Need help with your Assignment?

Get a timely done, PLAGIARISM-FREE paper
from our highly-qualified writers!

Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture

Cancel culture refers to withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of public shaming.

Ethical Challenges

The ethical challenges posed by cancel culture are threefold. First, there is the question of whether it is ethically permissible to withdraw support from someone. Second, there is the question of whether public shaming is a morally acceptable retribution. Third, there is the question of whether cancel culture creates a chilling effect on free speech. Hire our assignment writing services in case your assignment is devastating you.

The first ethical challenge posed by cancel culture is whether it is ethically permissible to withdraw support from someone. There are two schools of thought on this issue. The first school of thought holds that withdrawing consent is always morally acceptable. This view is based on the principle of autonomy, which holds that each individual has the right to decide who to support. Therefore, if an individual decides they no longer want to help someone, they have the right to do so.

The second school of thought holds that withdrawing support is not always ethically permissible. This view is based on the principle of beneficence, which states that we must do what is in the best interest of others. Therefore, if withdrawing support from someone would do more harm than good, it would not be ethically permissible.

The second ethical challenge posed by cancel culture is whether public shaming is an ethically permissible form of retribution. There are two schools of thought on this issue. The first school of thought holds that public shaming is a morally acceptable punishment. This view is based on the principle of retributivism, which holds that offenders should be punished in proportion to their offense. Therefore, someone who has done something considered offensive should be publicly shamed as retribution. The second school of thought holds that public shaming is not an ethically permissible discipline. This view is based on the principle of proportionality, which holds that the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, if the offense is not severe enough to warrant public shaming, it is not an ethically permissible form of retribution.

The third ethical challenge posed by cancel culture is whether it creates a chilling effect on free speech. There are two schools of thought on this issue. The first school of thought holds that cancel culture does not create a chilling effect on free speech. This view is based on the principle of free speech, which states that individuals can express their opinions without fear of retribution. Therefore, even if cancel culture does result in some people being afraid to speak their minds, this does not mean that it creates a chilling effect on free speech. The second school of thought holds that cancel culture does have a chilling effect on free speech. This view is based on the principle of the marketplace of ideas: the best way to find truth is through open and honest debate. Therefore, if cancel culture prevents people from speaking their minds, it will ultimately lead to a loss of reality.

Solutions

The solutions to the ethical challenges posed by cancel culture are threefold. First, we need to establish clear guidelines for when it is and is not ethically permissible to withdraw support. Second, we must develop clear procedures for when public shaming is and is not a morally acceptable form of retribution. Third, we need to create an open and honest debate where people feel free to express their views without fear of retaliation.

The first solution is to establish clear guidelines for when it is and is not ethically permissible to withdraw support. These guidelines should be based on the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Removing consent should only be permitted when it is in the best interest of the individual drawing and when it does not cause undue harm to the person or company being removed.

The second solution is establishing clear guidelines for when public shaming is and is not an ethically permissible form of retribution. These guidelines should be based on the principles of retributivism and proportionality. Public shaming should only be permitted when the offense is severe enough to warrant and is proportionate to the crime.

The third solution is to create a culture of open and honest debate where people feel free to express their views without fear of retribution. This can be done by establishing clear guidelines for when and how public shaming can be used. It can also be done by creating safe spaces for open and honest debate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cancel culture is a complex issue with ethical challenges that must be addressed. Withdrawing support, public shaming, and the chilling effect on free speech are all serious concerns that need to be addressed. However, there are solutions to these challenges. By establishing clear guidelines for when it is and is not ethically permissible to withdraw support when public shaming is and is not a morally acceptable form of retribution, and by creating a culture of open and honest debate, we can address the ethical challenges of cancel culture.

References

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/cancel-culture-isnt-real/613139/

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2020/6/29/21337689/cancel-culture-definition-meaning-examples-twitter

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/cancel-culture-is-a-myth-used-by-conservatives-to-silence-criticism

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/opinions/cancel-culture-dangerous-free-speech-harris-kornstein/index.html

Romano, A. (2019). Why can’t we stop fighting about cancel culture? Vox Magazine. URL https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate.

Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here…: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621-627.

Bouvier, G. (2020). Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: The platform’s limitations to defining social justice issues: Discourse, Context & Media, 38, 100431.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question 


Last week, you completed the introduction, background, and ethical challenges posed by your chosen topic. This week, you will add the final two sections—solutions and the conclusion—and submit the entire written response. Here is how to approach the last two sections.

Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture

Solutions: Last week, you identified the ethical challenges presented by your chosen topic. You will need to provide an ethically sound solution for each of those ethical challenges. “Ethically sound” does not mean your proposed answer is definitively correct. It does not mean that your fellow students or instructor will necessarily agree. All it means is that your solution is based upon a clear, compelling ethical framework, such as deontology, utilitarianism, or virtue ethics. In other words, it does not matter which side you take. What does matter is that you explain the ethical principles that support your proposed solutions.

Conclusion: In this final section, you will summarize what you have learned and end with a call to action. In other words, tell your readers what they can do to help implement your identified solutions.

Order Solution Now