Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

A reminder to readers that this is a shared burden of proof – I am arguing swearing is a negative influence, Concould argue for a neutral or positive influence. Now, without ado, let’s begin. An Introductory ScenarioOne must see there are alternatives to swearing. Let’s pretend that you’ve got a report due the next day:1-Swearer's choice of words : @@@@ [not typing here]! The report’s due tomorrow!2-Non-swearer: Blast it! The report’s due tomorrow (or heck, what in the blazes etc. )3-Polite person: What a nuisance. The report is due tomorrow. (or anything polite)Options 1 and 2 both emphasise a short, sharp burst of anger. The difference is that when the meaning of a swear word could be taken offensively we can avoid that offence via option 2. The less offence taken in society the better. Ie. less offence would result in more happiness, and if we adopt utilitarianism as an ethical system we’d prefer happiness. To (over) simplify, utilitarianism advocates actions that produce the most happiness. So, between option 1 and 2 option 1 generates the potential of offence. Also, I contend that effective, precise communication is superior to imprecise communication. As swearing is typically used in too wide a range of contexts, it’s meaning is often unclear. At best, swearing does have meaning, yet has less nuanced a meaning than, alternatives. That’s not to state that 3 isn’t superior to both 1 and 2. 3 prevents anger, assists in creating a calm atmosphere and soon. Option 3 also maintains civility. It might seem like I’m setting forth common arguments. To a point that is true. However, let’s judge by, say:Civility / PolitenessA rational mindHappinessLack of angerFairnessEtc. Given the above, we can see that swearing doesn’t contribute to these values, as well as resulting in other impacts. Let’s see this. Foundational aspects of swearingSwearing is to use ‘abusive, violent’ language we find in many definitions. Swearing itself tends to signify immorality or obscenity - “that the use of such [swear] words in the context of swearing actually admits that they signify something immoral or obscene. ” [1]The widespread usage of such words suggests that the acts represented have become tolerated, otherwise such words would be treated with disgust and not used as commonly. If Con wants to argue that nobody swears based on meaning then he runs into the fact that swearing has resulted in degradation of our speech – we communicate imprecisely, a negative impact. We must also recognise that swearing showcases anger and betrays things like chivalry and the image of the scholarly gentleman. Simply, swearing clearly betrays rationality, reason and civility. I don’t care if there are alternatives that also betray these things. The point is swearing doesn’t meet these criteria, resulting in swearing being a negative influence. Let’s be clear on common perceptions of civility:“But The Times virtually never prints obscene words, and it maintains a steep threshold for vulgar ones. In part the concern is for the newspaper’s welcome in classrooms and on breakfast tables in diverse communities nationwide. But a larger concern is for the newspaper’s character. The Times differentiates itself by taking a stand for civility in public discourse” [2]. That The Times, a respectable newspaper, shows a need for civility and recognises that news is best spread through civility is not conclusive evidence, but certainly something for readers to consider. Swearing is inherently abusive and violent - negatives. Swearing betrays rationality – another negative. Also, swearing either has resulted in immorality or a lack of communicative ability, both negatives. Distinctions of CharacterSwearing helps promote different gender standardsWestern society tends to view swearing as more appropriate for men than women. For example:“People also tend to judge women more harshly than men for their use of obscenities. Society in general can also make moral judgments about women who swear” [3]Note the term ‘moral’. While judgements are made about men who use swear words these judgements are not always ‘moral’ judgments. We see that this double standard is promoting unreasonably different gender standards - another negative influence on society. Class BarriersSociety tends to perceive that lower classes are more prone to use swearing, and swearing has connotations of lower class. The validity of this perception is highly questionable, yet it makes a point –perceptions create barriers, barriers that aren’t always legitimate, justified or beneficial. Granted, there are forms of discrimination that are justifiable, but the elimination of swearing would be beneficial to breaking down these barriers, and so swearing is a negative influence. Examples of Swearing’s Negative EffectDoctors“In one year, 15.4/100 GPs were verbally abused” [4] – Reference to NZ GPs. Clearly, verbal abuse affects a person’s concentration and clarity of mind, essential in a medical profession and essential to good public health. “In a survey by the British Medical Association 95 per cent of GPs and hospital doctors reported that they had been verbally abused, a quarter of whom had been abused more than five times within the last year. ” [1]There are many more sources to back up claims of verbal abuse in various medical journals. It needn’t be said that verbal abuse results in anger which in turn clouds judgement. PoliceSociety tends to require a degree of order and control in order to function optimally. Police implement this order and undermining this order is a negative. Well, it’s expected that a recent judgement on swearing at police have consequence. “Police unions warned that the ruling would erode respect for the police and lead to more officers being verbally abused. ” [5] [6]Let’s not disrupt law and order. Politicians. .. George Orwell once lamented how politics corrupts the English language. Well, it’s never good when the former prime minister of your country does it while in office and it becomes a media sensation! [7] “for the light of utterance of shameful words soon leads to shameful actions” – Confucius [8]Such conduct swamps newspapers and results in a lack of proper news being told. The lack of proper policy discussion and rationality is not a good thing. Remember, this is a result of swearing. And what about the prime minister being a role model? So much for that! The fact is we wish to act with grace and civility in all discussions, and swearing has been shown to mire that. CommunicationLet’s be blunt, swearing is clearly not good at being specific. Let’s take some veritable idiot looking at a hapless chap who just made a pitifully foolish mistake. He might say;“You [insert swear word (s)] idiot! You’re [insert swear word (s)] stupid! ”Whereas, depending on the situation, one might be more accurate and true to say:“You would seem to be sciolistic dilettante. ”That is not to state that the second statement is always more accurate, but that using a larger vocabulary gives greater meaning to your words over time. I think we get the idea. ConclusionI’ll leave it at that for R1, and hope I’ve articulated a powerful case. Over to Imabench. Sources1 - . http://jundiku.multiply.com...2 - . http://www.nytimes.com...3 - . http://www.howstuffworks.com...4 - . http://journal.nzma.org.nz...5- . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...6 - . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...7 - . http://www.smh.com.au...8 – Aristotle, Politics, Book VIII, 1336b.14-11