People generally wish to seem both smart and wise. This is forgivable, as both intelligence and wisdom are good things. However, what many who seek out this appearance don't realize is that they are simply enacting an appearance, and nothing more; they are not actually being smart and wise. They're chasing an image. For example, during times of extreme political strife, this desire to stand out as a true beacon of intelligence and reason will frequently manifest as bland appeals to things like "civility", "objectivity" and "hearing both sides".
Now, let me forestall any misunderstanding as much as I can. I am not saying that civility, objectivity, and equal consideration of claims are not important. As a fan of philosophy, I think these things are absolutely necessary. I won't waste any more time qualifying my belief that civility, objectivity, and equal consideration are vital, as I take it to be self evident that these are necessary virtues for sound thinking and good interactions with others.
But - and this is crucial - we must realize that to merely focus on these (and similar) virtues is often simply an easy way used by people who either a.) have an alternative agenda that they are trying to present as objectively true or b.) have literally no idea what's going on but want to get involved anyway.
Let's look at why this is the case.
A.) Civility as a Mask
One of the easiest was to win an argument (albeit without necessarily proving that you're actually right) is to discredit your opponent enough so that people instinctively side with you. There are plenty of logical fallacies that exploit the human desire to not side with the unpopular, the mockable, and the silly. The most famous is "ad hominem" which means "to the man" - attacking the person themselves instead of their argument.
But there are other ways to subvert the argument and get the crowd to side with you by default. One of them is to try to paint the other side's anger as "uncivil". If the other side says anything that isn't in strictly formal debate language, then this ideologue-in-disguise swoops in and says things like:
- "I don't care what side you're on, but it's disappointing how such-and-such group is conducting themselves"
- "There's no need to act irrationally and name call. I only see one side doing it, anyway."
- "I can see why people don't listen to such-and-such group; they're just being emotional and uncivil about this."
However, if one pays strict attention, one will see that when civility is being used as a mask, the disingenuous call for civility is always accompanied by an appeal to a specific side of the issue. The goal (whether the person doing this fully consciously knows it or not) is to portray their side as supremely calm and rational while the other side is irrational and bitter. The implication is that their side has objective truth on its side.
Be on the lookout for people who slip in their argument beneath a superficial concern for civility.
B.) The Civility Warrior
There are some people who don't really have well informed opinions, but who wish to seem like they do. I know, this is not shocking.
One sure fire way to seem like you have something to say is to wade into a discussion that gets heated and just chastise "both sides" for being passionate. If called to account as to why they are involving themselves only to say platitudes about being polite and objective, the civility warrior will often go back to citing the virtues of civility, objectivity, and equal consideration.
To the uninitiated, this can seem like a wise and reasonable thing to do. It might seem like the person calling for civility (no matter what context the alleged incivility took place in) is above the fray in their calm, rational appraisal of things.
The thing is, there are virtues beyond civility, objectivity, and equal consideration. I know of no ethical theory or meta-ethical theory where the only moral objects or virtues are those three things.
There are, thus, times when an argument merits passion, and even anger. If someone says "We should exterminate the Jews because they secretly rule the world", then it is obviously silly to just tell them that this isn't true; to calmly site objective evidence and then wait for their rebuttal. This is because they are not merely wrong; they are advocating a shameful position. A shameful ideology. Thus, it is okay (and I think even virtuous) to shame them. To get angry and insult them. To have sincere, authentic reactions to the patently ridiculous evil they've subscribed to.
If the other person was merely factually wrong about a topic, then the civility warrior would actually have a point. If we want to reach the truth in a good faith discussion or debate, then we must admit that none of us has a perfect view of things and thus that even if we are correct, it is not helpful to insult or shame someone for not knowing what we know. For example, if I want to debate with someone about epistemology, then it is obviously poor form for me to call them stupid if they haven't heard of heard of correspondence theory or the word 'epistemology'.
But when groups like fascists start advocating their beliefs, we're under no obligation to pretend like they are doing so in good faith, or to pretend like their beliefs are understandably grounded in reality. If the 20th century gave us anything, it was a good psychological analysis of fascism such that we know that they are not cognitively primed for a civil debate. This is because they aren't looking to hear interesting counter-arguments to their wild, paranoid, violent delusions. They're just seeking a persuadable audience and trying to emotionally justify their grand mythologies by rooting them in pseudo-facts and outright fancy.
So, when we encounter fascism, it is both morally and tactically justified to denounce and shame them. Morally, it is justified because some arguments and beliefs are for horrible things, and we should be rightfully horrified. (Note: This doesn't mean our horror isn't rationally justified - that's a tired and silly argument from those who seek to seem edgy by means of pretending that emotion serves no valid cognitive function.)
Tactically, it is okay to shame and denounce the fascist because they're only operating on an emotional level, anyway. The only thing that might snap them out of their paranoid and desperate fantasy world is shame. Further, the best way to inoculate the audience against the allure of fascist mythology is to show them what a sham and a shit-show it really is.
Conclusion
By all means, let us continue to have a society of civil debate and discussion. A society wherein we value objectivity and giving equal consideration to both sides of an argument.
But, for the sake of that same society, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that passion and anger are never rationally justified. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that shaming someone for believing and advocating awful things is somehow 'uncivil'. And let us not delude ourselves into thinking that bad actors, like fascists, are going to sit down for a civil conversation about their beliefs.
Be on the lookout for people who slip in their argument beneath a superficial concern for civility.
B.) The Civility Warrior
There are some people who don't really have well informed opinions, but who wish to seem like they do. I know, this is not shocking.
One sure fire way to seem like you have something to say is to wade into a discussion that gets heated and just chastise "both sides" for being passionate. If called to account as to why they are involving themselves only to say platitudes about being polite and objective, the civility warrior will often go back to citing the virtues of civility, objectivity, and equal consideration.
To the uninitiated, this can seem like a wise and reasonable thing to do. It might seem like the person calling for civility (no matter what context the alleged incivility took place in) is above the fray in their calm, rational appraisal of things.
The thing is, there are virtues beyond civility, objectivity, and equal consideration. I know of no ethical theory or meta-ethical theory where the only moral objects or virtues are those three things.
There are, thus, times when an argument merits passion, and even anger. If someone says "We should exterminate the Jews because they secretly rule the world", then it is obviously silly to just tell them that this isn't true; to calmly site objective evidence and then wait for their rebuttal. This is because they are not merely wrong; they are advocating a shameful position. A shameful ideology. Thus, it is okay (and I think even virtuous) to shame them. To get angry and insult them. To have sincere, authentic reactions to the patently ridiculous evil they've subscribed to.
If anything, calm discussion will merely grant them more of the delusion that they have something of merit to say, or that there are valid points to their mythology.
So, when we encounter fascism, it is both morally and tactically justified to denounce and shame them. Morally, it is justified because some arguments and beliefs are for horrible things, and we should be rightfully horrified. (Note: This doesn't mean our horror isn't rationally justified - that's a tired and silly argument from those who seek to seem edgy by means of pretending that emotion serves no valid cognitive function.)
Tactically, it is okay to shame and denounce the fascist because they're only operating on an emotional level, anyway. The only thing that might snap them out of their paranoid and desperate fantasy world is shame. Further, the best way to inoculate the audience against the allure of fascist mythology is to show them what a sham and a shit-show it really is.
Conclusion
By all means, let us continue to have a society of civil debate and discussion. A society wherein we value objectivity and giving equal consideration to both sides of an argument.
But, for the sake of that same society, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that passion and anger are never rationally justified. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that shaming someone for believing and advocating awful things is somehow 'uncivil'. And let us not delude ourselves into thinking that bad actors, like fascists, are going to sit down for a civil conversation about their beliefs.
There are times when calm, detached objectivity is valuable. There are times where a passionate "FUCK YOU!" is justified. There are times where both sides merit being heard, and there are times where one side does not.
Calls for civility, objectivity, and equal consideration are anything but wise when they come without regard for context