Flores-Rosario 1

Bryan Flores-Rosario

Dr. William Jarrett

PHIL 2102-003

8 December 2015

Political Correctness

Political Correctness can be defined as how to present oneself as to not create

offense through any outwardly actions including speech and text. In 2015, there have

been leaps and bounds made in favor of political correctness, but these leaps and bounds

have overstepped into a gray area between political correctness and censorship.

Unfortunately censorship is an overwhelming reality that is coming into play and may

become the norm in the next few years. Now, what allows the opinions of a couple of

groups to harm and censor the vast majority that would also like to share their opinions?

There is no justice in silencing the voices of many simply due to small populations

opposing views on the right of speech and opinions.

Humans have an unmistakable characteristic known as the mind which allows

us to form thoughts and opinions based on our internal moral compass. This allows every

human to form their own independent thoughts and opinions shaped by their experiences.

Something to note however, is that people may share similar opinions and thoughts due to

exterior pressures exerted, it becomes evident that the individual self is largely, if not

entirely, a social product and a self defined by society (Solomon et al, 310). This shows

how a persons identity, including their morals, may shift according to societys pressure

on a topic.
 Flores-Rosario 2

In contrast to the importance of individuality of ideologies and moralities, there is

also a lack of community when considering the push for political correctness. I find that

the reason that this is being pressured is due to select groups of people identifying

themselves as apart from others, thus diminishing the other peoples humanity.

Kierkegaard put this dehumanization perfectly:

The more the collective idea comes to dominate even the ordinary

perspective, the more forbidding seems the transition to becoming an

individual existing human being instead of losing oneself in the race and

saying we, our age, the nineteenth century. (Solomon et al, 311)

This disparity between humans sets the whole idea of respect on a course of failure. The

fact that there are groups who dehumanize others opinions leads to a sense of

psychological egoism, that everyone, in fact acts for his or her own advantage, and the

only reason why people act respectfully or kindly toward each other is that that too, for

one reason or another, is to their advantage (Solomon et al, 459-460).

Political correctness started when people became adamant in their close-minded

views about what should be allowed to be said and what should not be allowed to be said.

This caused a sort of hierarchy of opinions where my opinion is better than yours so that

is why my opinion is correct, but this falls into a fallacy of logic. Apart from falling into

this fallacy, there is also the side that claims to know what is right and wrong in a world

where right and wrong has never been truly defined. The individual definition of what is

right and wrong can be attested to a form of hedonism, a conception of the good life that

says that the ultimate good is pleasure and that we want and ought to want pleasure. But

whereas traditional hedonism is concerned only with ones personal pleasure (Solomon
 Flores-Rosario 3

et al, 503). With the form of traditional hedonism in mind, the thought that a personal

opinion is more important than another persons opinion is not out of the discussion.

This hedonistic mentality of morality of ones actions and opinions causes the

discussion of what is right and what is wrong to be opened. Whose definition of right and

wrong will we follow and extend upon the entirety of society? This question is one that

should not be answered due to the enormity of the possibilities where the choice made

impacts more than simply a small group. In an essence, this decision would cause justice

to be shifted. John Rawls definition of justice shows how this decision would be

hypocritical and counter-intuitive:

The conception of justice which I want to develop may be stated in the

form of two principles as follows: first, each person participating in a

practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty

compatible with a like liberty for all; and second, inequalities are arbitrary

unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyones

advantage, and provided the positions and offices to which they attach, or

from which they may be gained, are open for all. (Solomon et al, 571)

Those who would disagree with my argument that this political correctness is

simply an advancement towards censorship would claim that justice is not being met

without censorship. This in part is due to a strictly superficial look at certain theories of

justice, one being John Rawls theory that attempts to explain how in order for something

to be deemed just the actions of everyone placed in the same situation disregarding

time period would also be just in nature (Solomon et al, 570). If looked at objectively,

those who advocate for censorship have rationalized that if others were being verbally
 Flores-Rosario 4

harassed and offended would also advocate for censorship, but this is untrue if looked at

accounts from other groups. This unfortunately falls flat for the advocates due to the

majority of other groups in the United States agree that if following laws and rules set

forth generations back would suggest that the right of freedom of speech outweighs the

intensity of verbal harassment. In other words, those who are against censorship

understand that the Constitution (the backbone of the country) is stronger than the

disagreement between the opinions of groups.

The advocates of Political Correctness would argue against my statement of their

psychological egoism by stating that they are not only advocating for themselves

individually but for an entire group. This psychological egoism described earlier ties in

with Kierkegaards On The Public with his explanation that the collective opinion

dwarfs the individual opinion until the individual no longer has there own opinions. This

shows how those ideals are no longer pleasure inducing, as the definition of right

would show; meaning that the pleasure should be induced by the original ideal and action

by an individual.

In addition to the points against philosophical topics that this wave of censorship

dawns, there can also be a testament to compare the censorship now to those in past

historical moments. One such moment of censorship that was deemed as unjust was the

censorship that occurred in Nazi Germany. I am not stating that this is what the wave of

political correctness will spawn, however, there is a lack of liberty in taking away the

rights of fellow citizens that was also adapted in this past historical moment.

Political Correctness seems to be inching on the boundaries of censorship that

may be deemed unjust by past generations but has now been seen as acceptable which
 Flores-Rosario 5

would make it unjust due to the theory of justice that claims that in order for an action

to be just and right it must have been the same actions considered just by previous

generations. The Political Correctness advocates would go against this theory of justice

due to the same group of people who are now advocating for a form of censorship have

deemed censorship incorrect and unjust in the past due to a different circumstance and

time period. In other words, this whole wave of censorship can be related to the mentality

that when it happens to others it is okay but when it happens to oneself, then it is wrong

and unjust.

Works Cited

- Solomon, Robert C., Kathleen Marie. Higgins, and Clancy W. Martin. Introducing

Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.