![\"Image](\"https:\/\/portlandflag.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/02\/original-photo.jpg?w=402\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve been following the news even superficially you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll have heard about the National Anthem protests. Started by now free agent NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0to 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<\/a> and activities.<\/p>\n I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve 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. Here\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s one version, from the Governor of Illinois<\/a>:<\/p>\n I strongly disagree with those who disrespect our flag and our anthem,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Rauner told POLITICO through a spokesman. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153To 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.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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 (\u00e2\u20ac\u0153I know the true meaning of the flag because I saluted every day in the service\u00e2\u20ac\u009d), 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. Everyone\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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.<\/p>\n The trouble is, however, others with that same exact standpoint do not feel offended at all, but rather heartened, etc. Here\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s one example<\/a>. We now have a disagreement on our hands. Consider that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nothing we can do to resolve the disagreement, as the standpoints in question are fundamentally decisive. \u00c2\u00a0What to do?<\/p>\n One thought is that the disagreement nullifies the consideration. If we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re 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.<\/p>\n Another possibility is that we defer, for moral reasons, to the most offended on some kind of least harm principle. If it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s going to offend some, then maybe we shouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t do it. The symmetrical nature of the disagreement, however, means that we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re bound to cause offense\u00e2\u20ac\u201cstopping our protest will cause offense to those who see obeisance to nationalist flag ceremonies as the very thing they sacrificed for.<\/p>\n Still another thought might be to split the difference between the two and reconcile the disagreement on our own. I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t 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 it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s offensive, then maybe there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve been following the news even superficially you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll have heard about the National Anthem protests. Started by now free agent NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick\u00c2\u00a0to 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 … Continue reading Offensive line<\/span>