%0 Journal Article
%A Burgess-Jackson, Keith Burgess-Jackson
%D 2022
%J Journal of Controversial Ideas

%@ 2694-5991

%V 2
%N 1
%P 4

%T Philosophical Reflections on “the Filthiest, Dirtiest, Nastiest Word in the English Language”1
%M doi:10.35995/jci0201004
%U https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/178
%X When, if ever, is it morally permissible to utter the word “joker”? (NB: The word “joker” is a placeholder for another word, the mere utterance of which certain people find unsettling or offensive. See the prolegomenon of this article for an explanation.) After drawing some relevant distinctions (such as that between use and mention), I provide counterexamples to two extreme theses: first, that it is always wrong (i.e., never morally permissible) to utter the word; and second, that it is never wrong (i.e., always morally permissible) to utter the word. It follows that it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong to utter the word. I then examine three plausible principles for distinguishing between those utterances of the word that are right and those that are wrong. Each principle, I maintain, succumbs to counterexamples. I therefore advocate (i) abandonment of a principled (monistic) approach to the matter and (ii) adoption, instead, of a non-principled (pluralistic) approach. The pluralistic approach that I develop is inspired by the work of William David Ross (1877–1971).