The Ethics Meetup – Should you be civil in the face of incivility?

Hello Philosophy & Ethics Fans!

UPDATE: we have a topic for the Meetup, which is this Sunday, October 25 at 5 PM – 7 PM Pacific Time.

We're meeting on zoom this month; shortly before the meeting starts, I'll send a Zoom invitation with the link and some discussion notes.

If your plans to attend have changed, please update your RSVP.

The winner of the email vote and the topic for Sunday is:

DO YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO STAY CIVIL IN THE FACE OF INCIVILITY? Suppose someone speaks to you with rudeness, or worse, with contempt, or someone attacks your character, or someone speaks to you in language that treats you or a group you belong to as less than fully human. In any or all these cases, are you obliged to respond with civility? When someone is uncivil to you, what do you owe them? Or, what do you owe to observers? The question can be usefully divided into several related parts.
First, does the social context matter? Compare, say, a family dinner, a workplace, an anonymous social media thread, and this discussion group. Do duties differ, or do only the practical consequences you get differ?
Second, what kind of obligation is at stake? Is civility a moral duty you owe to the speaker (and/or to observers), a duty to yourself and your own character, a social convention, a practical strategy, or is it in some other normative category? Does the type of obligation matter for how you respond to incivility?
Third, if you meet incivility with incivility, is that a fair response, an understandable weakness, or something else? Does dehumanizing language change your answer, compared with an insult or a slight to your character, or compared with mere rudeness?
Fourth, when confronted with incivility, what type of and degree of response is called for? Should you respond with calm civility? With intensified emotion? With a raised voice? With the same level and kind of incivility as the speaker? With an increased level of incivility that outdoes the speaker?
Fifth, before you respond to incivility, how should you weigh the chance that you’ve misread tone, intent, or the speaker’s point of view? And, should you always give a charitable interpretation to the speaker's words?

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

READINGS for the topic – I have three very short readings (totaling 9 pages) and a bonus 10-page article for you this time, each having a different take on civility. I also have, below the four readings, some brief definitions of civility and incivility.

These four articles discuss civility / incivility mainly in the context of public political discourse (as opposed to other social contexts mentioned in the topic, i.e., a family dinner, a workplace, an anonymous social media thread, or a discussion group). Inspire and clarify your thinking on the issues by reading these and writing down your ideas!

https://daily.jstor.org/should-politics-be-civil
Should Politics Be Civil? From the JSTOR Daily column, this one-page piece is by freelance writer Livia Gershon. This is a concise summary of three philosophers on civility, Zurn, Calhoun, and Rawls, including the view that civility must be balanced with other political virtues.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/civility-and-its-limits/
Civility and Its Limits. From the Claremont Review of Books, political science professor Scott Yenor's 3.5-page book review notes that mere civility can descend into worsening incivility when the powerful brook no disagreement.

https://blog.apaonline.org/2022/05/10/tone-policing-and-the-assertion-of-authority/
Tone-Policing and the Assertion of Authority. In this 4.5-page post from the Blog of the APA (American Philosophical Association), philosophy professor Alice MacLachlan discusses tone policing and its hazards. A question that arises is whether calls for civility are equivalent to tone-policing.

https://blog.apaonline.org/2024/12/09/beyond-civility-incivility/
Beyond Civility and Incivility. From the Blog of the APA (American Philosophical Association), philosophy professor Brian C. Barnett's 10-page post criticizes both civility and incivility as frameworks, listing five objections.

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

We can start with some definitions of civility and incivility (though brief, these definitions wander into controversy). Note that the readings for the topic above go into more depth on this, including disagreements on the meaning and uses of civility.

This is from the AI (Gemini) overview of civility:

Civility means formal politeness, courtesy, good manners, or respectful behavior and speech shown toward others, even during disagreements or conflict. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Key Dimensions of Civility

• Beyond Mere Politeness: True civility is deeper than surface-level etiquette (such as saying "please" or "thank you"). It requires claiming and caring for your own identity and beliefs while respecting the dignity and humanity of others without degrading them.
• Disagreement Without Disrespect: It allows people to debate tough issues, raise difficult questions, and hold opposing viewpoints while maintaining mutual respect and avoiding personal attacks, bullying, or hostility.

The Opposite: Incivility

• Incivility involves rude, aggressive, or hostile behavior, including insults, cyberbullying, harassment, and the intentional undermining of others. [1, 2]

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

Don't forget, if you have some philosophical question or issue that you want to talk about at a future meeting, email it to me!

See you there,

Brian