.

More about Confucius and reciprocity ...

.

« The doctrine of reciprocal response is considered a universal law of nature observed by birds, beasts ans indects … Confucius himself expressed the idea of mutuality in social relationships in the following dialoque recorded in the “Analects”: … “Tzu-kung asked, saying, ‘Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all of one’s life?’ The Master said: ‘Is not reciprocity (shu) such a word? What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others.’” In another passage in the “Analects” it is recorded that someone asked Confucius: “What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?” The Master said: “With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice and recompense kindness with kindness.”

What the Sage calls justice is that if a man is good, he is not to be rejected because he is an enemy, and if the man is bad, he is not to be protected because he is a friend. Judgements and decisions should in every case correspond to the facts. To recompense injury in this manner certainly will not lead to an endless process of mutual retaliation.” »

[ cited from: “Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion”, by Joseph P. Schultz – Associated University Presses Inc., Toronto, Canada – p. 48 ]

.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The editors of newspapers in the UK decided
not to re-print the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo
and here's the reasons why:

"Editors of newspapers have always taken into
account the effects of what they publish.
In essence they have to ask themselves if they
should gratuitously insult a religion and its
adherents, because a small group of fanatics
had misused its teachings in order to justify
murder."

"Indeed, would publication of the offending
cartoons serve only to provoke others
to take reactionary action, or at the very least
encourage yet more alienation in British Society."

"Freedom is and should always be tempered by
responsibility. Drawing the line between the two
is difficult at the best of times."

What editors need to ask themselves is -

"Is it right for me to publish this material?"

"Editorial decisions have always been guided, not just
by legal restrictions but by what is fair and tolerable
within British Society..."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

Hi Foxy,

Of course, you're right, as usual, but only up to a point, literally: on the spectrum between: observe - remark - disagree with - criticise - confront - offend - insult - humiliate - intimidate - incite violence - carry out violence - murder etc.,

perhaps you may disagree, but I suggest that that point should be: between 'insult' and 'humiliate' - although it can be very difficult to differentiate between the two, to 'insult' should be permitted, but to 'humiliate' should not be permitted.

But another factor comes in, of course: intentionality. I'm suggesting that anybody should be permitted to intentionally 'insult' but not to intentionally 'humiliate'. How to prove that one has 'unintentionally' humiliated somebody with their comments rather than intentionally, would probably have to be judged from the context. so maybe it's a more moral position to be careful not to humiliate, intentionally or otherwise.

Hi Poirot,

I owe you at least one apology: I've just discovered this from you on another thread, from last week:

"In the end "Charlie" doesn't just represent the people killed at the magazine - it represents the principle of democratic freedoms that we take for granted in the West.

"Other religions, politicians and cultural icons were lampooned as well by the cartoonists. To imagine that any of them would use that provocation as a reason for a massacre is of course beyond the pale."

I fully agree; but that mucks up my neat little spectrum: where does 'lampoon' come in ? Hopefully as insult rather than humiliation, between intentional insult and intentional humiliation. 'Unintentional humiliation' - I'm just not comfortable with that either, but by definition, how does one prove 'unintention' ?

Thank you, Poirot.

Joe

Foxy,

Maybe the your (high) moralising fish wrapper has feet of clay,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-shock

The editorial policy of The Guardian is a bit obvious to most.

Dear otb,

Thank You for the two links that you've
cited from The Guardian and its reporting
of what happened in France and the French
reaction to the work. Reporting on the
incident is quite fair.

Why do you refer to The Guardian as a
"fish wrapper," and also as "my" high
moralising newspaper?

Comments like those have a detrimental effect
and discourage inter-action.

Not a good move on your part if you want your
posts to be read and responded to.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for your reply.

We may not always agree - however you always make me
look at things from a different perspective.

Take care.