While political and religious figures on both sides of the already infamous Danish cartoon debate remain wary of placing definitive blame on either side, two Binghamton University philosophy professors organized a forum to offer insight — if not straight answers — into this controversial issue that has left thousands up in arms.

“Our hope is to disagree a little,” said Steven Scalet, an assistant philosophy professor and co-director of the University’s philosophy, politics and law program, as 50 or so students congregated in the Hinman Commons late Friday afternoon.

The forum addressed the international uproar caused when a Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad and other images offensive to the Muslim community. The result has been scores of demonstrations, many of them violent, by Muslim organizations around the world, including recent peaceful marches in New York City.

Scalet introduced the topic through a kind of crash course in offensiveness and morality — ideals he credits as fundamental in understanding the eruption of this conflict and others like it.

“A lot of people are disagreeable or irascible, or even jerks,” said Scalet. “But for something to be offensive, that’s demeaning to you or humanity … it’s a repugnant characterization of a dear friend.”

According to Scalet, the idea of offensiveness, something he equated to burning the American flag or “belittling the significance of the Holocaust,” is an essentially ambiguous one.

Scalet qualified his previous example, noting that “to whom the offense is being directed is crucial.” That is, whether it is aimed at those stronger or weaker than one’s self.

Scalet, who donned a green T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Johnny Cash to the round-table style discussion, admitted that the specific incident for him was “quite sobering.”

For Eric Dietrich, a BU philosophy professor, the social flak sparked by these already infamous cartoons and the journalistic stigma attached is of equal concern.

“Protecting free speech entails protecting being offensive,” said Dietrich “If we’re not careful, we wouldn’t be able to get together and do this. I worry about that a lot.”

Amid the public protests and calls for blood, Dietrich highlighted the moral quandary which has enveloped the principles of free speech, and the implications involved if this current situation goes too far.

“I’m worried that in the 21st century, personal responsibility is no longer cool … or necessary,” Dietrich said.

Dietrich pointed out that the scale of the response was more than the result of the offense of the Danish newspaper, it was the result of the veritable powder keg of social context surrounding the issue that sparked such a huge reaction.

“It’s a matter of dangerous nuances,” he said.

Notwithstanding the subsequent violence and burning of embassies, Dietrich suggested that the cartoons were initially imagined as a tension diffuser, adding that their value was “still pragmatic … if not temporal.”

Dietrich, who suggested that the cartoons emerged out of the overwhelming tension between the Muslim and Western worlds, questioned the appropriateness of self-censorship, or lack thereof.

In response to a question posed about the idea of sensitivity in the media, Dietrich jokingly answered, “I’m personally opposed to good taste.”

“It’s hard to be absolutist,” Scalet said. “I think the American experience is different than the European experience.”

Both professors seemed to agree that there is no such thing as cut and dry when it comes to what is or isn’t offensive, and that the only obvious recourse is to establish an open forum like their event, as “the most morally appropriate response to offensive scenarios.”

Toward the end of the discussion, Dietrich offered some insight into the moral ambivalence surrounding the cartoon furor.

“It’s not clear what the truth is, that is what we’re here for,” he said.