What is the Philosophy behind Political Correctness?

Question

What is the Philosophy behind political correctness? Is it trying to please everyone? If so what about the phrase "Try to please everyone and you will please no one."

If it is about that then it has already failed due to the fact that I personally, and I am not the only one, find it offensive.

So what is the Philosophy behind PC, and is it doing it's job?

Serious ansers only.

Thanks.

Answer 1

The basic philosophy behind political correctness is socio-economic justice and progress for all....pursuit of collective wellbeing that is just and fair towards everyone..... meaning equitable share in progress rather than equal share.

This philosophy is being blatantly overlooked and flouted due to pursuit of power having become the sole objective. In democracies, therefore, it has become a game of looking after the partisan interests of major groups at the cost of the interests of the minor groups, because power is vested in numbers. In other set-ups, it could take the form of alliance with power wielding groups such as the military establishment or the elite class or religious leadership or even a powerful neighboring country. Political correctness does not seem to exist anywhere, barring a few idealistic leaders struggling to make their voice heard and heeded to. Politics having become a power game, has thus also turned into a playground for corruption and cunningness.

Answer 2

I really dislike the phrase "political correctness". I think it is used by people who resist the idea of tolerance and acceptance. I believe if someone finds something offensive we need to respect that person and try to understand why. Let me give you an example. I am a very serious bird watcher. There is a duck formerly called the Oldsquaw in the United States. This bird was called the Long-tailed Duck everywhere else in the world. The American Union of Ornithologists decided to make Long-tailed Duck the official name in America. There were two reasons; first, it brought things in line with the rest of the world, second the word "squaw" is considered offensive by some indigenous Americans. I concurred with their decision and started using the proper name. I have friends who refuse to use the proper name, claiming they like Oldsquaw better and they don't think it matters that the word is offensive. If that word upsets people why not make the change?

Answer 3

I agree with the earlier responders who dislike the term "political correctness" as it implies some kind of conspiracy. When I was a young child in elementary school (back in the 70's), we were taught the Golden Rule -- Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I have always used that as the basis for my actions. Unfortunately, that makes me PC. It does not mean to try to please everyone. It does not mean that we must stifle discourse. It does not mean that we must sacrifice our beliefs for others. What it does mean is that we must respect the values of others as much as they must respect ours.

Let me give you an example. I am a Christian who attends church weekly, hosts a weekly Bible study, and openly discuss my faith with others. However, I strongly oppose school-led prayer. Why? Not because I'm PC, but because I do not want my children to be forced to pray to some other god. I respect the beliefs of others, even if I think they are wrong. America is about religious tolerance, and you can not have that when the state sponsors religion.

So, to answer your question, the philosophy behind PC is that we must all live together so we must respect one another. However, PC as it is portrayed in the conservative media is not that at all.

Answer 4

Socialism and Communism is an monetary device.And sharia regulation is a non secular doctrine. How do you be able to be taught the three till you don't comprehend the meaning of the words you're utilising. You of course could be a conservative. yet to aim to respond to your query it is not a probability to Democracy. Democracy is the device wherein leaders are put in to power via potential of election. Sharia regulation are derived from from Islamic religious text fabric. it rather is the Muslim regulation device. It has no longer something to do with or against Democracy. What it rather is, is in assessment with civil rights and liberties.

Answer 5

"Political correctness" is a term used to describe language or behavior which is supposedly intended to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems. Critics argue that political correctness implies censorship and endangers free speech by limiting what is in the public discourse, especially in universities and political forums.

But, name-calling is akin to hitting your opponent over the head with a club, an approach to issues that should have been left with the cave dwellers. Rational, fact-filled argumentation is one of civilization’s greatest achievements.

All people in a free society benefit when discourse is civil, which means that it should be reasoned, fact-filled, literate, specific, and respectful of the moral standards of the majority. Let us think and speak clearly and with the best of intentions.

Honesty doesn't mean a complete gut-spilling, nor does it require that harsh or cruel words be used to convey one's honest thoughts.

Thoughts or opinions need not be expressed in the most offensive way.

For too many people, the concept of PC is only a thin excuse for being blatantly insulting.

Answer 6

To determine the philosophy of "political correctness", one must first examine the definition of "philosophy": not an easy concept to define beyond one's own personal beliefs.

Today, "political correctness" is usually attributed to speech and actions not offending any race, culture, gender, sexual preference, or occupation. Does this mean I can't speak, write, or protest in an other way about what I think or believe. Of course it doesn't! Will I be taken to account for my speech, written words, and prostestations? You better believe I will! Is it possible I could lose a job? Yes. Is it possible I could be chastized and shunned by my community? Yes.

America was founded by those who were willing to "Stand up for their principles"--"political correctness" be damned!

Until the citizens of America, and the world, are willing to forfeit conveniences, even lives, to protect themselves and their families from those who would have them believe they have to "bend" to a "philosophy" they do not agree with, everyone is "at risk".

As a teacher, I do not agree with the Federal Government's mandate of "No Child Left Behind; which, unfortunately, every state in the U.S. must abide by or forfeit Federal and state funds. I abhor the testing that is required by Federal and state laws to determine a particular schools academic achievement, or the ability of any given teacher to teach. My voice will be heard, and I will probably lose my job; maybe even my certification; but, I cannot abandon my principles.

Illegal immigration, regardless of its source, is not acceptable. Heinous crimes against humans, no matter where they occur, are not acceptable. "Politically correct" is a term used by those who have chosen the "easy way out"!

As a member of a Federally recognized American Native Indian tribe, I am offended by my own tribal members and members of other Native American Indian tribes who are, and have been opposed to the use of Indian names for colleges, universities, and athletic teams.

I graduated from a college in Oklahoma that had once been an Indian school dedicated to the education of Cherokee females. The Cherokee National Female Seminary evolved into a Normal School, later evolving into Northeastern State College, now known as Notheastern State University, Tahlequah. My grandmother was a 1902 graduate when this university was the Cherokee National Female Seminary. She was a teacher in Indian Territory long before Oklahoma became a state. Her daughter, my aunt, was a graduate of the Normal School, also becoming a teacher. I graduated from this same institution when it was called Northeastern State College, becoming a teacher. I was proud to graduate from this college, and I was also proud of the football team called the "Redmen". There was a tradition. Within the past 10 years, "politically correct" individuals have stripped "tradition" from my alma mater, resulting in a "more politically correct" designation. And who did this? My own tribal chief and council! What were they thinking? They have forfeited their ancestry.

The next item on their agenda will be to obliterate the name of the University Yearbook--Tsa-La-Gi--alluding to the name Cherokee. Western Cherokee Chief Chad Smith and many of the Tribal Council have denigrated their ancestors' vision of a Nation of the Cherokees, devoted to tribal culture, family, and a continuation of Cherokee values in the name of "political correctness".

Answer 7

To be prim, proper, & pleasing.....is of political persuation. Certainly considered "incorrect" is one's ways, one's dress, one's words, one's actions are rude, offensive or beligerent. And trying to please all?? Has there ever in history been a President (politically correct or otherwise??) or Leader who has received ALL of the votes??

I for one could give a hoot! Who wants to be "politically correct?" I only yearn to be "spiritually correct" and ready and open for what blessings might come my way during this life time. If I "act" as another....trying to be politically correct....there would be no room for truth....no room for blessings.

Answer 8

The term itself is intended to be offensive. The term "politically correct" is designed to put down others who are sensitive to the affect that negative language has on others.

In civil discourse, I don't use the "N" word, the "C" word, the "F" word and so one. Call me PC, or call me civil.

Calling someone PC is not a compliment -- is it?

Answer 9

A lot of hypocresy. People think one thing and only share it with close friend, but are very careful about what they say in public. When I was young, people were more honest.

Answer 10

The Will to reciprocate positivity. The Will is positive and the Judgement is negative, but the Judgement does not operate in a vacuum; it is spurred of sense for things having negative identity or qualities. But if we are to have a universal law then we should act on that as Will, not as an action of the Judgement.

Immanual Kant (1790)

The Science of Right


'C. Universal Principle of Right.
“Every action is right which in itself, or in the maxim on which it proceeds, is such that it can coexist along with the freedom of the will of each and all in action, according to a universal law.” If, then, my action or my condition generally can coexist with the freedom of every other, according to a universal law, any one does me a wrong who hinders me in the performance of this action, or in the maintenance of this condition. For such a hindrance or obstruction cannot coexist with freedom according to universal laws. It follows also that it cannot be demanded as a matter of right, that this universal principle of all maxims shall itself be adopted as my maxim, that is, that I shall make it the maxim of my actions. For any one may be free, although his freedom is entirely indifferent to me, or even if I wished in my heart to infringe it, so long as I do not actually violate that freedom by my external action. Ethics, however, as distinguished from jurisprudence, imposes upon me the obligation to make the fulfilment of right a maxim of my conduct. The universal law of right may then be expressed thus: “Act externally in such a manner that the free exercise of thy will may be able to coexist with the freedom of all others, according to a universal law.” This is undoubtedly a law which imposes obligation upon me; but it does not at all imply and still less command that I ought, merely on account of this obligation, to limit my freedom to these very conditions. Reason in this connection says only that it is restricted thus far by its idea, and may be likewise thus limited in fact by others; and it lays this down as a postulate which is not capable of further proof. As the object in view is not to teach virtue, but to explain what right is, thus far the law of right, as thus laid down, may not and should not be represented as a motive-principle of action.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/morals/ch04.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/index.htm