long winded fool

I agree. I think there are many instances where hurting a few people can temporarily bring about a better society for the majority. I even think that there are instances where hurting someone is the lesser of two evils. Choosing the lesser of two evils may prevent a greater evil, but it is still choosing evil. Doing something that is less wrong than your other options in order to bring about a positive change may be commendable, but it is still wrong. I see actions as either completely moral or completely immoral, and I second excreationist's post. The moral thing to do is to not purposely cause someone else discomfort. While we all cause each other discomfort constantly, we ought to avoid saying anything that we know for sure will hurt someone else. That said, in a world of immoral behavior it is often socially acceptable to return wrong for wrong. While I don't confuse this with completely moral behavior, I accept this as the rules of society and fairness. Socially acceptable things are usually not immoral things, but sometimes they are. Yes, it is often socially acceptable to effect a positive social change with immoral behavior. This country was founded on such a notion. In a society of largely selfish and individualistic people, it is more practical to put yourself in the shoes of the ruling majority rather than the shoes of the individual. The practical thing to do isn't always the moral thing to do, thought it would be nice to live in a society in which it were.

Dr. Retard

I'm not talking about any crude 'better for the majority' change. You can cash out the phrase "positive social change" however you like.

The important thing is: What do you think about, say, Frederick Douglass using ridicule to shame the defenders of slavery?

It's immoral? You seem to say Yes.

It's the proper object of blame? You seem to say Yes.

Should we discourage it? Is it commendable? Your use of moral vocabulary, I confess, baffles me.

(I don't really care about social acceptability here).

long winded fool

Yes. I think that using ridicule to shame or otherwise mentally harm an individual is always wrong and the proper object of blame in all circumstances, though doing this might get you what you want. I accept the theory of evolution, yet I sometimes find myself defending some of the most illogical and close-minded of creationists from ad hominem arguments presented by some of the most knowledgeable and open-minded evolutionists. "Shame on you," is not an argument. I think appealing to the emotions of the public is a very effective and very wrong way to get what you desire. If we want to rid our society of ignorance, we ought to change people's minds with logic and not intimidation, guilt-trips, seduction, or any other form of manipulation. Using these methods is kind of like taking aspirin to rid yourself of cancer. You certainly dull the pain, (i.e. clashes on slavery/abortion/religion, etc.) but you do nothing to attack the source of the pain, (simple human ignorance.) Being the most intimidating gets you what you want, but dooms you to one day be intimidated by someone else who is better at manipulation than you are. Being the strongest anchor in tug of war may let you win, but it does nothing to remove the puddle of mud. It is moral to work together to fill in the puddle, if the object is to avoid falling into the puddle, since that way no one falls in. It is in the long run "less moral," (I read immoral) but socially acceptable to simply improve your rope team. Maybe you're so persuasive and eloquent in picking your teams that you can ensure that you always win, but if the objective is to avoid the mud, it makes far more sense to simply fill in the hole and prevent everyone from getting muddy.

Translation: Being a superlative speaker and a master at reading and influencing human emotions is an effective way to get what you want. Having a logical argument is the moral way to get what ought to be had. Whether or not others choose to view logic as an authority is irrelevant. If a person can't be convinced solely by reason, he or she isn't worth convincing. They certainly aren't worth wasting your time trying to manipulate them.

Dr. Retard

First, an ad hominem fallacy is not the same thing as an insult. It's not the same thing as ridicule. This conflation is a pet peeve of mine.

Second, I really just cannot believe that you think that, say, Frederick Douglass using ridicule to shame defenders of slavery is immoral. I cannot believe it.

Third, "simple human ignorance" is not always the cause of disagreements. You argue with creationists, you know. Sure, they're mighty ignorant. But they're also perversely stubborn and arrogant. Slavery is another example (more Douglass):

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in
this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to
make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue
more, and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less,
your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit,
where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in
the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch
of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I
undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is
conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves
acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government.
They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of
the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the state of
Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how
ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while
only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to the
like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the
slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being. The
manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact
that southern statute books are covered with enactments
forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the
slave to read or write. When you can point to any such laws, in
reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue
the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when
the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the
fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to
distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you
that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the
Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing,
planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools,
erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in
metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that, while we
are reading, writing, and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants,
and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers,
poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that, while we
are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men--
digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific,
feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting,
thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and
children, and, above all, confessing and worshiping the
Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality
beyond the grave--we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he
is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared
it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a
question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules
of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great
difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of
justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day in the
presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to
show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it
relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do
so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to
your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of
heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for _him_.

What! am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob
them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them
ignorant of their relations to their fellow-men, to beat them
with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their
limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at
auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to
burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to
their masters? Must I argue that a system, thus marked with
blood and stained with pollution, is wrong? No; I will not. I
have better employment for my time and strength than such
arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not
divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of
divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That
which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a
proposition! They that can, may! I cannot. The time for such
argument is past.

But finally and most importantly, to champion reasoned persuasion over ridicule and 'seduction' does absolutely nothing to save your position. It in fact contradicts your position. Why? Because reasoned persuasion often calls forth disagreeable feelings in others. Many creationists, for example, become incensed and outraged when others offer rational support for biological evolution. So, by your rule, anyone who knowingly calls forth disagreeable feelings in others, be it by ridicule or by reasoned persuasion, is immoral.

Do you really think that?

long winded fool

I think I see your point. There are always "no win" situations. Perhaps I should change my position to: "it is always immoral to cause mental harm to an individual if there is any way possible to avoid causing mental harm." If I have a number of actions available, and if each action will harm someone, it is only moral to choose the action that causes the least amount of harm. In this respect, I concede that it can be moral to cause mental harm. For instance, if someone is harmed by my breathing, it causes me (not to mention my friends and family) more harm to stop breathing that it causes the other person if I continue breathing. However, it causes the other person more harm to see me breathing than it does for me to simply go breathe somewhere else. Therefore, it is immoral to stop breathing, and it is immoral to breathe in front of this person if I know it offends them and can breathe somewhere else. In the contexts that you were using, all of the harms seemed immoral because there always seemed to be alternatives to offending someone, but I can see that sometimes (rarely, I should think) knowingly causing mental harm is the moral thing to do. If being rational causes temporary mental harm to someone, but helps educate them and is beneficial in the long run, the benefit gained outweighs the harm done, but it is still true that causing them that mental harm in that case was moral.