Different rules?

[bmullins]

It has been my observation that when discussing philosophy, there seems to be a lack of common decency. It seems to be that if one can logically prove their point then it frees them from having to be congenial. It also seems to be that if one cannot logically prove their point, the result is sarcasm or diversion.

Does the topic being discussed and the means of discussion change the rules of common decency? Or do the rules of common decency only apply in certain situations?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you are talking about things that you’ve read in this forum I think another factor is at play.

They way in which many of us interact here we are for the most part anonymous and our interactions here are separated from our “real” life. I’m inclined to think that if we were having discussions face to face some of the discourteousness (though not all) would be gone. If our words here influenced our reputation in our daily lives than I think that observations would be different.

There’s also in-group/out-group hostility mixed in with the projection of stereotypes or speaking to labels.

 

[bmullins]

I wasn’t referring to here only, but to the nature of internet forums for the most part. I don’t spend a lot of time discussing philosophy face to face. I just find that on the internet there tends to be a very non-civil undercurrent to posting. I’ve noticed that many can be … well down right rude (of course it’s difficult to get an exact understanding of their intentions in a text based medium.)

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t referring to here only, but to the nature of internet forums for the most part. I don’t spend a lot of time discussing philosophy face to face. I just find that on the internet there tends to be a very non-civil undercurrent to posting. I’ve noticed that many can be … well down right rude (of course it’s difficult to get an exact understanding of their intentions in a text based medium.)

I agree. Bigotry is not confined to religious people and it is quite out of place on a Philosophy forum which should consist of objective discussions without disparaging remarks about persons. There is no reason why arguments we consider to be false shouldn’t be attacked ferociously if they lead to evil consequences - like unnecessary abortions!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wasn’t referring to here only, but to the nature of internet forums for the most part. I don’t spend a lot of time discussing philosophy face to face. I just find that on the internet there tends to be a very non-civil undercurrent to posting. I’ve noticed that many can be … well down right rude (of course it’s difficult to get an exact understanding of their intentions in a text based medium.)

For now I’ll ignore instances where a message’s tone is misunderstood and interpreted as rude and will only think about instances of intentional offensiveness.

I think that is to be expected in some human interactions that are allegedly consequence free. When people believe that they can act a certain way and not suffer any significant consequences then they have less inhibitions against acting out. In face to face situations there may be times with anger and other emotions rise but a person suppresses them. If you tell some one at a cocktail party what an idiot they are for saying something that displays ignorance you risk social punishments such as others not wanting to deal with you and damage to your reputation (which can lead to other consequences that can sometimes impact lifestyle). Some times people are polite to just get something they want or avoid some consequence of not being polite. It’s even easier to be rude when you don’t have the personal connection that is present in a face-to-face conversation.

Put some one in a situation where some of those social punishments are removed and the inhibitions will probably start melting away. Leave out an anonymous suggestion box an those that respond may be more honest about their thoughts than they would if they had to submit their name with their suggestion.

A somewhat reverse situation is visible when you look at the topic of prank calling. 30 years ago before caller ID was common prank calls were something people may do for entertainment. Or some one may call in an explosives threat to a school to get out of a test, and so on. With the ubiquity of caller ID, the lower availability of pay phones, and the presence of anonymous call blocking prank calls have become less common. They are still possible but between the additional effort involved to be anonymous and the presence of communication mediums that have ones identity explicitly attached (or implicitly attached though certain inferences) it’s far less common.

Check out Plato’s “The Ring of Gyges” from “The Republic.” I think discussion on that story may be illuminating here.

 

[wanstronian]

I agree. Bigotry is not confined to religious people and it is quite out of place on a Philosophy forum which should consist of objective discussions without disparaging remarks about persons. There is no reason why arguments we consider to be false shouldn’t be attacked ferociously if they lead to evil consequences - like unnecessary abortions!

Indeed - but one should always bear in mind, when deciding to attack ferociously, that one should have a solid logical basis from which to object. To take your example, you would need to provide a definition of “unnecessary;” and subsequently objective, defensible, ethical reasons why doing this particular unnecessary thing should be labelled as “evil.”

Of course there’s nothing to stop one objecting on the ground of personal conviction, as long as one recognises that such personal conviction is nothing more than opinion, and that there’s no good reason to expect it to carry any weight with the opposition.

Out of interest, how would you define an “unnecessary” abortion? And on what basis would you contend that this “unnecessary” abortion constitutes an “evil” act? (how would you define “evil?”)

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed - but one should always bear in mind, when deciding to attack ferociously, that one should have a solid logical basis from which to object. To take your example, you would need to provide a definition of “unnecessary;” and subsequently objective, defensible, ethical reasons why doing this particular unnecessary thing should be labelled as “evil.”

Of course there’s nothing to stop one objecting on the ground of personal conviction, as long as one recognises that such personal conviction is nothing more than opinion, and that there’s no good reason to expect it to carry any weight with the opposition.

Out of interest, how would you define an “unnecessary” abortion? And on what basis would you contend that this “unnecessary” abortion constitutes an “evil” act? (how would you define “evil?”)

An unnecessary abortion is one that is performed solely for convenience.

It is evil because it causes the death of an unborn child.

 

[wanstronian]

An unnecessary abortion is one that is performed solely for convenience.

This is a bit ambiguous. Convenient for whom? And how would you define “convenient?” Can you give some examples of what you would define as “convenience” abortions; and some examples of situations where you would consider a termination to be acceptable?

It is evil because it causes the death of an unborn child.

And when does this child begin to exist? At fertilisation? At 6 weeks? Some other event?

How do you define “evil?”

 

[tonyrey]

An unnecessary abortion is one that is performed solely for convenience.

For anyone who benefits from it.

And how would you define “convenient?”

It makes one’s life easier.

Can you give some examples of what you would define as “convenience” abortions…

Those that are carried out simply to avoid having to bring up a child.

…and some examples of situations where you would consider a termination to be acceptable?

:
When the mother’s life is endangered due to the pregnancy.

It is evil because it causes the death of an unborn child.

And when does this child begin to exist? At fertilisation? At 6 weeks? Some other event?

At the moment of conception.

How do you define “evil?”

That which harms, kills or causes needless suffering.