scumble

In a way, "moral" indicates some obligation to press hot buttons, somehow. I wouldn't think people have to do it, but there is nothing reprehensible about it, as long as it isn't along the line of "you are an idiot".

Everyone, as far as I can see, has responded civilly to David, but I'd agree he's very frustrating half the time...

scumble

Atheism doesn't give people an excuse for anything, Dave.

Swap Atheists and Christians and the statement is still true. Humans can hate each other - it's a big problem.

Eudaimonist

No, it is not. That is the "morality" of a schoolyard bully.

If someone requests that their buttons be pushed, that's a different story. Helping people who request help is perfectly moral.

However, to impose such "help" on others is wrong. That is using and manipulating people, and likely to result in harm. I can't condemn that behavior enough.

HelenM

I think we're agreed, Eudaimonist

love
Helen

DRFseven

I can't agree with this and I'll use my own example. Once, some guys in the Philosophy forum were agreeing with each other about how tests prove that females are intellectually inferior to males. Objections pointing out that culturally-based reasons including attitudes and teaching methods were met with scoffing by some (not all).

I posted the results of a real study that showed Asian males performing with superior results on math tests when compared with their Caucasian American counterparts, and I deliberately used a provocative title, something like "Are Asians Intellectually Superior?" Predictably, I got a slew of responses, citing all the reasons a conclusion of Asian intellectual superiority was wrong, with attitudes and educational methods being predominately cited. Of course, I already agreed with these responses before they were made.

This is just an example of how provocation can be used to prove a point in a way that I don't think is at all immoral. You can probably think of examples when educational instructors have provocation with constructive results as well.

Of course, I think intentional provocation CAN be used as a non-constructive bullying and even torturing tactic and I would NOT advocate that.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Eudaimonist

DRFseven, I disagree that you have any right to "provoke" anyone, even if this is a practical means to enlighten them. The only exceptions I can see to this are if: 1) you are doing this out of self-defense or the defense of others, e.g. to repell a troll, or 2) to puncture someone's patronizing attitude in order to encourage a rational discussion (QoS is famous around here for this.)

However, I am talking especially about bullying -- the deliberate, repeated effort to stoke anger in someone. Children suffer long term harm because of this, and adults are not necessarily immune.

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/community/DailyNews/chat_socialcruelty020604.html" target="_blank">Click here.</a>
<a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_020215_popularity.html" target="_blank">And here.</a>

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

HelenM

But the exceptions you made can be very subjective. Who is to say who is being more patronizing - the one aiming to 'puncture' someone else's attitude or the one with the attitude? It could be easy to end up being more unkind than the person who originally offended...so I am very wary of setting out to defend someone else or 'take someone else down a peg or two'. Even when it might be justified

DRF I don't know whether I'd draw the line in the same place as you. I won't deny that I sometimes say provocative things to people. But in terms of my OP, I'd like to make this distinction: if your purpose is to provoke a lively discussion, that's somewhat different from someone having the goal of making someone else angry/angrier - and no other obvious goal.

love
Helen

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Any moral decision is a judgment call. Perhaps one should err on the side of civility when subjectivity is seen to play a big role.

Agreed. This is possible. People should act with moderation. I agree that it is possible to do otherwise and act completely out of proportion to the situation, as David has done.

I fully understand. I don't think you are in any way morally obligated to do this, so I don't see any problem with your approach.

DRFseven

Hmmmm. Since the exceptions you site to the "no provocation" rule are similar to the example I gave, I don't understand the basis of your disagreement. Are you saying you think it is immoral to civilly illustrate a double standard?

Again, since I specifically stated that I think bullying is inappropriate behavior (not ok), I don't understand the basis of your disagreement.

freemonkey

Let me illustrate:

person M: You're angry
person A: No, I'm not
person M: I know angry when I see it
person A: Whatever
person M: Why are you so angry?
person A: I'm not really angry
person M: I'll tell you why you're so angry: you're (insult), and you're (insult). In addition, you (grain of truth, sore spot to dig at) and you don't (talking out of ass).
person A: Please stop that
person M: I don't even care about you
person A: fine, go away
person M: You wouldn't be so angry if you faced the "truth"
person A: Now you've made me angry
person M: What did I do?
person A: leave me alone
person M: I did it for your own good, because I love you.

Sorry, sounds like abuse to me.