How do we think about cancel culture?

Cancel culture incorrectly assumes that morality is binary

Question: How do we think about cancel culture?
Position‹3 of 4›: Cancel culture must be cancelled
Argument‹6 of 8›: 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.

Premises

[P1]Moral philosophy has produced many competing, non-universal codes, so morality is genuinely contested rather than natural and fixed. [P2] Cancel culture denies this by assuming a black-and-white view of morality, leaving no room for nuance, context, or motivation in civil discourse. [P3] In doing so it shuts down fruitful inquiry into controversial topics and imposes a stunted moral code on its targets. [C] Therefore, because it incorrectly assumes morality is binary, cancel culture must be cancelled.

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

[Rejecting P1] Persistent disagreement among philosophers shows that moral questions are hard, not that no moral judgement is warranted; the same reasoning would rule out condemning anything at all, which the argument does not intend. [Rejecting P2] That a black-and-white view is assumed is asserted rather than shown, and nothing about withdrawing one's own support commits a person to a theory of morality. People objecting to a particular remark are usually making a judgement about that remark, not a general claim that ethics is fixed and natural. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion does not follow from the diagnosis: if the fault is a lack of nuance, context and motive, the remedy is proportion and a hearing rather than abolition — and abolishing the practice outright would be the same absolutism the premise objects to. The counter adds the further point that not every position is owed a place in the discussion.