Food for thought, though the idea of "elevating oneself" smacks of the accusations of "virtue signaling" that are so common online, when people dismiss basic decency and vocal advocacy on behalf of marginalized groups as some kind of character flaw. On my own FB page, I have been polite but unequivocal in expressing my disgust in ourselves as a culture (and implicitly, my disgust at the behavior of those I thought of as friends); if that stance is itself unethical, or self-promoting, or in bad faith, I'm not sure what the alternative is. To simply shrug my shoulders and assume that those who surrendered to their basest human impulses were just "doing the best they could, given the information they had"? That seems both naive and patronizing. I'm honestly at a loss.
I think people dismissing basic decency as you describe is a perfect example of bad faith interaction, and exactly the kind of thing this article finds fault with. But there is also huge incentive online to increase status and bolster one's self-image through interactions which use others as means to the end of looking clever, or successful, or - yes - virtuous.
The key difference is whether the target is being used as a means to an end. We can of course express what we think, even when it's negative. It's when we become compassionless toward people who don't think what we think, or begin to feel that treating them with overt disdain or disrespect becomes a virtuous action, that the problems set in. You don't need to look far online to see this behaviour everywhere.
Nothing I have written here suggests that shrugging one's shoulders and assuming that people are 'doing their best' is advisable, or an adequate form of engagement in something complex and divisive. That would be checking out, which helps no one. Compassion is easy when aimed at the people we already sympathise with. Trying to really understand how others came to a conclusion that differs from ours without simply dismissing them as stupid or bad -- even when we think they're wrong and even when we have good reasons -- is hard.
Thanks for responding; I didn't mean to suggest that *you* were suggesting passivity or defeatism - I was just trying to express my own inquiry and my struggle to find a concrete approach that has something approaching integrity. Thanks for the piece.
But I love elevating myself online! Alas, yes, even commenting in third rather than second person, avoiding the finger pointing of the word “you,” doesn’t excuse sarcastic, veiled contempt for some poor shmuck’s idea.
As for Reddit - I find lots of thoughtful, civil discussions there, even good models for making my own style kinder.
Bad faith interactions are a true enemy. If we need a Them to rail at (as human history seems to suggest we usually do, sadly), let's pick cruel, pompous, hasty, lazy, kneejerk, unreflective communication habits, in a way that doesn't fall into the trap of blaming people for it.
(But then, who is "we"? Probably I mean "I" and it's a reminder to myself - as this whole piece is - to do better, or at least try.)
Have you heard of Hanlon's Razor? Attributed to Robert J Hanlon in his book "Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!" (1980), and one way it can be boiled down is this:
"Don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity."
I recently saw it illustrated in a cartoon with a street corner - on one side, out of sight of the other, someone is looking down at some rubbish strewn across their path, and cursing the general state of humanity. Round the corner is someone cheerfully but hurriedly dragging their bag of kitchen rubbish to a recycling bin, unaware that the bag has a hole through which garbage is escaping.
I love how this cartoon is all of us, at different moments of the day, week or year, and yet it's so hard to make the logical connection between the two and realise that it means They are Us and that we are all capable of immensely stupidity and thoughtlessness just because we're trying to get through our day in one piece. From that realisation can come a lot of good-faith thinking: "oh, they're just momentarily being a plank, like I was this morning when I was fighting to pull open that door marked PUSH. That's probably what this is."
Grand stuff. I see the jet lag and maybe even the election lag has lifted and it’s good to have you back shoving a bit of morality into our day. You’re the good kind of one off journalist and thinker and I can only endorse your book and columns heartily. Not often enough have I applied Kant to life (consciously) before 10am on a Saturday! Thanks Laura.
Food for thought, though the idea of "elevating oneself" smacks of the accusations of "virtue signaling" that are so common online, when people dismiss basic decency and vocal advocacy on behalf of marginalized groups as some kind of character flaw. On my own FB page, I have been polite but unequivocal in expressing my disgust in ourselves as a culture (and implicitly, my disgust at the behavior of those I thought of as friends); if that stance is itself unethical, or self-promoting, or in bad faith, I'm not sure what the alternative is. To simply shrug my shoulders and assume that those who surrendered to their basest human impulses were just "doing the best they could, given the information they had"? That seems both naive and patronizing. I'm honestly at a loss.
I think people dismissing basic decency as you describe is a perfect example of bad faith interaction, and exactly the kind of thing this article finds fault with. But there is also huge incentive online to increase status and bolster one's self-image through interactions which use others as means to the end of looking clever, or successful, or - yes - virtuous.
The key difference is whether the target is being used as a means to an end. We can of course express what we think, even when it's negative. It's when we become compassionless toward people who don't think what we think, or begin to feel that treating them with overt disdain or disrespect becomes a virtuous action, that the problems set in. You don't need to look far online to see this behaviour everywhere.
Nothing I have written here suggests that shrugging one's shoulders and assuming that people are 'doing their best' is advisable, or an adequate form of engagement in something complex and divisive. That would be checking out, which helps no one. Compassion is easy when aimed at the people we already sympathise with. Trying to really understand how others came to a conclusion that differs from ours without simply dismissing them as stupid or bad -- even when we think they're wrong and even when we have good reasons -- is hard.
Thanks for responding; I didn't mean to suggest that *you* were suggesting passivity or defeatism - I was just trying to express my own inquiry and my struggle to find a concrete approach that has something approaching integrity. Thanks for the piece.
But I love elevating myself online! Alas, yes, even commenting in third rather than second person, avoiding the finger pointing of the word “you,” doesn’t excuse sarcastic, veiled contempt for some poor shmuck’s idea.
As for Reddit - I find lots of thoughtful, civil discussions there, even good models for making my own style kinder.
Thank you. This is brilliant.
Bad faith interactions are a true enemy. If we need a Them to rail at (as human history seems to suggest we usually do, sadly), let's pick cruel, pompous, hasty, lazy, kneejerk, unreflective communication habits, in a way that doesn't fall into the trap of blaming people for it.
(But then, who is "we"? Probably I mean "I" and it's a reminder to myself - as this whole piece is - to do better, or at least try.)
Have you heard of Hanlon's Razor? Attributed to Robert J Hanlon in his book "Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!" (1980), and one way it can be boiled down is this:
"Don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity."
I recently saw it illustrated in a cartoon with a street corner - on one side, out of sight of the other, someone is looking down at some rubbish strewn across their path, and cursing the general state of humanity. Round the corner is someone cheerfully but hurriedly dragging their bag of kitchen rubbish to a recycling bin, unaware that the bag has a hole through which garbage is escaping.
I love how this cartoon is all of us, at different moments of the day, week or year, and yet it's so hard to make the logical connection between the two and realise that it means They are Us and that we are all capable of immensely stupidity and thoughtlessness just because we're trying to get through our day in one piece. From that realisation can come a lot of good-faith thinking: "oh, they're just momentarily being a plank, like I was this morning when I was fighting to pull open that door marked PUSH. That's probably what this is."
Well done, Laura. A great reminder to all of us that our on-line behavior matters. No free pass to be awful.
If Kant had allowed himself to be known by the nickname Manny I think he'd have been more successful socially at birthday parties.
Grand stuff. I see the jet lag and maybe even the election lag has lifted and it’s good to have you back shoving a bit of morality into our day. You’re the good kind of one off journalist and thinker and I can only endorse your book and columns heartily. Not often enough have I applied Kant to life (consciously) before 10am on a Saturday! Thanks Laura.
Thanks John!