C
chevalier
Guest
Here is a question I have been pondering from a theoretical perspective, although the factual basis is real.
Suppose we are representatives of a professional organisation, loosely termed “management”. That organisation is being slandered and libelled by a group of disappointed people jumping ship. Litigation is generally not threatened, it is basically a matter of reputation. Some of the accusations are manifestly false or made for evident personal reasons, or used as evident distractions or fillers to obfuscate the real cause being personal disputes with the management.
So, from the position of the management, we can chime in and in quick words educate the external reader of the real course of the events twisted by the principal accusers (some of the remaining several dozen signers of a defaming letter likely being ignorant of some crucial facts or otherwise manipulated into signing), emphasising that the whole conflict started from a personal grudge for disciplinary action that was well merited but the target, a popular person, took offence and some people “rebelled”. This is true, although it does not convey certain nuance that some of the protesters may actually have in mind, and it is a rather classic ad hominem (although ad hominems were directed at the management, including incompetence and being unable to separate emotion from duty).
Also, one of the accusations (relating to the organisation supposedly tolerating bids for sexual services in a professional forum!) was made by two insiders who tried (and failed) to frame the organisation while still in it, supposedly to expose some flaws, but were pardoned (on request by a management member they later defamed, no less). It also uses the plural while referring to what was in reality an isolated incident (and complete setup by the accusers as they admitted in public, and in writing). I suppose some of the co-signers with them of those letters defaming the organisation just simply do not know of that and could change their mind if they did. Suppose this was doubt #1.
Also, one other accusation is about promoting dumping-level prices in the industry (by supposedly failing to combat dumpers by not closing down bids in which they offered low prices, quotations being secret to non-participants other than highest management). However, one of the people signing those accusations is one of the actual dumpers, who offered outrageously low price to win, at least once. (In reality winners are typically chosen from the best qualified and suited professionals, not the cheapest.) It would be out of the question to reveal that person’s identity (it was not even being considered due to the unethicality of it) but it could be announced to the accusers in an answer that their own ranks include one such person. Suppose this was doubt #2.
So, in doubt #1, I’m getting a residual doubt that using this would be an awful personal counter-attack. The fact that the original attack was even more awful doesn’t seem to remove the ethical problem here to me. I would be entirely capable of looking them in the face and speaking it out loud in a public gathering, but for some reason I feel compunctions about putting it in writing. What’s your opinion about this sort of situation?
In doubt #2, I feel bad about an action which is clearly designed and intended to put a rift between a united group. It’s putting a rift in between people united by a lie but it’s still an action, which uses sowing discord as its method.
In reality, a response will most likely not be coming by decision of the owners, and the matter will be dealt with in silence.
So I suppose #1 comes down to: is it okay to present true circumtances of a disciplinary action publicly complained about, thereby inflicting a blow to the accuser’s reputation, while also using this as an ad hominem to show that arguments relating to substantive matters are smoke. Core problems: disclosing bad things about someone, using ad hominems.
And #2, I suppose, comes down to: is it okay to expose the fact that the ranks of authors of an exaggerated accusation of tolerating certain conduct include a person that positively engaged in that conduct (without naming that person), ie. basically cause a rift among the accusers with that news? Core problems: sowing discord and disunity, making people doubt each other.
It was only a brief contact with serious PR matters on my part… I don’t envy those who need to make such choices daily.
Suppose we are representatives of a professional organisation, loosely termed “management”. That organisation is being slandered and libelled by a group of disappointed people jumping ship. Litigation is generally not threatened, it is basically a matter of reputation. Some of the accusations are manifestly false or made for evident personal reasons, or used as evident distractions or fillers to obfuscate the real cause being personal disputes with the management.
So, from the position of the management, we can chime in and in quick words educate the external reader of the real course of the events twisted by the principal accusers (some of the remaining several dozen signers of a defaming letter likely being ignorant of some crucial facts or otherwise manipulated into signing), emphasising that the whole conflict started from a personal grudge for disciplinary action that was well merited but the target, a popular person, took offence and some people “rebelled”. This is true, although it does not convey certain nuance that some of the protesters may actually have in mind, and it is a rather classic ad hominem (although ad hominems were directed at the management, including incompetence and being unable to separate emotion from duty).
Also, one of the accusations (relating to the organisation supposedly tolerating bids for sexual services in a professional forum!) was made by two insiders who tried (and failed) to frame the organisation while still in it, supposedly to expose some flaws, but were pardoned (on request by a management member they later defamed, no less). It also uses the plural while referring to what was in reality an isolated incident (and complete setup by the accusers as they admitted in public, and in writing). I suppose some of the co-signers with them of those letters defaming the organisation just simply do not know of that and could change their mind if they did. Suppose this was doubt #1.
Also, one other accusation is about promoting dumping-level prices in the industry (by supposedly failing to combat dumpers by not closing down bids in which they offered low prices, quotations being secret to non-participants other than highest management). However, one of the people signing those accusations is one of the actual dumpers, who offered outrageously low price to win, at least once. (In reality winners are typically chosen from the best qualified and suited professionals, not the cheapest.) It would be out of the question to reveal that person’s identity (it was not even being considered due to the unethicality of it) but it could be announced to the accusers in an answer that their own ranks include one such person. Suppose this was doubt #2.
So, in doubt #1, I’m getting a residual doubt that using this would be an awful personal counter-attack. The fact that the original attack was even more awful doesn’t seem to remove the ethical problem here to me. I would be entirely capable of looking them in the face and speaking it out loud in a public gathering, but for some reason I feel compunctions about putting it in writing. What’s your opinion about this sort of situation?
In doubt #2, I feel bad about an action which is clearly designed and intended to put a rift between a united group. It’s putting a rift in between people united by a lie but it’s still an action, which uses sowing discord as its method.
In reality, a response will most likely not be coming by decision of the owners, and the matter will be dealt with in silence.
So I suppose #1 comes down to: is it okay to present true circumtances of a disciplinary action publicly complained about, thereby inflicting a blow to the accuser’s reputation, while also using this as an ad hominem to show that arguments relating to substantive matters are smoke. Core problems: disclosing bad things about someone, using ad hominems.
And #2, I suppose, comes down to: is it okay to expose the fact that the ranks of authors of an exaggerated accusation of tolerating certain conduct include a person that positively engaged in that conduct (without naming that person), ie. basically cause a rift among the accusers with that news? Core problems: sowing discord and disunity, making people doubt each other.
It was only a brief contact with serious PR matters on my part… I don’t envy those who need to make such choices daily.