type 1; Feinberg

Feinberg describes to the audience in “Offense Nuisances” the difference between the harm principle and the offense principle. The harm principle states that actions of individuals should be limited in order to reduce harm to others, while the offense principle states that, “It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious events to persons other than the actor and that probably is a means to an end”(p.1). This definition means that in hindsight one should always try and prevent offense to another. A key difference is that the harm principle is definite. Another variation is that the offense is generally more mental and less serious than harm. Feinberg states that little to no punishment should be given to offense, apart from fines or warnings. A similarity between the two is that both must be performed wrongfully or with spite in mind. One is technically offended when they are: in a disliked state, attributed that state to wrongful conduct, and resent the actor for causing that (p.2).

In order to illustrate what offense is, Feinberg creates numerous situations for the reader to relate to. The situation is that you are on a public bus on your way to an important appointment when a member(s) of the public board and commit offensive acts. The different types of acts are as followed: affronts to senses, disgust and revulsion, shock to moral, religious, or patriotic sensibilities, shame, embarrassment, or anxiety, annoyance or boredom, and fear/resentment/humiliation. Each of these acts, Feinberg gives multiple examples of, with gradual worsening. In addition, to give the reader a better sense of what offense is, Feinberg descriptively tells how each act makes the person feels on the bus. From shame to disgust.

Feinberg’s key argument in this piece is that while offense is generally less detrimental than harm, there are still significant mental effects to an individual. Her argument is strong due to the 31 separate examples of offense and description of how each offense makes the individual feel. Additionally, Feinberg includes multiple acts that are sure to offend any reader, not just a religious person or a more prude individual.

In connection to criminalization, Feinberg debates if offenses should be punished, and if so, how much. One cannot be legally punished for listening to a boring podcast loudly on the bus, but one can be punished for being nude or performing sexual acts. There is a line to be defined in offenses when discussing criminalization.

Overall, Feinberg presents a strong argument with her multitude of descriptive examples.