In recent years, many of us have been confronted with the idea that seemingly benign words, thoughts, or acts can be a source of harm. Here, I am thinking, for instance, of microaggressions (e.g., “where are you really from?”), or of actions in the context of structural injustice; actions which, although not bad in themselves, stabilize harmful structures in society. These are moral matters: asking a person, who speaks with a perhaps audible accent, where they are
When I choose not to donate a kidney to a needy stranger, I do not make a morally permissible mistake. I don't think I make any kind of mistake. I mean, the very fact that it's permissible means it is one of the things I can choose to do *without counting as having made a moral mistake*.
So maybe its just the nomenclature that's inapt. Perhaps we should say that choosing not to donate a kidney is more like a suboptimal moral act. Perfectly moral, but not the absolute moral best.
However, if microaggressions are merely suboptimal moral acts, like choosing not to donate a kidney, then I'm not sure why they are open to any kind of criticism, even expressions of mild disappointment. What business do others have criticizing me for keeping my own kidneys? I would surely deserve *praise* for volunteering to donate a kidney, but that doesn't mean I deserve *censure* for choosing otherwise.
If the analogy is apt, perhaps we should praise those who avoid micro-aggressions for their supererogatory virtues, while passing no judgment whatsoever on those who do not.
When I choose not to donate a kidney to a needy stranger, I do not make a morally permissible mistake. I don't think I make any kind of mistake. I mean, the very fact that it's permissible means it is one of the things I can choose to do *without counting as having made a moral mistake*.
So maybe its just the nomenclature that's inapt. Perhaps we should say that choosing not to donate a kidney is more like a suboptimal moral act. Perfectly moral, but not the absolute moral best.
However, if microaggressions are merely suboptimal moral acts, like choosing not to donate a kidney, then I'm not sure why they are open to any kind of criticism, even expressions of mild disappointment. What business do others have criticizing me for keeping my own kidneys? I would surely deserve *praise* for volunteering to donate a kidney, but that doesn't mean I deserve *censure* for choosing otherwise.
If the analogy is apt, perhaps we should praise those who avoid micro-aggressions for their supererogatory virtues, while passing no judgment whatsoever on those who do not.