Working With “The Other” as Ethical Americans

The USA has had a longstanding reputation for being a nation where people of differing opinions and backgrounds live in a pluralistic, democratic society with one another. Yet rising vitriol and hatred in the sociopolitical sphere and polarization have eroded this heralded view: key socio-political values are increasingly divided into two camps, conservatives and liberals (Doherty). These camps are worryingly divided, with 61% of Clinton voters stating that it is hard to be friends with Trump voters, and 34% of Trump voters stating the opposite (Ekins). How should this situation, which is troubling to many Americans, be ethically managed?

This essay provides several strategies for decreasing ideological strife. It begins by critically examining two approaches to “the other”, Emersonian ethics and regarding forgiveness and tolerance as supererogatory. Data from think tanks and writings by ethicists is discussed through these two frameworks. A topic that is essential to the core of American partisan divide, free speech, is discussed first. Then, the more specialist topic of human genetic modification is analyzed. The essay emphasizes that Americans have more complex views than the dichotomy that dominates contemporary political discourse and that nuanced scholarly writings can elevate discourse. The door is open for Americans ascribing to different points of view to ethically use a new strategy, drawing from both the Emersonian values of connectedness and reading as well as Benbagi and Heyd’s encouraged visions of forgiveness and tolerance, to reconcile and find solutions. The essay constructs brief policy suggestions on the two topics.

Michael Boatright provides a framework for “Emersonian ethics” in which self-improvement is intimately connected with “the other”. This group of ideas draws most heavily from famed nineteenth-century American transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, but also draws from thinkers Michel Foucault, John Dewey, Louise M. Rosenblatt, Geoffrey Galt Harpham, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Boatright provides an overview of this train of thought: "By arguing that life is a continual process of being and becoming within relations, Emerson produces a reconceptualization of the subject as that which lives not diametrically opposite of an object—rather, he foregrounds the argument that subject and object work together in concert, as conjoined concepts better envisioned in...deeply embedded, networked, and imbricated existence in relations" (15). The relationship between self and other is therefore hopeful and future-oriented (Boatright 16-17). There are three main aspects of Emersonian Ethics as described by Boatright: To improve one’s relationship with others, one must consistently invigorate themself through deep reading of different, well-thought out perspectives (17-21). Self care includes fostering and maintaining positive relationships with others, and taking time for reading can help a person strengthen these relationships through greater understanding (21-24). One should also think of themself as a “work of art” who is free to change themself when presented with new perspectives from reading and interactions with others (24-27). This philosophical viewpoint, which in fact views learning from and interacting with people one disagrees with as obligatory to an ethical life (Boatright), stands radically opposed to the views of many Americans. Studies show that a staggering 35% of Americans agree with President Trump that journalists are the enemy of the American people (Ekins), while 19% of American college students would be okay violence preventing someone they disagree with from speaking at campus (Poushter).

A main reason why the Emersonian viewpoint does not connect universally is that to some people, there are “others” who support views so objectionable that they warrant intolerance and a lack of forgiveness: the actor cannot be separated from the act (Benbaji 576). Hajit Benbaji and David Heyd provide a philosophical framework that accounts for these sentiments by describing forgiveness and tolerance as supererogatory -- usually ethically commendable, but above what is required. The thinkers differentiate forgiveness from tolerance, despite both being kinds of restraint in treating a person (not an action) while they are unrepentant of wrongs (Benbaji 567, 572): “forgiveness applies exclusively to actions done in the past...Tolerance, however, is exercised towards actions both present and future” (Benbaji 575). Both are relevant to today’s US political sphere, as a striking 39% of Americans believe that flag burners should be stripped of citizenship instead of forgiven (Ekins) despite the practice being protected by the Supreme Court (Arthur 378), and 28% of millenials believe that the government should censor, not tolerate, people who are offensive to minority groups (Poushter). Tolerance and forgiveness, to Hajit and Heyd, require a person to change their view from just judgement to personal understanding and “involve personal sacrifice...renouncement of rights”: there is no moral duty to these kinds of restraint, because they are “gifts” to someone who has been unjust and is not due them (579-580). However, similarly to Emersonian thinkers, they believe that restoring connection through methods such as toleration and forgiveness is “constitutive of the possibility of a community of citizens in a variegated society...and of friendship and love” (Benbaji 583). To them forgiveness and tolerance towards “others” we disagree with or even despise, despite not being required, would be in most cases the ethically best way to move forward in a divided society such as the contemporary USA.

"However unwilling a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth…" (Mill 349). In this quote, famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill provides his justification for absolute free speech. Proponents of Emersonian ethics would agree with this quote, as they believe in constantly challenging one’s own views to reach greater, transcendental understanding (Boatright 27). Rationale similar to Mills’ has been enshrined in today’s American psyche, and the First Amendment to the US Constitution, according to Supreme Court precedent from the 1960’s until today, protects most forms of speech except for libel, incitement for lawlessness, obscenity, and fighting words (Arthur 372). Nevertheless, societal debate regarding how the First Amendment should be implemented is currently raging. The most prominent facet of this debate in media is between conservatives who claim that political correctness is stifling speech, especially at colleges, and liberals who claim that hate speech is harmful and should not be protected. This assumption regarding liberals reminds one of people, described by Benbaji and Heyd, who cannot tolerate people who perpetuate injustice (Benbaji 576). However, this characterization is stereotypical: views on free speech are more complex. Collegiate Americans across all political affiliations are deeply divided on the question of if hate speech is protected by the First Amendment are not: overall, 39% say yes and 44% say no. The same survey also found that although the majority (61%) of Democratic students were in favor of prohibiting speech that is offensive/biased towards certain groups of people, 47% of Republican students were as well (Villasenor). One theory for this data is that many Democrats are in favor of banning hate speech against a person’s class, gender, sexuality, or (nonwhite) race, while many Republicans are in favor of banning hate speech against a person’s military/police status, political viewpoint, or (white) race: 81% of liberals state that calling a person of a racial minority an offensive slur is hateful (compared to 43% of conservatives), and 39% of conservatives state that calling the police racist is hateful (compared to 19% of liberals). This survey, however, shows the trend of (usually liberal) Democrats being more in favor of limiting hate speech than (usually conservative) Republicans on average (Ekins).

The work of ethicists John Arthur and Andrew Altman, as well as answers to several questions from think tank surveys, show that there is a path towards consensus regarding the free speech debate. Arthur and Altman present clear, complex, and different viewpoints on the topic that both show how amateur most modern pundits are: the thinkers’ ideas are thought-provoking and exemplify the value of Emersonian deep reading. Arthur is a stark defender of free speech who agrees with Mill that it is vital in pursuing the truth, maintaining democratic government, and preserving human rights. He also believes that free speech is fragile because censorship can easily sweep too broad (Arthur 371). He therefore believes that a good way to fight hate speech is “with more speech” that “avoid[s] censorship but also allow[s] people to make a powerful statement about their feelings about the importance of respecting the rights of others in their community.” He cites an example of people in Missoula, Montana successfully fighting a person hatefully throwing a brick at the Menorah of a Jewish family by hanging up Menorah pictures of their own in solidarity with the family (Arthur 376). This method is Emersonian and forgiving without ignoring injustice, as it is a creative way of showing relation with people who have been harmed and sending a disapproving message to the person propagating harm without official sanction. He also provides two ways to legally restrict hate speech without infringing on First Amendment rights. The first method is restricting the context of the speech, such as when, where, and how it is allowed, without restricting its content. The second method is anti-harassment legislation that punishes patterns of behavior that are either hateful or annoying (Arthur 377-379). Both of these methods are less controversial than banning individual hate speech incidents. In places like libraries the time and manner of speech is already restricted. The long-term detrimental effects of harassment are already well-documented, while harassment prevention programs are already in place at most schools. Anti-harassment legislation also provides chances for the perpetrators of hate speech to be forgiven and make amends. Arthur also points out that hate speech’s First Amendment protection does not make the practice morally acceptable (Arthur 378). 79% of Americans agree: these people could be mobilized in Missoula-style activities that show that hate speech is not welcome, while hate speech bans would be harder to implement (with only 40% support). Also, the media can be used as a platform for anti-hate speakers: 70% of Americans, including majorities of all political leanings, are against government censorship of the news (Ekins).

Andrew Altman presents a view contrary to Arthur’s: he believes that codes that ban hate speech, with limitations, should be allowed on college campuses. He focuses on the expressive harms, or harms that show hostility to a certain group of people just for the use of a term or symbol, of hate speech. An example of an expressive harm he highlights is the inherent hostility towards African-Americans that is present in the Confederate Flag hanging at a statehouse. According to him, this harm does more than just cause emotional distress: it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (Altman 383). In formulating the type of speech code he supports, Altman divides hate speech into two sets of categories: public speech vs. private speech and hateful epithets vs. speech of academic value. Public hate speech, by his definitions, can have widespread negative impacts that violate the 14th amendment, while private hate speech is harmful but protected. Altman does make an exception to this second point by stating that hateful epithets are of low value to university settings, and First Amendment protections of them are overridden by a academic version of verbal workplace harassment (Altman 384-385). Unlike epithets, academically-focused hate speech should be protected, because it can be “subject to scrutiny, challenge, and refutation within the institutional rationality of the university...that rationality requires protection even for speech that claims or suggests some groups of humans are inherently inferior to others” (Altman 385). Despite favoring some limits on free speech, Emersonian ethics, tolerance, and forgiveness are far from foreign to Altman. His focus on how the expressive harms of epithets can severely damage one’s will for education (Altman 387) shows that he agrees with the Emersonians that all people should be able to relate with reading to improve themselves and their relationships with others. His advocacy for not banning hate speech of academic value shows tolerance in allowing people to do deep Emersonian readings of these texts: Possible positive responses to these texts could be minimized because of educational programs that support equality and dissuade bigotry (Altman 382), and well-thought out criticisms of these works could allow their authors to change their minds, methods, and/or hearts (Altman 383). Limited speech codes that protect Constitutional Rights, or at least new anti-harassment measures that target hate speech, are a popular option: 53% of college students support measures similar to these (Villasenor), although efforts to pass them will be hampered by people like Arthur who believe that speech content rights are inalienable (Arthur 371).

The topic of human genetic technology is hotly debated, with Jean-Pierre Fillard describing the dichotomy of transhumanists and bio-conservators (239). Transhumanists, who lean liberal, are often criticized for messing with the sanctity of life, while bio-conservators, who lean conservative in this debate but are ideologically diverse, are often criticized for impeding on necessary scientific progress. Thinkers Nick Bostrom and Francis Fukuyama present insightful essays which together, with an Emersonian deep reading, provide reasons for the valuing of concerns from both sides of the debate. Bostrom, a transhumanist, describes his movement: "It promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition...Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence" (Bostrom 493). At first glance, this way of thinking seems relatively uncontroversial to anyone open to technology and, with mentions of ending disease and unnecessary suffering (Bostrom 493), healthcare. However, aspects of transhumanism are seen as radical by mainstream thinkers.

Transhuman is a transitional term between human and posthuman: a posthuman is a person who has ben freed of the limitations of humanity in order to access more knowledge and new values. Bostrom addresses the concern that by becoming post-human people will give up themselves: he states that people already constantly change themselves and may want to give up some aspects of themselves to reap the benefits of post-humanity (494-496). Americans are not convinced by reasoning like this: 66% of them do not want their brains enhanced (Funk et al.). Germline editing, or editing DNA to favor certain traits that will be passed down over generations, is also advocated for by transhumanists. Although multiple studies show that Americans strongly oppose germline editing that increases intelligence, the same studies show that germline editing that reduces the risk of serious diseases has almost 50% support (Funk, “The Public”). Bostrom, although he acknowledges them (500), quickly dismisses the deontological claims that there is something inherently wrong with germline editing (497): 30% of Americans describe the practice as morally/religiously unacceptable. Many Americans worry about germline editing for serious diseases even if they support it (Funk et al.), but Bostrom states that evidence from real-life in vitro births shows that parents consistently show care for babies they had choice in creating (497). The idea that transhumanism promotes inequality is prevalent, with 70-73% of Americans stating that social inequality will increase if genetic technologies are initially available only for the wealthy (Funk et al.). Bostrom acknowledges this concern, and suggests a partial solution in the form of government subsidies and handouts of transhumanist technologies to poor households (503). Despite being relatively dismissive at times, Bostrom applies Emersonian ethics to his work: he emphasizes that people can become their own “works of art”, changing themselves because of the new possibilities of transhumanism. He also encourages tolerance towards people who make unconventional free choices (496) and people who have beliefs that impede what he sees as progress (500).

Thinker and bio-conservator Francis Fukuyama critiques the transhumanist perspective without being averse to the technologies that it promotes. He rejects Bostrom’s notion that transhumanism is not morally problematic when people freely choose it: he agrees with many Americans that potential medical advances in the field of genetic enhancement may have unintended consequences and that germline editing is problematic because the unborn who are subject to it cannot give consent (Fukuyama 158, 161). He also criticizes the claim that life extension will be a universal positive, as he believes it prevents needed generational turnover and may (in the near-term) only increase the duration, not quality, of people’s lives (Fukuyama 159). Giving credence to the 46% of Americans who believe that germline editing crosses a line (Funk et al.), he explains that “[the Western] moral system in fact depends on a belief in the existence of a universal human essence that gives us...political rights.” He believes these rights will be affected in as-of-now unknown ways by genetic technology: to him, rising social inequality that stratifies people into different classes based on appearance and ability may be one effect (Fukuyama 161-162). His view of proper regulation for genetic technologies is more expansive than Bostrom’s: he envisions the creation of a new US regulatory industry that considers ethical as well as safety issues of genetic technologies (Fukuyama 164). Promotion of regulation may be an attractive possibility to the over 70% of Americans who believe that genetic technologies will be on the market before they are fully accepted (Funk et al.). Like many Americans, Fukuyama is open to the possibility of genetic enhancements fighting disease: he believes that we should help poorer people become healthier before thinking of enhancing the rich (Fukuyama 166). He draws from and provides essential cautions into the Emersonian web of relations surrounding genetic modification: for example, he analyzes current demographic trends to support his arguments regarding unintended consequences (158-160). He also expresses tolerance for people who are more excited about genetic technologies than himself by stating that democratic governments can enact different regulations on them (Fukuyama 165-166). In the USA, artificial organs have 74% support (Funk) and technologies that people have a high degree of control over have plurality support (Funk et al.).

A study has shown that “a person’s good health, romantic partner, friends and career” are the most important factors that, if present, lead to high satisfaction in life (Van Kessel). Using the powers of learning and connecting through Emersonian ethics as well as toleration and forgiveness through Benbaji and Heyd’s model, Americans can reach life satisfaction in these areas. They can also use these methods to work with each other to reach common ground on pressing socio-political issues, instead of arguing with “the other” who happens to have a differing opinion. Regarding the highly politicized topic of free speech, Americans can protect the First Amendment while combating hate speech through counter-speech, context-limiting laws, anti-harassment measures, and 14th Amendment protections. Regarding the hotly debated, but more theologically than politically divisive (Funk), issue of genetic technology, Americans can reach common ground through democratically choosing when/which technologies should be available, regulating the biotechnology industry to ensure safety and ethical practice, and subsidizing or freely providing technologies to make sure they do not propagate inequality. For both issues, people must be open to deep reading and discussion as Emerson instructs, so creative ideas, self-empowerment, and ethical democratic society can shine. Even on the sub-issues in which their is broad agreement, minority views should be critically engaged in order to form a prosperous society.

Works Cited

Altman, Andrew. “Speech Codes and Expressive Harm.” Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, edited by Hugh LaFollette, Wiley Blackwell, 2014, pp. 381-388.

Arthur, John. “Sticks and Stones.” Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, edited by Hugh LaFollette, Wiley Blackwell, 2014, pp. 370-379.

Benbaji, Hajit, and David Heyd. “The Charitable Perspective: Forgiveness and Toleration as Supererogatory.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 31, no. 4, 2001, pp. 567-586.

Boatright, Michael. “Emersonian Reading and Ethics: Reading for Developing an Ethical Stance toward Self and Other.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 50, no. 4, 2016, pp. 15-30.

Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective.” The Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 37, no. 4, 2003, pp. 493-506.

Doherty, Carroll. “Key takeaways on Americans’ growing partisan divide over political values.”Pew Research Center, 5 Oct. 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/.

Ekins, Emily. “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America: Attitudes About Free Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Liberty, and Tolerance of Political Expression.” Cato Institute. 31 Oct. 2017, https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#30.

Fillard, Jean-Pierre. Is Man To Survive Science. World Scientific, 2015.

Fukuyama, Francis. “Agency or Inevitability: Will Human Beings Control Their Technological Future?” The Posthuman Condition: Ethics, Aesthetics and Politics of Biotechnological Challenges, edited by Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Mads Rosendahl Thomsen, Jacob Wamberg, Aarhus University Press, 2012, pp. 159-171.

Funk, Cary, and Becka A. Alper. “Religion and Science: Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science.” Pew Research Center, 22 Oct. 2015, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/.

Funk, Cary et al. “U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities.” Pew Research Center, 26 Jul. 2016, http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-of-biomedical-technologies-to-enhance-human-abilities/.

Mill, John Stuart. “Freedom of Thought and Discussion.” Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, edited by Hugh LaFollette, Wiley Blackwell, 2014, pp. 348-351.

Poushter, Jacob. “40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities.” Pew Research Center, 20 Nov. 2015, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/.

“The Public and Gene Editing, Testing, and Therapy.” Harvard School of Public Health, Jan. 2016, https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/01/STAT-Harvard-Poll-Jan-2016-Genetic-Technology.pdf.

Van Kessel, Patrick, and Adam Hughes. “Americans who find meaning in these four areas have higher life satisfaction.” Pew Research Center, 20 Nov. 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/20/americans-who-find-meaning-in-these-four-areas-have-higher-life-satisfaction/.

Villasenor, John. “Views among college students regarding the First Amendment.” Brookings,18. Sept 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/.