On the Moral Import of Using Slurs

Abstract

In this chapter I examine the thesis that there is a theoretically interesting relation between the semantic account of slurs, namely, expressions such as "spic", "nigger", "faggot", "dyke", "kike", "whore", etc. and the adoption of a morally correct stance on issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia. As is well-known, those expressions are prima facie associated with the speaker's conveyance of contemptuous feelings for the members of a certain group of people identified in terms of their origin ("spic"), race ("nigger"), sexual orientation ("faggot", "dyke"), religion ("kike"), gender ("whore"), etc. Recently, Hom and May (2013) have claimed that adopting a morally correct stance on such crucial issues requires supporting a certain account of the meaning of slurs, namely, one that has been classified in the Introduction to this book as Lexical Monism, on which they are conceived of as general terms expressing empty concepts. From their perspective, only by depriving slurs from extensions is it possible to come up with a semantic view that accords with the commonsensical moral belief that nobody should be despised because of qualities concerning her origin, race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, and similar aspects. Moreover, this implies a position on the moral import of slur use: those uses denying the ascription of the corresponding property to an individual, like "Victor is not a kike", or those interpreted as manifesting the empty character of slur-words, such as "There are no spics" and "No lesbians are dykes", are to be considered morally correct ones. So, Hom and May's position encompasses both a proposal about what it takes for a semantic account of slurs to be morally correct, and a thesis, following the proposed account, about what kinds of slur uses are morally correct.