If youâ€™ve been following the news even superficially youâ€™ll have heard about the National Anthem protests. Started by now free agent NFL quarterback Colin KaepernickÂ to protest the treatment of African Americans and other minorities, the protest mainly consists in taking some kind of alternate posture (sitting, kneeling, linking arms, not being present) during the singing of the National Anthem before a football game, though this has no spread to other sports and activities.
Iâ€™ve seen more than a few arguments against the protest. One argument strikes me as oddly familiar. It goes like this. The people not standing for the protest are an offense to those whose relatives or husbands or wives or friends have died or in general to those who have sacrificed for the flag. Hereâ€™s one version, from the Governor of Illinois:
I strongly disagree with those who disrespect our flag and our anthem,â€ Rauner told POLITICO through a spokesman. â€œTo me they are disrespecting the foundations of our country, the veterans who risked their lives for our democracy, and the men and women who fight every day and make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our liberties.â€
The key notion there is respect. This is, in part at least, a standpoint argument. Standpoint arguments are authority arguments. Someone with a standpoint S has privileged access to p. So when they say p, itâ€™s likely p. This works in one way when a person with that standpoint is likely to know the answer to p (because they were looking right at p for example). This is not really the case here. Though there is an element of knowledge to the standpoint (â€œI know the true meaning of the flag because I saluted every day in the serviceâ€), knowledge is not the decisive factor here. In the present case, the person has privileged access to feelings of offense and therefore especially deserves respect. Everyoneâ€™s an expert in that. It turns out that in this case their feelings have special weight on account of the objects (the flag) involved. For us outsiders, people with that standpoint have special weight on that question.
The trouble is, however, others with that same exact standpoint do not feel offended at all, but rather heartened, etc. Hereâ€™s one example. We now have a disagreement on our hands. Consider that thereâ€™s nothing we can do to resolve the disagreement, as the standpoints in question are fundamentally decisive. Â What to do?
One thought is that the disagreement nullifies the consideration. If weâ€™re respectful of the feelings of people with this status, and they feel all different ways, then all different ways are ipso facto permissible. This seems, however, to settle the matter in favor of one view. Or perhaps it just practically settles the matter against these sorts of standpoint arguments.
Another possibility is that we defer, for moral reasons, to the most offended on some kind of least harm principle. If itâ€™s going to offend some, then maybe we shouldnâ€™t do it. The symmetrical nature of the disagreement, however, means that weâ€™re bound to cause offenseâ€“stopping our protest will cause offense to those who see obeisance to nationalist flag ceremonies as the very thing they sacrificed for.
Still another thought might be to split the difference between the two and reconcile the disagreement on our own. I donâ€™t know what that would be. One version might be to consider the disagreement along democratic lines. If the majority of people with standpoint S say to do p, then p it is. If a preponderance of members of the class say itâ€™s offensive, then maybe thereâ€™s a prima facie case for offense. Something like this is at work in arguments against employing racist stereotypes on, er, football helmets. There are some Native Americans who don’t find the name (or image) “Redskins” offensive.
Perhaps the disagreement about how to manage the disagreement is itself evidence that such arguments are of little value in circumstances such as these, where other more obvious considerations should come to the fore (such as free speech considerations). Certainly, it seems, the fact that something is offensive isn’t usually the only reason to do it or not do it.