What Did You Just Say?: The Issue of Swearing

You know i honestly don't know extensively the history behind swear words and the issue of swearing. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that we are all roughly on the same page in terms of knowing how people behave and react when it comes to swear words and people who use them.

I felt the need to bring this issue to the surface because it interested me that swearing is looked upon so badly yet there doesn't seem to even be a solid reason to do so. They just condemn it because they were conditioned to do so.

I mean, I'm not really surprised at this, as a vast majority of people see no issue holding certain believes with utter certainty and not even having a convincing reason to do so, but it still upsets me.

At this point, i would like to make note of an article< written by William Esser IV from CatholicCulture.org which addresses this issue.

I've decided that in order to make my points more thorough and to-the-point, i will simply critique this article.

The article divides swear words into three categories. The first category being words that use God's or other sacred names in vain.

When i say that people have little or no reason on which to condemn swearing, this is an easy and obvious exception. It cannot be denied that Using God's name in such a way that is at best, short of meaning, and at worst, foul and degrading, is condemned in the Bible and in the tradition, and is thus immoral.

The second category refers to "excretory" words, whatever that means. Basically most of the commonly known four letter words that are looked down upon. The article states, "As insults, they are forbidden by Christ's commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself." 

This is easily agreeable. Nobody ought to be subject to insults and to be verbally degraded. However, its important to note that at this point, the issue is no longer about swear words, but about any words that are used with the intent to offend or degrade others. So in this case, swear words aren't really even the problem.

The article then goes on to talk about these words when they are used simply as conversation fillers, and condemns them as "divorced from their meaning and fail to comport with a Christian standard of language."

My response to the comment about them being divorced from their meaning is as follows: "Who cares!?"

We "divorce" words from their meaning all the time other than simply when we use swear words, and use them as fillers and expressions, having no evil intent. For example; "Oh shoot!" is a case of "divorcing" the word "Shoot" from its original meaning. However, i doubt anyone finds a moral issue with this. 
Thus there is no notable moral issue with doing such, and the condemnation of using words away from their meanings is just plain bullshit.

The final category, according to the article, is about words that refer to human sexuality. However, it's unclear as to why he bothered to place these in a unique category when he simply continues with the same reasoning he used against words of the second category.

Once the article finished talking about the three categories, it moved on to address common justifications for swearing in general. One of them being that "I don't mean anything bad by the words."

The article states that speech is our way of communicating as social beings, and that words have meanings. The assumption is made that people like myself who swear believe words do not have to have meanings, but that is not true at all.

Words indeed are filled with meaning, but what people who arbitrarily condemn swearing seem to forget is that mere vocabulary is not the only dimension to human social interaction. There is also Tone, and context, both of which matter greatly.

For example if someone is using what would normally be a derogatory word, but is using it in a tone that is near-universally recognized as sarcasm, and the context is that that someone is directing it towards his close friend, then the nature of the word changes completely from being a negative to an implicit positive gesture. To simply say that all words ought to simply hold on to their surface level meaning is ignorant of those other underlying dimensions of social interaction that i just mentioned above.

For these reasons, so long as you are not sincerely intending offense towards another, I can see no logical moral issue with using words that society has condemned (Arbitrarily) as "swear words."

That said, it is foolish and unjustified for you to call out others in a condescending tone when they use such words in a benign, harmless context, and it just makes you look like an prick.

I'm sure a majority of people who read this will be offended and repulsed that i could actually hold such a logical opinion, but oh well i suppose. Logic is logic. I just hope that society will finally come to recognize that taboo and emotion are both not an actual basis for morality.