Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Long response to Graydon about courtesy
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:17:09

 G> T> No, it's *dishonest* to cheat someone -- and it's still an inapposite
 G> T> analogy. Conversation is not a commercial transaction, nor does it
 G> T> resemble a commercial transaction in any significant sense. If you
 G> T> disgree, please explain why you think it *is* apposite.

 G> Conversation is an interaction that involves value jugdements, with
 G> the values involved being a mix of societal standards and personal
 G> opinion.  'Commercial transaction' is rather too narrow - conversation 
 G> is, I think, an aspect of a social economy, but not neccesarily an
 G> anspect directly analagous to commerical (regulated by a third party)
 G> transactions.

 G> If I am talking to someone, we could be regarded as trading information;
 G> we could also be regarded as engaged in some sort of 
 G> emotional transaction.

 G> Not the only model, but not too far off.

 Too far off to be of any use. To begin with, commercial transactions are
 not necessarily "regulated by a third party" (unless one is a socialist).
 Neither does conversation, as a process, necessarily involve "value
 judgments". If you are talking to someone, you might indeed be "trading
 information" - if you are, in fact trading information. If not, of course,
 then not.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> G> If a five year old child comes up and smacks me in the kneecap with a
 G> G> hammer, I am most definately obliged to refrain from striking back.

 G> T> (1) Wherein lies the difference between me and you - I would smack the
 G> T> little brat a good one, my kid or not, and quite possibly the parent, did
 G> T> the circumstances warrant it. Again, I suggest that my way leads to fewer
 G> T> such incidents in the future, whereas yours does not.

 G> *A* difference between us.

 G> I find it extremely unlikely that 'smacking the little brat a good one'
 G> is likely to lead to fewer incidents of violence in your immediate future.

 Perhaps not immediately, but in the long term ... and I value the long
 term over the short term. Again, as I say, THE difference between us.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> G> If an adult comes up and tries to punch me in the face, all I know
 G> G> ... disable them.  An awareness of context is neccessary to good
 G> G> decisions.

 G> T> Thank you, Commander Data. Let me suggest an analogy more comparable to
 G> T> our present situation. You and the other guy are on opposite sides of a
 G> T> canyon, and each of you has a gun, and he takes a shot at you. Where is
 G> T> the opportunity to "restrain" him? I suppose it's within the realm of
 G> T> possibility that every time somebody gets on my case in this forum I could
 G> T> track them down, break into their house or office, and take an axe to
 G> T> their keyboard - but I do not regard that as a practical course of action.
 G> T> My choice is to shoot back. It may not make him keep his head down and
 G> T> refrain from shooting again ... but, then again, it just might.

 G> You are asserting that the better model of email conflict is a firefight?

 In this forum, under the circumstances being discussed, it seems obvious.
 It certainly seems a more apposite analogy than the one you proposed.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> Aside from the problem of scale (email isn't anything even vaguely
 G> resembling a life-or-death situation), a firefight is not, primarily,
 G> a communication mechanism.  It is a coercive mechanism, which email
 G> can't be - there isn't any direct way to cause someone tangible harm
 G> via email.

 Mutatis mutandis, the situations are still comparable. A firefight is not
 a life-or-death situation, either, in most cases - and in the scenario
 just presented, it most certainly is a communication mechanism. The
 first shooter is communicating "I don't like you, and I am attempting to
 indicate that", whereas the respondant is saying "I understand and I don't
 plan to let you do so with impunity."

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> I regard attempts to do me lasting tangible harm as an extreme case of
 G> normal conflicts; by your choice of analogy, you seem to be arguing that
 G> either email presents you with a threat of real harm on the same scale
 G> a physical assault does, or that the appropriate model of conflict is
 G> an assualtive situation, with everthing else being a watered down version.

 On the contrary, I regard public insult as a "harm" every bit as "real" as
 a bullet wound (with apologies to Burke). Again, as I say, the difference
 in viewpoint between you and I manifests itself.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> T> And I would suggest a modicum of familiarity with recent history, whether
 G> T> obtained at a staff college library or elsewhere. Appeasement didn't work
 G> T> at Munich, and it won't work here, for much the same reasons. [God, what
 G> T> *do* they teach in the schools these days....]

 G> This appears to argue that there are no responses possible between 
 G> 'appeasement'and 'shooting back'.  Attempting to clarify the nature 
 G> of the problem, to check for errors of comprehension, are all being 
 G> discounted as useful responses.  Would you care to explain why you think 
 G> these are not options in email communication?

 Because the people we are talking about (The Initiators, I shall term
 them) are demonstrably not the sort to "clarify the nature of the problem,
 to check for errors of comprehension", otherwise their response wouldn't
 be to shoot from the hip in public. You appear to be confusing the two
 categories here.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G>   G> I also fail to see why one has only the option of being violent
 G>   G> back, or doing nothing. If the person bears me no personal
 G>   G> animosity, but is merely overwhelmed by unbearable feeling, it is
 G>   G> far more in my interest to get them help than thump them.

 G> T> On the other hand, if you really don't care (as I don't) what their
 G> T> reasons were, but are merely interested in getting them to lay off,
 G> T> history demonstrates that "thumping them" is singularly effective.

 G> What is to prevent the case of two (or more) people with this attitude
 G> becoming more and more vituperative with each other, in an effort to
 G> get each other to go away?

 What is to prevent your own patent "soft answer" failing to turn away
 wrath? If we are indulging in suppositions, where will it all end? As Pope
 so eloquently says, "What can we reason, but from what we know?" I speak
 from my own experience, and in that experience my method historically has
 worked and your method historically has not.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> T> In electronic communications, the difference between "personal animosity"
 G> T> and "overwhelmed by unbearable feeling" is impossible to detect, in most
 G> T> cases; and, I submit, irrelevant. 

 G> Impossible to detect?  What about sending them email, and asking 'is this
 G> a hot issue for you, or do you hate my guts?'  The response is likely to
 G> provide some information useful to forming an opinion about which is the
 G> case.

 ... and, I repeat, irrelevant. I care nothing for either their motivations
 or their attitudes; the practical consequence is the same whether "this is
 a hot issue" or "they hate my guts". All I'm interested in is results, and
 the result I'm interested in is their getting out of my face. I'm not
 interested in peace and harmony for all mankind, I'm just interested in
 keeping my personal space trash-free.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> T> The objective of enforcing rules of
 G> T> civil behavior is not so that people will observe them when they're
 G> T> feeling good, but so that people will observe them regardless of their
 G> T> state of mind. I'm not interested in motives, I'm only interested in
 G> T> consequences; as my grandpappy used to say, "The road to hell is paved
 G> T> with good intentions."

 G> Who gets to decide what these rules are, and how are disagreements about
 G> the nature of the rules (either in setting them, or in interpretation)
 G> to be resolved?

 The Golden Rule works for me, and seems to meet with common approbation.
 Do you have a problem with it?

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G>    G> Getting them help produces someone kindly disposed to me; thumping
 G>    G> them gives them grounds for personal animosity, and leaves them in a
 G>    G> state where they are likely to act rashly on it.

 G> T> You appear to be interested in having "someone kindly disposed"; I really
 G> T> don't care. And however much thumping them may give them grounds for
 G> T> personal animosity, it makes it far *less* likely that they will be
 G> T> willing to "act rashly on it" -- that's the whole point.

 G> So the idea is to have people in a state where they are suffiecently
 G> fearful of you that they won't do something you disapprove of again?

 No, the idea is to have people convinced that, however much it may
 please them to act in a hostile fashion toward me, the consequences are
 sufficiently unpleasant that they will at least hesitate to do so (and
 ideally refrain from doing so). This is a narrower and hence more accurate
 characterization. [I notice that you have a tendency to over-generalize;
 something you might want to guard against.]

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> The axiom that I'm using is that courtesy is owed on the basis of other
 G> people's essential humanity, in the belief that if I'm not going to forget
 G> mine I can't forget theirs.  It is therefore a duty owed the soul,
 G> and so informs, but is not affected by, conflict resolution problems
 G> in daily life.  The ethics of courtesy, and the ethics of murder, are
 G> therefore being regarded as of a seperate order.

 G> You are certainly welcome to disagree with this.

 As, indeed, I was under the impression I had been doing all along. Whose
 "essential humanity" is being discussed here? The actor's? or the other
 person's? If the other person's (as seems implied by your reference to
 "owed on the basis of"), then surely courtesy, as something owed on the
 basis of another's "essential humanity", is on the same obligational basis
 as refraining from murder? I see those as "separate orders", certainly,
 but separate orders within the same (moral?) category.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> I would point out there is a distinction between 'killing' and 'murder';
 G> murder involves causing someone to die by treacherous, stealthy, or base
 G> means.  Killing is a much wider term.

 Your definition of "murder" differs from almost every other one I've
 encountered, then. Most common definitions characterize "murder" as
 "unlawful killing"; methodology rarely enters into it.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> T> If you do not respect yourself, then others will not respect you;
 G> T> and if you meekly allow others to treat you with disrespect, soon
 G> T> you will have no respect for yourself. (You've got the right song,
 G> T> just the wrong tune.)

 G> G> I think my tune's less zero sum, because it allows for respecting
 G> G> those who have difficulty respecting themselves.  Gentle treatment
 G> G> can have many positive side effects on an uncertain person's
 G> G> character and deportment.

 G> T> As pointed out above, my concern for the other person's character is nil,
 G> T> and I feel that my method affects the relevant deportment quite
 G> T> efficiently.

 G> Until you run into a situation in which you are significantly outnumbered,
 G> or find yourself opposed to someone with much better conflict skills, or
 G> someone who prefers any consequence to submission.  At this point, things
 G> would seem to be all set to get extremely messy.

 And your method doesn't arrive at that point sooner than mine? Pray
 present the evidence for so implausible a thesis.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> G> Are you then so poor in courtesy that you must hoard it?  I quite
 G> G> fail to see how it is a function of self respect to not respect
 G> G> others, and I quite fail to see how a lack of respect excuses
 G> G> discourtesy. A drunkard in a ditch is a figure of little respect,
 G> G> but does not, I think, warrant harsh words or being dismissed from
 G> G> the state of those accounted meaningfully human.

 G> T> Are you so thoroughly a shopkeeper that everything appears to you in
 G> T> commercial terms? I value courtesy so much that I will not squander
 G> T> it on the undeserving. "Do not give to dogs what is holy, and do not
 G> T> throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot
 G> T> and turn to attack you." [An excellent parallel with this forum, by
 G> T> the way.] For the record, I do not count a drunkard in a ditch as
 G> T> "meaningfully human"; although I would not waste harsh words on him,
 G> T> because I would not waste words on him at all.

 G> Hoarding is not a commercial term, neccessarily; hoarding can be reagrded
 G> as the failing opposite the virtue of generousity.  If you are meaning 
 G> to inquire if I am habitually dispassionate, I can only say that I don't
 G> think that those with whom I am directly acquainted would think so.

 "Hoarding" implies a view of something as a commodity; a shopkeeper
 viewpoint, however rationalized.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> What grants you the certainty to regard another person as not being
 G> meaningfully human?

 On what basis ought I to accept someone else's judgment in preference to
 my own? I regard myself as "meaningfully human", and follow my own counsel
 regarding who I consider to be my equivalents and who not.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G> I've never felt attacked on this forum, dispite having being disagreed
 G> with quite vehemently.  Disagrement can be regarded as something other
 G> than an attack.

 I have often felt attacked in this forum, as well as having been disagreed
 with quite vehemently. I have never had any problem distinguishing between
 the two.

    Tadhg

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca