correctness imposes on free speech cannot be justified since they restrict more than only harmful speech and behaviour. According to Feinberg’s offence principle on the other hand, limitations on speech and behaviour imposed by political correctness are justifiable when they prevent offence, caused by wrongful behaviour of others. The question arises whether the restrictions on freedom of speech imposed by political correctness are justifiable. In this thesis, this question is answered by a critical analysis of the harm and the offence principle. Both a broad interpretation of the harm principle and the offence principle are accepted as justifiable principles to impose restrictions on free speech. According to the offence principle, at least certain types of political correctness can be justified. Since the offence principle offers valid standards to determine when offence ought to be (legally) restricted, the justification of restrictions on speech and behaviour imposed by political correctness in particular cases by the principle is convincing. It can be concluded that the restrictions political correctness imposes on language and behaviour are justifiable in some cases. In contrast, limitations on opinions imposed by political correctness are objectionable, because they conflict with the importance of free expression.
Description
Citation
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen
Specialisation