Advocates of
political
freedom and
strong ethical
standards have a
powerful weapon
on their side --
if they choose
to use it. In an
age where too
many people are
ready to throw
insults at one
another at the
onset of any
discussion or
debate, civility
sets one apart
from the crowd
and gives one a
chance to
actually
persuade people
of the soundness
of one’s views.
Civility from an
advocate of
objective
ethical
standards
enables him to
display a
refreshing
consistency.
Anyone who
claims to be
concerned with
virtue should be
expected to
display this
virtue in his
everyday
conduct. This
encompasses his
behavior as a
presenter of
ideas. A civil
person, contrary
to popular
stereotypes, is
not a
pushover -- nor
is he willing to
accept just any
idea, no matter
how incorrect or
dangerous.
Rather, a civil
person can be
firm without
being
aggressive
and he can be
critical
without being
insulting.
When a person
opposes a
particular
message, he does
so with
conviction and
with sound
argument. He
does not,
however, try to
deprecate the
messenger.
The messenger,
after all, is a
human being --
capable of error
but also capable
of recognizing
his mistakes and
changing his
views. The
purpose of
debate is to
convince
people to adopt
views that they
did not hold
previously. This
cannot be
accomplished by
insulting or
belittling them.
Even if one’s
opponent is
wrong, he has
reasons for
believing what
he does. If both
sides lapse into
ad hominem
attacks at the
discussion’s
onset, neither
side will be
able to examine
the other’s
reasoning. No
one will leave
the discussion
thinking
anything
different from
that which he
thought at the
beginning.
Rather, all
sides will be
embittered and
tempted to lash
out at their
opponents in
destructive
ways. It is not
possible to
effectively
combat that
which one does
not understand
-- but it is
possible for
violent tempers
to undermine
people’s lives
in a much wider
context than
that of any
given debate.
Furthermore,
one’s incivility
gives one’s
opponents the
opportunity to
make a powerful
case against
one’s ideas.
They can, in
effect, claim,
“Look at his
deplorable
conduct! Can you
really take him
seriously?” They
might succeed at
portraying one
as dense,
intolerant,
immature, and
even ridiculous
-- even if
one’s ideas are
sound. On
the other hand,
a person who
maintains an
impeccable
civility seems
superior in the
face of lesser
opponents. If
the opponents
continue to
insult him, but
he simply
continues to
argue
rationally,
eloquently, and
penetratingly,
all outside
observers will
acknowledge the
moral
superiority of
the civil
argument and
will thus be
more likely to
entertain his
ideas. Even if
they ultimately
disagree with
him, they will
give him enough
credit to invite
him for further
discussions and
consider his
viewpoint in the
future. The
uncivil one, on
the other hand,
alienates
himself from all
decent company.
Advocating
political and
economic freedom
is not
necessarily
popular in most
circles today.
But if one
advocates these
ideas uncivilly,
one is likely to
be cast out of
the discussion
without further
consideration.
However, if one
maintains a
consistent
dignity and
respect for
one’s opponents,
the latter will
recognize that
their
viewpoints are
not the only
ones possible.
Members of
today’s
left-liberal
elite have often
been insulated
from any views
different from
their own.
Either they have
not encountered
these views, or
they have seen
them advocated
by individuals
whose conduct
was less than
admirable. Many
of these
liberals have
thus formed
unjustified
stereotypes of
conservatives
and libertarians
as provincial,
uneducated,
ill-mannered,
and even
hateful. It is
time for
advocates of
freedom to prove
them wrong.
Then, ideas of
liberty might
someday be
entertained on
equal terms with
statist ideas --
and many
formerly
immovable
liberals might
actually begin
to see the merit
of constraining
government power
and
acknowledging
some objective
moral
standards.
What if the
other side
is already
engaging in
insults and
slander? Should
the civil person
simply stand by
and let this
happen? Not
quite.
Refraining from
engaging in
insults is
actually the way
to get the
insults to stop.
Even the most
vulgar
four-letter
words are simply
sound vibrations
in air unless
interpreted by
their targets to
be something
more. The best
way to succeed
in a debate
against an
uncivil opponent
is to simply aim
at addressing
the substance
of the
opponent’s
words. If he
says nothing but
insults and ad
hominem attacks,
the civil person
can simply
inquire as to
whether the
opponent had
meant to say
anything
substantive at
all. If the
opponent
presents no
actual
arguments, then
the civil
discourser wins
by default
-- in the
minds of
reasonable
observers.
Imagine what it
would look like
to a third-party
observer if
only
liberals
insulted their
opponents, while
conservatives
and libertarians
simply addressed
any arguments
that came their
way and made
their case using
logic and
evidence. Would
any thinking
person support
the liberals in
that case? Would
the liberals
recognize the
inferiority of
uncivil
discourse and
shift their
approach? If
they shifted
their approach,
would they
become more
receptive to
arguments from
conservatives
and
libertarians?
Would they need
to actually
justify
their policy
suggestions
instead of
trying to smear
their opponents?
Civility is a
powerful weapon
for anybody who
chooses to use
it. It is an
especially
important
addition to the
arsenal of
individuals
seeking to
promote liberty
and morality.
Civility:
A Powerful Weapon