argument top image

How do we think about cancel culture?
Back to question

Cancel culture incorrectly assumes that morality is binary

Cancel culture assumes that morals and people are either good or bad, right or wrong. In reality, ideals and people are more nuanced than that, but cancel culture doesn't allow anyone to understand that.

The Argument

Moral ethics has long been a subject of philosophical intrigue and debate. There have been many moral codes and ways of living promoted by many different great thinkers, many of which with some some merit but none universally accepted. In any case, with all the perspectives on morality that have existed across time and space, moral inquiry has long fueled discussion among those who seek the truth. Cancel culture denies the existence of alternative perspectives. In its assault on open dialogue and debate, it falsely assumes a black and white view of the world in which morality is both natural and fixed. In practice, this gives no space for nuance in civil discourse. People are being cancelled for opinions that are often looped into complex ethical debates. In many cases there are also extraneous concerns around context and motivation. In choosing to see these as irrelevant, cancel culture prevents fruitful inquiry or discussion. It imposes a strict moral code on its victims and denies society the opportunity to engage with controversial topics. It propagates a stunted view of morality that ultimately does not square with reality.

Counter arguments

It sounds nice to want to promote diversity or moral debate. But it leads to a dangerous slippery slope. There isn't much one can say to defend how racist propaganda is just "another perspective" that needs to be respected. Not every viewpoint has merits. To tolerate racism and other hateful viewpoints in public discourse is to allow it to fester and linger in our society, instead of uprooting it out of our history.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 20:31 UTC

Explore related arguments