The difference between “asshole” and “honkey”
Here I mean not only “honkey,” but any pejorative term directed toward a particular group of people (“honkey” and whites; “wop” and Italians; “kike” and Jews; “chink” and Chinese people; “limeys” and Irish people; “n—-r” and Afro-Americans). There’s interesting philosophical question here: What, in general, is the difference between calling someone an asshole and calling someone one of these racist names?
Here’s my answer. Both terms imply, in different ways, a judgment about people ought to do. In the one case, but not the other, these judgments are systematically wrong from a moral perspective.
To say someone is an asshole is to claim that he does things that he ought not do–roughly, that he takes special advantages in cooperative life that he’s not entitled to. That can be morally true of someone. It can also be false of someone, because the person is in fact morally entitled to do as he does. But to say that kind of judgment is always mistaken amounts to a pretty radical form of skepticism about morality.
On the other hand, to say someone is a “wop” is to say, not only that he or she is Italian, but also that he or she is the appropriate object of contempt and discrimination, just in virtue of being Italian. When that is thought of someone, it is always a mistake, morally speaking. No one is the appropriate object of contempt and discrimination, simply because they belong to a certain racial group. Because racism says otherwise, the claims racists make are always false.
So there are no kikes, no chinks, no limeys, no honkeys, and certainly no “n—-rs”. And Berlusconi is not a wop–even if he is an asshole.
