This is hilarious! How are we to impose ethical constraints without an already existing ethical framework, which would require you to do philosophy, the very thing you're attempting to constrain to begin with?
Doxastic wronging is a void concept without having an idea of what constitutes wronging. If this is self-evident then the discipline of ethics is unnecessary. Indeed, other areas, which the author tried to use analogously, like the hard sciences, are informed from philosophy about their ethical constraints. Basu's own views of what constitutes doxastic wronging are highly contested in the political sphere, making it clear this is not self-evident.
This does not seem to be in the best interest of philosophy and free enquiry, but rather in favour of a political ideology, whose presuppositions need to be questioned before they are embraced.
In the light of what you say about two groups holding prejudices, what you are talking about is natural and tribal. We naturally are inclined to “birds of a feather flock together”, forming a strong cohesion within the group for survival, being suspicious of and even hostile to outsiders or other tribes.
So we encounter difference which inevitably results in tensions and it’s by navigating these tensions that our horizons are broadened and our lives enriched.
To imagine such natural and healthy tension could be considered “harm” is a red flag. And any it is symptomatic of pernicious ideology which historically has led to tyranny. The tens of millions of people that died as a result of tyranny in the 20th century are evidence enough to be concerned about what is likely to happen if the proposition is to take root and the current manifestation is indeed worrying in the approach of the government while being portrayed as justice and compassion.
Race is one aspect, and the same could be said for any number of aspects where there is difference. The irony being that in the interest of promoting diversity, disallowing diversity of thought. This produces cognitive dissonance instead of fostering the respect and well being it claims to do.
"The idea that beliefs on their own are sufficient to wrong another person."
So, in the context of the hypothetical wife believing that he husband has been drinking when she smells wine on him when he hasn't been drinking hurting his feelings. OK so the belief she has is wrong and it being the "belief itself that harms" in this case.
So the proposition here is that harm has been caused by mistaken belief and the harm is hurt feelings for the husband. So therefore the remedy is to establish what the truth is to provide relief both to the errant belief and and hurt feelings.
But there are assumptions in the proposition that hurt feelings are harmful. Feelings are subjective and the husband in this case might not care what his wife believes or perhaps he deliberately spilled wine on his clothes for some reason to get a rise out of her for them both to laugh about and enjoy, celebrating the fact together of his dependence on alcohol being addressed and for him to be edified in what he has achieved in resisting drinking alcohol. Or he might have come home smelling of wine for some nefarious reason, because he wanted to start and argument with his wife. In which case it's not her belief that's the issue as such, if she is open to being corrected, but his intention to start a fight unnecessarily.
Of there could be other things going on in this.
The claim that an errant belief alone causes harm and this indicated by hurt feelings therefore it open to challenge. Also, there is not evidence provided here to make a substantive case for hurt feelings being indicative of harm. Hurt feelings can happen for good reason. Anyone who has experienced any form of discipline has experienced hurt feelings. But for a parent to never discipline a child, say, is to be unloving - it's setting up a child for failure in the world, and it will be the world that disciplines the child rather than the parent. Not good.
So for a wrong belief to be held merely shows the potential for harm to be done. It is no evidence of harm being done and certainly hurt feelings, given the subjective nature of feelings it an unreliable gauge for determining harm having occurred. As shown, hurt feelings may be as the result of someone's act of love.
If the errant belief were harmful, no one could face the temptation with a thought of an inappropriate action without that being treated as harmful. The truth is that humans face such temptation to be inappropriate in actions all the time. But the temptation, the thought is not the issue. The issue is whether the thought is entertained and acted on. Conversely someone saying "that plumber should be murdered" is highly unlikely to be advocating for murder, but rather likely expressing dissatisfaction at a trade persons shoddy workmanship.
But what this proposal suggests is what could lead to "thought crime". The positing that it not only be an action but a thought of an action constituting a crime. If that is allowed to take seed then God help us.
'Thought crime' is scribbled into the margins on my copy of this paper at least twice. Though in this context it would be limiting the kinds of questions you could pursue as an academic or student. However, the recent declaration that harmful beliefs will be cracked down on by the Labour government is a worrying manifestation of this concept of doxastic wronging.
As you point out there is plenty wrong with the argument that beliefs can lead to hurt feelings. Including the presupposition that hurt caused by beliefs is something to be avoided. This is one of the problems with thought experiments or contrived examples, they can be written to get across the point you want to get across. Case and point:
I gave an example in my class about this. I use a racial group because the paper stresses this as a situation where beliefs can harm:
Imagine two rooms in a building. Room A and Room B. Room A is full of people from one ethnic group and Room B is full of people from some other ethnic group.
Room A is full of people who all happen to have prejudicial beliefs about the people in Room B.
Room B is full of people who all happen to have prejudicial beliefs about the people in Room A
Both ethnic groups, understanding that to express such beliefs is not socially acceptable, keep these beliefs to themselves.
Nobody in Room A nor in Room B is aware that there are people in the same building who hold prejudicial beliefs about them. Is anybody harmed by the mere fact of the belief?
I think the critical theorist response to this would be to re-emphasise that their understanding of racism is structural and not only acts of prejudice (or acts of prejudicial belief in this case) so that the contents of thought, even if not expressed, contribute to the system of racism that is the society where outcomes are skewed in favour of one group over others at the expense of the other.
Ultimately, this is a clear attempt on the part of the radicals to limit the kinds of discussions that can be had academically and within society and culture to the discussions that they give the go ahead on, that contribute to progress as they envision it. I had a philosophy professor say to me that there some things we just shouldn't talk about. Giving race and IQ as an example. My response was to say that whatever the reality of the relationship is between race and IQ it is worthwhile talking about. If there is a relationship, then that would be useful information that could inform how we act to imbalances, and useful information to arm us against those who would seek to use that as a justification for mistreatment. If there is no relationship, then that would be good to know to be able to technically dispel any claims to the contrary that might be used to justify mistreatment.
There is no argument for not being able to discuss sensitive topics. While we should do so with humility and recognition that it is sensitive, the expectation that the weight of a conversation should put people off discussing it will only increase the number of problems we have the wont be solved, it wont actually help resolve any problems. Burying heads in the sand while claiming the moral high ground.
This is hilarious! How are we to impose ethical constraints without an already existing ethical framework, which would require you to do philosophy, the very thing you're attempting to constrain to begin with?
Doxastic wronging is a void concept without having an idea of what constitutes wronging. If this is self-evident then the discipline of ethics is unnecessary. Indeed, other areas, which the author tried to use analogously, like the hard sciences, are informed from philosophy about their ethical constraints. Basu's own views of what constitutes doxastic wronging are highly contested in the political sphere, making it clear this is not self-evident.
This does not seem to be in the best interest of philosophy and free enquiry, but rather in favour of a political ideology, whose presuppositions need to be questioned before they are embraced.
I completely agree.
In the light of what you say about two groups holding prejudices, what you are talking about is natural and tribal. We naturally are inclined to “birds of a feather flock together”, forming a strong cohesion within the group for survival, being suspicious of and even hostile to outsiders or other tribes.
So we encounter difference which inevitably results in tensions and it’s by navigating these tensions that our horizons are broadened and our lives enriched.
To imagine such natural and healthy tension could be considered “harm” is a red flag. And any it is symptomatic of pernicious ideology which historically has led to tyranny. The tens of millions of people that died as a result of tyranny in the 20th century are evidence enough to be concerned about what is likely to happen if the proposition is to take root and the current manifestation is indeed worrying in the approach of the government while being portrayed as justice and compassion.
Race is one aspect, and the same could be said for any number of aspects where there is difference. The irony being that in the interest of promoting diversity, disallowing diversity of thought. This produces cognitive dissonance instead of fostering the respect and well being it claims to do.
"The idea that beliefs on their own are sufficient to wrong another person."
So, in the context of the hypothetical wife believing that he husband has been drinking when she smells wine on him when he hasn't been drinking hurting his feelings. OK so the belief she has is wrong and it being the "belief itself that harms" in this case.
So the proposition here is that harm has been caused by mistaken belief and the harm is hurt feelings for the husband. So therefore the remedy is to establish what the truth is to provide relief both to the errant belief and and hurt feelings.
But there are assumptions in the proposition that hurt feelings are harmful. Feelings are subjective and the husband in this case might not care what his wife believes or perhaps he deliberately spilled wine on his clothes for some reason to get a rise out of her for them both to laugh about and enjoy, celebrating the fact together of his dependence on alcohol being addressed and for him to be edified in what he has achieved in resisting drinking alcohol. Or he might have come home smelling of wine for some nefarious reason, because he wanted to start and argument with his wife. In which case it's not her belief that's the issue as such, if she is open to being corrected, but his intention to start a fight unnecessarily.
Of there could be other things going on in this.
The claim that an errant belief alone causes harm and this indicated by hurt feelings therefore it open to challenge. Also, there is not evidence provided here to make a substantive case for hurt feelings being indicative of harm. Hurt feelings can happen for good reason. Anyone who has experienced any form of discipline has experienced hurt feelings. But for a parent to never discipline a child, say, is to be unloving - it's setting up a child for failure in the world, and it will be the world that disciplines the child rather than the parent. Not good.
So for a wrong belief to be held merely shows the potential for harm to be done. It is no evidence of harm being done and certainly hurt feelings, given the subjective nature of feelings it an unreliable gauge for determining harm having occurred. As shown, hurt feelings may be as the result of someone's act of love.
If the errant belief were harmful, no one could face the temptation with a thought of an inappropriate action without that being treated as harmful. The truth is that humans face such temptation to be inappropriate in actions all the time. But the temptation, the thought is not the issue. The issue is whether the thought is entertained and acted on. Conversely someone saying "that plumber should be murdered" is highly unlikely to be advocating for murder, but rather likely expressing dissatisfaction at a trade persons shoddy workmanship.
But what this proposal suggests is what could lead to "thought crime". The positing that it not only be an action but a thought of an action constituting a crime. If that is allowed to take seed then God help us.
'Thought crime' is scribbled into the margins on my copy of this paper at least twice. Though in this context it would be limiting the kinds of questions you could pursue as an academic or student. However, the recent declaration that harmful beliefs will be cracked down on by the Labour government is a worrying manifestation of this concept of doxastic wronging.
As you point out there is plenty wrong with the argument that beliefs can lead to hurt feelings. Including the presupposition that hurt caused by beliefs is something to be avoided. This is one of the problems with thought experiments or contrived examples, they can be written to get across the point you want to get across. Case and point:
I gave an example in my class about this. I use a racial group because the paper stresses this as a situation where beliefs can harm:
Imagine two rooms in a building. Room A and Room B. Room A is full of people from one ethnic group and Room B is full of people from some other ethnic group.
Room A is full of people who all happen to have prejudicial beliefs about the people in Room B.
Room B is full of people who all happen to have prejudicial beliefs about the people in Room A
Both ethnic groups, understanding that to express such beliefs is not socially acceptable, keep these beliefs to themselves.
Nobody in Room A nor in Room B is aware that there are people in the same building who hold prejudicial beliefs about them. Is anybody harmed by the mere fact of the belief?
I think the critical theorist response to this would be to re-emphasise that their understanding of racism is structural and not only acts of prejudice (or acts of prejudicial belief in this case) so that the contents of thought, even if not expressed, contribute to the system of racism that is the society where outcomes are skewed in favour of one group over others at the expense of the other.
Ultimately, this is a clear attempt on the part of the radicals to limit the kinds of discussions that can be had academically and within society and culture to the discussions that they give the go ahead on, that contribute to progress as they envision it. I had a philosophy professor say to me that there some things we just shouldn't talk about. Giving race and IQ as an example. My response was to say that whatever the reality of the relationship is between race and IQ it is worthwhile talking about. If there is a relationship, then that would be useful information that could inform how we act to imbalances, and useful information to arm us against those who would seek to use that as a justification for mistreatment. If there is no relationship, then that would be good to know to be able to technically dispel any claims to the contrary that might be used to justify mistreatment.
There is no argument for not being able to discuss sensitive topics. While we should do so with humility and recognition that it is sensitive, the expectation that the weight of a conversation should put people off discussing it will only increase the number of problems we have the wont be solved, it wont actually help resolve any problems. Burying heads in the sand while claiming the moral high ground.