Standards of Civilized Behavior

[Seeker]

I would like to know the Objectivist position on civility, proper standards of behavior or etiquette, and government's proper role in enforcement of standards of civilized behavior, if any.

The issue is broader than sexuality. The recent discussion on public decency laws included references to "Thought Control, Part III", The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. III, No. 2 (October 22, 1973) (the relevant excerpt dealing with pornography can be found here), but rather than debate that subject again I would like to shift the focus from sexually explicit materials to standards of behavior in a civilized society generally (e.g. courtesy and politeness), and inquire into the Objectivist position of whether and on what philosophical grounds laws may be justified to set and enforce such standards of behavior.

I would most appreciate citations or pointers to specific written materials that can aid in understanding how Objectivism applies to this topic. Thanks much.

[DavidOdden]

An interesting challenge. Rand did not directly address the matter very much, as far as I know. Three somewhat relevant quotes are --

ARL 1,10: "It is regarded as bad form to cast doubt on the sincerity of a candidate's motives (a rule of etiquette with which I agree, as far as "psychologizing" is concerned)"; the now infamous "public decency" statement in ARL III,2; "The Letters" p. 672 "Professional etiquette doesn't permit me to give his name in print; but it is a prominent name".

I don't see any reason to think that she approved in any way of rudeness (real rudeness i.e. vulgarity, though many people seem to think that it is rude to, for example, disagree with your host at a party and we know from her novels that she did not hold any such view). As far as I know, the public sex display quote is the only one where she comes close to addressing the general topic of ones rights when "in public".

[Seeker]

Thank you for those citations. Since there is little specifically on the subject of civilized behavior, I invite others to posit their own theories that are consistent with Objectivism.

Drawing on the Objectivist concept of rights I believe that the correct standard for analysis is the standard of value, life qua man. This is important because I believe that the issue of public decency is subsumed within the larger category of civilized behavior, sex is not sui generis in regards to the moral and legal analysis. Fundamentally, public decency (i.e. regarding sex) is but one example of civilized behavior; for the purposes of ethics and politics, the essential justification is what is required for men in civilized society. That is the legal and moral foundation for public decency laws, and may extend as well to areas other than sex.

The touchstone of the analysis is reason. Assaults upon another person's rational mind constitute objectively-identifiable harm. In this context, however, there are few bright lines and many shades of gray. Public nudity, for example, might be more harmful to the minds of some persons than others. Within those shades of gray the citizens through their laws may establish boundaries that take into account the needs of all citizens through the democratic process and determine the optimal balance of rights-protection and freedom. Having set such boundaries, all are obligated as a civil matter to act accordingly. Though imperfect, this is the best that a rights-protecting government can do: the abnormally vulnerable will not be entirely protected, and the abnormally strong will not be entirely free, but such a tradeoff is the price of living in a civilized, orderly society.

[DavidOdden]

Fundamentally, public decency (i.e. regarding sex) is but one example of civilized behavior; for the purposes of ethics and politics, the essential justification is what is required for men in civilized society. That is the legal and moral foundation for public decency laws, and may extend as well to areas other than sex.

The foundation needs to be a bit broader. Another consideration is that each man must discover those values that are suited to his life. A simple application of that is that if Smith really loves the color orange and Jones hates it, it is right for Smith to wear orange because Smith lives for his own sake, not the sake of Jones. We know why Smith doesn't get to "discover" that his nature is to be a prudent predator; but Jones doesn't also get to "discover" that orange is an assault on his mind that leaves him paralyzed.

Before we get into issues of assaults on the mind, we need to look at what I think is the logically prior question, namely "responsibility". The simple case of a neighbor negligently failing to dispose of a dead tree which is precariously leaning over a man's roof is an example of applying concepts of responsibility to a man's actions. He can claim "That tree isn't hurting anyone", and failing to cut down a dead tree is not an initiation of force, and certainly the wind blowing a tree down is not an initiation of force. Statutory prohibitions -- laws that restrain you in advance of the act -- are supposed to prevent the initiation of force, and as such, it would be wrong for there to be a law that makes it a crime to have a dead tree on your property. At the same time, it would be wrong to conclude "and therefore there's nothing you can do about the neighbor with the dead tree".

There is: the law can and should also require that a man take responsibility for his actions (or inactions), when they cause damage to another person. There is plenty more than can be said about when there should be legal consequences vs. shouldn't, but it is important to distinguish prior restraint (statutory prohibition) from making an injured party whole. So laws that make public nudity a crime are, in my opinion, morally indefensible, but civil consequences for damage done are defensible, indeed are essential. (The idea that a man must be responsible for the consequences of his actions is fundamental to civilized existence). With this in mind and my bolding added:

Having set such boundaries, all are obligated as a civil matter to act accordingly.

I agree entirely. Because we are not speaking of those worst of wrongs, the initiation of force, matters of decency are properly considered in terms of civil law, and the notion that a man must be responsible for the damage that he inflicts on another. The damage must be real, and the person's responsibility must be knowable in advance, by any reasonable man. Thus Jones can't sue Smith for wearing orange, because there is no argument that wearing orange actually damages Jones, or that Smith could possibly know of such supposed damage. The problem is that when the damage is psychological, it is very hard to demonstrate damage, thanks to the pathetic state of psychology and the willingness of psychologists to invent legal syndrome-defenses for a price.

[mrocktor]

I would like to know the Objectivist position on civility, proper standards of behavior or etiquette, and government's proper role in enforcement of standards of civilized behavior, if any.

My understanding is that an Objectivist living in a free society shuld see other men as potential sources of value. There is some discussion about this in the "Benevolent People Premise" thread. That is the basis for politeness and civility toward strangers - treat them as if they could become valuable trading partners or friends. With known people, justice is the fundamental issue. Respect those worthy of respect, denounce those who need to be denounced.

The proper role of government in this matter, however, is absolutely none. Using vulgar language, being impolite, tese things violate no ones life, freedom of action or property. It is essential to realize that you are the only one responsible for your own mental and emotional health. As long as your physical integrity is not assaulted, your freedom of action not impeded, your property not damaged - the government should do absolutely nothing. The purpose of the government is not to enforce moral, rational behavior - it is strictly to protect individual rights.

Free people have quite enough ways to deal with impolite, uncivil or otherwise undesireable people - much more than in today's society with all the government "protection" we have. In a free country, the restaurant owner could simply ban the loud mouthed troublemaker from his establishment. He could notify other businessmen and have the person banned from the whole mall. For severe cases, someone could be banned from a whole city, if he annoys enough property owners.

You don't have to listen to anyone. You don't have to let anyone into your property if you don't want to.

[DavidOdden]

The proper role of government in this matter, however, is absolutely none.

You're ignoring the fact that the government operates the court system, where a man seeks peaceful redress for damage inflicted by others.

[mrocktor]

You're ignoring the fact that the government operates the court system, where a man seeks peaceful redress for damage inflicted by others.

No, I'm not ignoring that. I am frontally denying that anything resulting only from someone being "uncivil" or "impolite" is "damage" and that those subjects are, therefore, out of the sphere of proper government action.

EDIT: double negative...

Edited June 27, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

I am frontally denying that anything resulting only from someone being "uncivil" or "impolite" is "damage" and that those subjects are, therefore, out of the sphere of proper government action.

So would it be correct that you support a person's legal right to harass anyone? Let's say that I figure out where you live, and then I start a campaign of harassment where me and my buddies follow you everywhere you go or try to live with signs saying "Peter M. Rocktor is a Murdering Pedophile", I call your home and business every minute just to irritate you plus keep your phone tied up, we play "Ride of the Valkyries" full blast in the street outside your house and everywhere you go. Not on your property, but in public, just away from your property. Do you accept that you have no legal recourse?

[Drew1776]

So would it be correct that you support a person's legal right to harass anyone? Let's say that I figure out where you live, and then I start a campaign of harassment where me and my buddies follow you everywhere you go or try to live with signs saying "Peter M. Rocktor is a Murdering Pedophile", I call your home and business every minute just to irritate you plus keep your phone tied up, we play "Ride of the Valkyries" full blast in the street outside your house and everywhere you go. Not on your property, but in public, just away from your property. Do you accept that you have no legal recourse?

The proper role of government in this matter, however, is absolutely none. Using vulgar language, being impolite, tese things violate no ones life, freedom of action or property.

It would seem that your examples are already addressed by mrocktor. Spreading lies about someone will violate someone’s freedom of action and life. The spreading of such lies will likely lead to demonstrable harm to Peter M. Rocktor and would therefore be punishable under the law. A person owns their telephone and the company owns the phones at work. These are items of private property. You don't have a right to call people whenever you want. If mrocktor had specifically asked you to stop calling him you must abide by his request because it's his (or the companies) private property. As far as blasting music near someone's property, the degree of noise is something that would need to be worked out but other threads have addressed that at some point things can be too loud. This again is a property issue. Blasting music at a person such that it impedes his life and his enjoyment of his property would not be exempted under mrocktors statement because it is not merely being "impolite."

There is an important distinction between someone being rude in general and someone continually hounding a target. A man walking down the street with a very loud boombox is being impolite and annoying. You would have no legal recourse against him because you have the ability to walk away or to evade is path. The same person, if he's following you around with the express purpose of being annoying is violating your right because he leaves you no room to escape.

Just my thoughts but I'm sure mrocktor will give you a better response.

[DavidOdden]

Spreading lies about someone will violate someone’s freedom of action and life. The spreading of such lies will likely lead to demonstrable harm to Peter M. Rocktor and would therefore be punishable under the law.

Well, the part that's not clear is his connection between harm (and responsibility) vs. "uncivilized acts". What I've described involves no initiation of force, so I don't understand on what basis the acts could be actionable in the world he would like to live in. Under existing standards of law, it would be sufficient to prove that an act caused damage and that the damage was forseeable, but he explicitly rejected that standard. So I'm having a hard time understanding his position: I can't discern a principle, if the existing legal standard is rejected.

[mrocktor]

What I've described involves no initiation of force, so I don't understand on what basis the acts could be actionable in the world he would like to live in.

It does involve certain breaches of property, the excessive noise, specifically - I would only build my home somewhere that had certain contractual guarantees on that and certain other issues. While Drew covered the main thrust of my response, I'll tackle it myself:

First, you are right that I would not support that I should have legal recourse against your harassment. In fact, I'm unconvinced that libel and slander should be treated as crimes either (the "right to image" thing is a whole other thread though).

On to the specifics. First, your following me around with signs and blaring sounds assumes the owners of the places I frequent actually allow you to do so. Nothing stops the guard at the shopping mall, restaurant, supermarket from keeping you from harassing and annoying his clients - on his property. As a business owner, I certainly would not allow such goings on in my establishment.

Second, harassing me over the phone assumes you know my number in the first place. I can get an unlisted number if I want (someone will provide such a service in a free country). You further assume that I have no way to specifically block your calls, or specifically allow only known numbers to call me (also services a phone company might offer). I can use caller ID to screen my calls as well. Finally, I can inform the telephone company of your harassment - they would probably not be too happy about it either - they don't want to be known as the company that lets their customers be annoyed.

Third, you assume that you are actually allowed on the street just outside my home. Sorry, private property. I don't see any association of home owners allowing such antics on their property either.

So I don't really need legal recourse at all.

EDIT:

So I'm having a hard time understanding his position: I can't discern a principle, if the existing legal standard is rejected.

The relevant principle is: the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. That is the only situation where using force (which is what the government does) is justified. If force is not initiated, rights are not violated. The government should do nothing.

Edited June 27, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

It does involve certain breaches of property, the excessive noise, specifically - I would only build my home somewhere that had certain contractual guarantees on that and certain other issues.

Okay, but those contractual guarantees (whatever you think those guarantees might be) do not exist in the vast majority of cases, so you'd have to agree that if you did not live in a gated community with such guarantees and specific remedies explicitly built in to the sales contract, then you would have no legal recourse. Your only recourse in that case, FYI, would be to sue the association that owns the communal property for not telling me to leave, so you actually never ever have any legal recourse against me (unless we happen to be neighbors in the same community). People who do not live in a gated community don't have any legal recourse against harassment, period.

First, your following me around with signs and blaring sounds assumes the owners of the places I frequent actually allow you to do so. Nothing stops the guard at the shopping mall, restaurant, supermarket from keeping you from harassing and annoying his clients - on his property. As a business owner, I certainly would not allow such goings on in my establishment.

Sure, but then you're dealing with private property. So until I'm evicted by the owner of the mall or the park, I can harass you to my heart's content. (Actually, until the owner persuades me that he has the right to ask me to leave, or until the police evict me at the request of the owner). I want you to deal with the problem of being in public. I can harass you from the edges of the private community or business (sound travels, you know).

The relevant principle is: the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. That is the only situation where using force (which is what the government does) is justified. If force is not initiated, rights are not violated. The government should do nothing.

Now you've gone and denied the principle of civil responsibility. You see, this was my point all along. Go back to my post and reconsider the point about legal responsibility for actions: in this one statement you have, as best I can see, denied that a neighbor bears tort responsibility if his tree falls down and trashes his neighbor's house. If I park by car on a slope and don't set the brake, it's not by responsibility to pay for the ensuing damages -- sue gravity! If my dog goes insane and kills your child, I have no responsibility -- you can have the dog executed, but I bear no responsibility. Tell me why this isn't a direct consequence of what you just said, and/or why that isn't just plain nutso as a conclusion for people living in a civilized society.

[Capitalism Forever]

government's proper role in enforcement of standards of civilized behavior, if any

Enforcing standards of civilized behavior is government's only proper role. For example, murdering other people is a very uncivilized thing to do, and it is the government's job to enforce a ban on murder. Civilization is the process of freeing men from other men, by identifying and protecting their rights inherent in their nature qua man--and a proper government is all about doing just that.

Etiquette is something different. Etiquette is a set of procedures for facilitating interaction between men. For example, etiquette calls for saying "Hello" or introducing yourself when you answer the phone; this makes it easier for the caller to know that you are ready to listen to him than just picking up the receiver and waiting in silence for him to say something. A breech of etiquette does not in itself violate anybody's rights, it just makes interaction potentially more difficult.

HOWEVER, if you have undertaken an obligation to adhere to a particular rule of etiquette, say you have accepted a call center job where they require you to say "X Corp., how may I help you?" when answering the phone, then failing to follow that rule of etiquette is also an infringement of the rights of those toward whom you have undertaken the obligation: your employer could sue you for saying nothing when you pick up the phone. And in certain cases, you are implicitly undertaking obligations to follow particular rules of etiquette by acting in a certain way: say, if you attend a lecture on Objectivism, you are implicitly agreeing to sit quietly during the lecture (or to exit quietly if you have to); if you stand up and begin to chant the Internationale in the middle of the lecture, then you are in violation of the organizers' rights even before they tell you to stop, because you could have known that they don't consent to your doing that. They can use force to remove you from the premises without saying anything to you--and they can sue you afterwards.

[mrocktor]

Okay, but those contractual guarantees (whatever you think those guarantees might be) do not exist in the vast majority of cases

They don't exist because the government has taken uppon itself that role. If there were not laws against noise, you can be sure there would be contractual provisions for that.

so you'd have to agree that if you did not live in a gated community with such guarantees and specific remedies explicitly built in to the sales contract, then you would have no legal recourse.

Yes, personally I'd move somewhere less stupid.

So until I'm evicted by the owner of the mall or the park, I can harass you to my heart's content.

Yup, and then get banned from the place. Be my guest.

I want you to deal with the problem of being in public. I can harass you from the edges of the private community or business (sound travels, you know).

There is no "public property" for crying out loud! There are no edges!

Now you've gone and denied the principle of civil responsibility. You see, this was my point all along.

What? I'm talking about being impolite or annoying and you extend that to mean I'm in favor of letting people get away with actual property damage (by a tree or car, for instance)? How the flying funk did you get that from my argument? I'm saying that things that don't violate life, freedom of action and property should not be subject to government reprisal and you come back with "then you are saying that if some guy damages my property or kills my kid I have no recourse!". You totally and completely lost me there.

EDIT for vehemence: Letting a tree destroy your house or a dog kill your kid is not a matter of politeness and etiquette for crying out loud!

Edited June 27, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

What? I'm talking about being impolite or annoying and you extend that to mean I'm in favor of letting people get away with actual property damage (by a tree or car, for instance)? How the flying funk did you get that from my argument?

If you look at the quote of yours that I quoted, you said "If force is not initiated, rights are not violated. The government should do nothing." Perhaps you wish you didn't say that, and if you want to retract that statement, you may, but you can't say that you didn't say it. You will be taken at your word.

[mrocktor]

If you look at the quote of yours that I quoted, you said "If force is not initiated, rights are not violated. The government should do nothing." Perhaps you wish you didn't say that, and if you want to retract that statement, you may, but you can't say that you didn't say it. You will be taken at your word.

Are you saying that rights can be violated without the use of force?

1. I can intentionally damage your house by chopping down my tree and having it fall that way.

2. I can intentionally damage your house by leaving my tree I know to be rotting untended beside it.

3. I can unintentionally damage your house by leaving my tree I don't know to be rotting untended beside it.

4. I can unintentionally damage your house by having my perfectly healthy tree blown onto your house by a tornado.

5. I can't damage your house by putting up a plaque saying "David sucks" beside your house!

Its impossible to violate your rights without phisically acting against them. I fully agree that one should be responsible for the results of ones actions (or inaction) - but there has to be actual results! The guy in (2) that "lets nature do her work" does initiate force. Both (1) and (2) are criminal. (3) on the other hand does not initiate force, he never made a choice that resulted in force being applied to your property - you can argue that he owes you compensation and should be liable (and I'd like to see the argument). I'd really like to see the argument for making (4) liable, and how it differs from (3).

But (5) does no damage at all! And (5) is what this thread is about.

Edited June 27, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

Are you saying that rights can be violated without the use of force?

Yes. An example is the person who neglects to appropriate caution by failing to remove a dead tree. That is not an initiation of force. However, it's not necessary for you respond any further.

[mrocktor]

Yes. An example is the person who neglects to appropriate caution by failing to remove a dead tree. That is not an initiation of force. However, it's not necessary for you respond any further.

Necessary or not, I'll respond.

The identification that rights can only be violated by the use of force is a staple of Objectivist Politics. How do you integrate you point of view with that?

Also, how do you judge how much caution is "appropriate"? If your answer is the "reasonable man" standard, ultimately that makes all civil justice pretty much arbitrary.

Edited June 28, 2007 by mrocktor

[softwareNerd]

Also check out a related thread, on Manners, from a little while back