Comments on: What Would Real Civility Look Like?

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:00:11 +0000

3) No two moral imperatives can contradict one another.

And yet, this was a nation founded on the idea of checks & balances.

Sometimes it’s the argument that matters, not the conclusion.

By: Thais Alckmin

Thais Alckmin — Tue, 17 May 2011 17:04:49 +0000

Thank you. It’s a great article, by the way. Congratulations.

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:46:24 +0000

There’s no denying it’s a daunting challenge! Yet consider the following propositions:

1) Sustaining the constellation of social expectations we refer to as “freedom of religion” in some form is a moral imperative.

2) Sustaining a shared public meaning for the contested metaphysical terms on which the public order is based is a moral imperative.

3) No two moral imperatives can contradict one another.

4) Therefore, daunting as it appears, the problem does have a solution, even if we don’t (yet) see what it is.

QED. :)

By: AaronS

AaronS — Mon, 16 May 2011 02:33:28 +0000

It’s possible you are describing an impossible task. Perhaps some societies can become so diverse that their shared metaphysics (source of morals?) is too weak to foster the trust required to debate, vote and suffer defeat. Presumably, those winning the day wouldn’t have trouble with the outcome. Yet, when trust breaks down even winning the argument isn’t enough. I’d say we’ve seen that in the modern commentariat.

Furthermore, the metaphysical waters have been so muddied that the civility you describe seems like a naive dream. (regretful sigh) Each passing year seems to add another brick to the wall of “We must all follow our own bliss and find our own truth.”

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 15 May 2011 03:18:58 +0000

To my mind, civility begins with a willingness to believe that one’s ideological opponents are arguing in good faith, and a concomitant eagerness to find common ground which acknowledges up front, and in the course of debate, the other side’s good points. It rejects the snide and sarcastic tone of talk radio and cable TV, and their juvenile loaded language about the other ideological side (“propaganda,” “lackeys,” “cronies,” etc.). It also encompasses a commitment, when engaging in public debate, to answer every serious challenge to one’s point of view instead of throwing a bunch of points and charges against the wall to see which ones will stick and falling silent in the face of challenging rebuttals. Civility doesn’t preclude blunt rebukes, but it looks for the best in people.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:49:55 +0000

What Would Real Civility Look Like?

Per Robert Bork, political discourse as it was conducted between 1939 and 1981. How ’bout Daniel Patrick Moynihan and James Buckley as examples?

By: SteveP

SteveP — Fri, 13 May 2011 20:45:25 +0000

Ah, I see – thank you for clarifying.

I’ve nothing to add other than to nod in agreement and cluck at the difficult and deep waters you describe well.

By: James Stephens

James Stephens — Fri, 13 May 2011 20:03:36 +0000

And the above comment of mine was *not* in reply to anyone or anything in this thread, it was meant in general. I know it’s customary to use a screen name, but in an old-fashioned letter to the editor in a newspaper we always signed our names.

By: James Stephens

James Stephens — Fri, 13 May 2011 20:01:28 +0000

In the name of civility I might propose that anyone who posts a reply in a forum like this sign his actual name. Might be a small thing, but it’s a little bit easier to be moderate when one doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym. And it demonstrates at least a little moral courage.

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Fri, 13 May 2011 18:51:57 +0000

See above.