Standards for public discourse

[RationalBiker]

I thought of another example that I would like to get your take on MisterSwig. As much as I tend to moan and groan about hypotheticals, if you don't think there is enough context or don't wish to entertain mine, I'll understand.

Candidates A and B are running against each other for a County Prosecutor seat. In a public debate, Candidate A lies about the following information in an attack on Candidate B's character;

Candidate A: I have it on good authority the Candidate B raped little children when he was in college.

Candidate B, not knowing any better, responds with the following defense (which he also knows to be a lie);

Candidate B: Well ladies and gentlemen, I also happen to know that Candidate A raped little children while he was in college too.

Is Candidate B on higher moral ground than the initiator, Candidate A? Is Candidate A the only problem here?

[RationalBiker]

Objectivist ethics does not say that "retaliatory force should not be left to the whims of the individual." The right to retaliation is an individual's right, and it is this right which he delegates to the government in a peaceful society.

Actually, when I have my CD-ROM available, I think I can pull up a quote that does say what I said (and what you said), but if not, I'll retract my statement. However, the important part is what you note below which was my point;

If you are robbed, then you appeal to the government to retaliate for you. If you are disrespected on this forum, you can appeal to the moderators for retaliation. If the government or the moderators can't or won't retaliate for you, then you can always try to retaliate yourself and accept the consequences of your actions.

He defended himself by responding in kind. Granted, it's not much of a defense; it's not very clever or logic-oriented.

I disagree that he has defended himself at all. He has done nothing to challenge, deflect, or diminish the charges against him. He has only levied the same charge against his opponent, equally unsupported. My point being, a counter-offensive like that in a war of words does not consititute a defense. I would agree that the initiator was the problem, initially, but when the responder perpetuates the situation by parroting the same attack, he sinks to the same moral level as his attacker. This is particularly so when other means to resolve the situation are at his disposal (as is the case on a moderated forum).

But I think he should have the right to retaliate in kind, even if all it does is serve as a weak counter-punch.

Again, I think this "right" you speak of is contextually-based on the situation under which the argument occurs. For example, on a moderatored forum board where no one has a "right" to engage in personal attacks according to the rules, I'm not sure where you are deriving this right. On this board for instance, the rules do not say "No personal attacks are allowed, unless someone first attacks you..."

[MisterSwig]

I thought of another example ... Is Candidate B on higher moral ground than the initiator, Candidate A? Is Candidate A the only problem here?

This is a good example. I don't advocate telling lies in response to an initiation of disrespect. So, by responding "in kind" I mean responding in a similar, insulting, disrespectful manner, but while telling the truth. In my original example, I was assuming that the initiator was actually an idiot.

In your example, I'd say that A and B are both lying scum. They are both a problem, because they are dirty liars.

[MisterSwig]

I disagree that he has defended himself at all. He has done nothing to challenge, deflect, or diminish the charges against him. He has only levied the same charge against his opponent, equally unsupported.

You're right. I think the proper term for it, then, is a counter-attack.

Given my prior post, I think such a counter-attack is still appropriate, if it is not a lie. It might not be a defense against the initial charges, but I think it still qualifies as retaliation for an injustice.

[RationalBiker]

Actually, when I have my CD-ROM available, I think I can pull up a quote that does say what I said (and what you said), but if not, I'll retract my statement. However, the important part is what you note below which was my point;

From TVOS, The Nature of Government;

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use— cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

So yes, she does say what you said, but we get to what you said by acknowledging what I said. Your right to retaliatory force is delegated to the government because force should not be left to the whim of the individual, which is supposed to be an objective third party. The only time one should resort to retaliatory force themselves is in emergency situations. My position is that in drawing the parallel of the assault to the insulting conversation, in many instances the insulting conversation is not an "emergency situation".

PS: I realize I was somewhat clumsy with one of my sentences above. My intention was to point out that the government is supposed to be the objective third party, not the proverbial whimsical individual. DOH!

Edited July 24, 2007 by RationalBiker

[MisterSwig]

My position is that in drawing the parallel of the assault to the insulting conversation, in many instances the insulting conversation is not an "emergency situation".

Are you saying, though, that there are some instances where an insulting conversation can be considered an emergency of some sort?

Even if an insulting conversation is never an emergency situation, what would be the basis for saying that both parties in an insulting conversation have the same moral status--the responder sinking to the initiator's level? I agree that in certain situations (involving outright lies) both parties can be equally bad. But do you agree that that is not always the case, especially when the responder is being honest? Even if both parties break established rules of conduct, I think the honest but insulting responder is morally superior to the initiator, simply because he did not initiate anything. At most he is guilty of taking retaliation into his own hands when he should have delegated it.

Returning to the parallel with the use of force, if somebody I know steals my car, and I go over to their house, beat them up, take my keys, and drive home--am I morally equal to the thief simply because I bypassed the authorities?

[RationalBiker]

Are you saying, though, that there are some instances where an insulting conversation can be considered an emergency of some sort? ....(snip)... Returning to the parallel with the use of force,

Only in the sense that there may not be any other recourse to address the attack (such as being on an unmoderated forum, etc.) Even then, other ways to address the insult could be available without resorting to insulting dialog or behavior. However, no situation comes to my mind in which its a "real" emergency situation in which your life or limb is in imminent danger.

However, to try make this clearer, you cited the parallel between insults and initiation of physical force, whereas I have argued as to why I didn't think that the two situations paralleled. So if you question me about the moral equivalencies of the car thief and the victim retrieving his car (although it may be worth discussing in a different thread and I may split that question off to explore my thoughts) as if it has any bearing on the public discourse issue, there's no point because I still don't agree that the two situations parallel. If I was unclear, which it appears I was, that the insult is not an "emergency situation" is just one more reason why the parallel doesn't fit.

I think it is also time to iron out what we are referring to when we use the term "moral" in this conversation to ensure we are not talking past each other and to avoid equivocations. In one sense, I take it that "moral" would mean "just behavior". However, in another sense "moral" would mean that the action was "good for the individual's life - in his long term rational self-interest". It is my assumption that you are talking about the "just behavior" meaning. Have I interpreted that appropriately or do you mean it in some other way that I have not addressed?

I think one of our differences is that you respect the "victim" who "responds in kind" whereas I respect the victim who "rises above". I'll be the first to admit that I have sunk into such holes in arguments with people, even on this forum. If I had to guess, I would have to say that that has negatively impacted my reputation on this forum. I recognize it as a behavior I should change and only recently do I think that I have actually more consistently integrated it into my posting. I think this is where we get in to the two different ideas on what's "moral". So, and I say this strictly for the sake of argument at this point, assuming that a person is "justified" in his insulting comeback (his response was "moral" in the one sense), was his response actually in his rational self-interest; was it good for him (was his response "moral" in the other sense)? In fact, should there be such distinction at all?

I would assert that on a moderated forum, within the contexts I can imagine at this point, an equally insulting retort is unnecessary. Because it is unnecessary in that context, I view it as almost a "re-initiation" for lack of a better word. This is where I get the "sinking to their level" idea.

The only thing likely to make the person feel that it is necessary to respond in kind is the anger he feels at being insulted and his response is likely to be acting on his emotions rather than acting by means of reason. Yes, his emotional response may be justified, but acting on his emotional response may do him more harm than good.

Now you mention "honesty" as a quality which in part justifies the victim's response. In your example, how does the victim honestly know that his opponent is a "half-brained idiot"? I ask this because while obviously lying is clearly wrong, saying that a person is being honest in their insulting reply (I think) requires more than just saying he's not intentionally lying. I think that honestly accusing someone of being a "half-brained idiot" requires that they actual know that to be the case. And if he does know that to be the case, why is he bothering to engage him in discussion anyway? He should realize that he is .

[Old Toad]

It is my opinion that if you respond in kind with the same unjust remarks - it does become irrelevant. At that point I personally do not care who started it first.

When Mr. A knowingly or recklessly makes a false public statement about Mr. B, he certainly can take it as an unjust attack on his reputation.

In considering who is at fault in such a situation and how one can defend himself, I think it is important to recognize the nature of reputation.

“Reputation” is a general estimation or judgment of the public about a person.

A false public statement about a person acts against his reputation, i.e., the mind and judgment of others about him. A person's reputation effects others in their choosing how to interact (or not) with him. It is not an effective against the mind and judgment of the person who is the subject of the unjust remark and who knows it to be false, but rather such an attack relies on its publication to others who might believe it.

This means that Mr. B should not intentionally respond "in kind" against Mr. A. For Mr. B to do so would be for him to perpetrate another, separate attack against the mind and judgment of others.

Does this make sense?

Edited July 25, 2007 by Old Toad

[MisterSwig]

I think it is also time to iron out what we are referring to when we use the term "moral" in this conversation to ensure we are not talking past each other and to avoid equivocations ... It is my assumption that you are talking about the "just behavior" meaning.

By moral I mean here good behavior. But I want to stress that I am not evaluating each party out of context, and I am recognizing degrees of moral and immoral behavior. There is good and bad behavior, but there is also very good and very bad behavior. There is a whole spectrum of good and bad actions. All else being equal, I consider the initiation of disrespect to be morally worse than the disrespectful retaliation. The initiator is worse because he was unprovoked. The retaliator is not as bad because he was provoked. Even if the disrespectful exchange occurs in a moderated forum with rules against disrespectful exchanges, I still think the initiator is morally worse, because he still acted unprovoked. They equally broke the rules of the forum, but they did not equally initiate disrespect. It is the initiation, I think, that makes the difference morally.

I think one of our differences is that you respect the "victim" who "responds in kind" whereas I respect the victim who "rises above" ... So, and I say this strictly for the sake of argument at this point, assuming that a person is "justified" in his insulting comeback (his response was "moral" in the one sense), was his response actually in his rational self-interest; was it good for him (was his response "moral" in the other sense)? In fact, should there be such distinction at all?

To clarify, I don't respect the retaliator for responding in kind. I respect him simply for responding. And even then, depending on the context, I might not even respect someone for responding. For example, I don't think I would respect a President who spent his time responding to every insult directed at him by every two-bit journalist on the planet. Again, you need to choose your battles wisely.

You ask, for the sake of argument, whether a retaliator's "moral" (but insulting) response would actually be in his rational self-interest. (I hope I paraphrased that correctly.) I think it can be, if only as a means of standing up against an initiator of disrespect. It can be considered an example of courage and integrity, even if the retaliator can think of nothing better than to insult the person back. And again, it matters whether the retaliator is lying. The motive behind the insult is important.

I would assert that on a moderated forum, within the contexts I can imagine at this point, an equally insulting retort is unnecessary. Because it is unnecessary in that context, I view it as almost a "re-initiation" for lack of a better word. This is where I get the "sinking to their level" idea.

The insulting retaliation might be unnecessary, I agree. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant who initiated. The point I'm trying to defend is that when you are morally evaluating the initiator and the retaliator, it is relevant who initiated. Initiation is not all there is to consider. But it is an important factor. Also, I don't view the insulting retaliation as a "re-initiation" because only the initiator can re-initiate. The retaliator never initiated in the first place.

The only thing likely to make the person feel that it is necessary to respond in kind is the anger he feels at being insulted and his response is likely to be acting on his emotions rather than acting by means of reason. Yes, his emotional response may be justified, but acting on his emotional response may do him more harm than good.

It might do him more harm than good. Agreed. But that still does not make him the initiator. And it doesn't make him immoral, simply because his actions are harmful to himself. He might not know that what he is doing is harmful to himself. He might think that he is simply standing up for himself against an initiator of disrespect. Maybe he thinks he is fighting fire with fire, when he should be raining cold water on that flame. The essential point though is that he did not initiate.

Now you mention "honesty" as a quality which in part justifies the victim's response. In your example, how does the victim honestly know that his opponent is a "half-brained idiot"? ... And if he does know that to be the case, why is he bothering to engage him in discussion anyway?

"Half-brained" is obviously not meant literally. He's basically calling the guy an unthinking idiot. So how does he know this? He knows it because of the nature of the initiator's comment. The initiator doesn't seem to understand that it is very rude to initiate disrespect in such an unthoughtful manner. His gross evasion of polite discourse makes him an unthinking idiot, deserving of similar disrespect. A witty, intelligent person might retaliate with something more impressive than crude insults. But a not-so-witty person might retaliate with something not-so-witty, such as "you're an idiot."

[~Sophia~]

When Mr. A knowingly or recklessly makes a false public statement about Mr. B, he certainly can take it as an unjust attack on his reputation.

In considering who is at fault in such a situation and how one can defend himself, I think it is important to recognize the nature of reputation.

“Reputation” is a general estimation or judgment of the public about a person.

A false public statement about a person acts against his reputation, i.e., the mind and judgment of others about him. A person's reputation effects others in their choosing how to interact (or not) with him. It is not an effective against the mind and judgment of the person who is the subject of the unjust remark and who knows it to be false, but rather such an attack relies on its publication to others who might believe it.

This means that Mr. B should not intentionally respond "in kind" against Mr. A. For Mr. B to do so would be for him to perpetrate another, separate attack against the mind and judgment of others.

Does this make sense?

This is a very good point.

There is Mr. A vs. right principles

Mr. B vs. right principles

There is Mr. A vs. Mr. B (and here it perhaps is not irrelevant who was the initiator of bad behavior)

and there is Mr. A and Mr. B vs. the public (me and you)

Edited July 25, 2007 by ~Sophia~