Is Intellectual Cowardice a Thing?

[Sunstone]

Yesterday evening I went to dinner with a friend of mine. While waiting for our pizza, he told me that he had been recently talking with a mutual acquaintance of ours who upbraided him for being "uncivil" when he described a former mayor of our city as having been "unhinged". My friend then asked me if I thought it was "cowardly" to refuse to ever, even once, tell the truth about someone out of fear of being "uncivil"?

To be sure, the issue here is not whether the former mayor is "unhinged". That is pretty much beyond doubt. The only possible way you could argue that he was not "unhinged" is by changing what my friend meant by "unhinged". Sadly, there are a whole lot of dishonest people these days who would do exactly that. Nevertheless, almost any reasonable, informed person would agree that the former mayor made a whole lot of bizarre, notably dysfunctional decisions while in office that resulted in mess after mess being inflicted on the city, and that collectively cost people millions of dollars. Which is probably why he was a one-term mayor.

No, the issue is not whether the former mayor is "unhinged". Almost no reasonable, informed person would argue against that fact. The only debate here is whether:

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?

(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

EDIT: (3) At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?


________________________________
Now here's a tune for you in a futile effort to make it up to you for an unhinged post....

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a person's insanity only affects themselves and those that choose to associate closely with him or her then I would say it was rude to comment by calling that person unhinged. But if one's actions affect those that do not wish to be affected then that rule goes out the window. If the mayor's lunacy affected those in his town or neighboring areas then it was fine to call him unhinged.

 

[savagewind]

But, is it cowardice to think about it and it is the truth but to not say it because it isn't acceptable respecting some man-made rule which isn't your own rule? Sometimes yes, imo, but, it would not be cowardice all the time. Sometimes it would just be wise to keep one's mouth shut up. If the subject came up, to say it would be the honest thing to do and to not say it might be considered cowardly.

 

[Nakosis]

1. Disagreement need not be uncivil, however sometimes the truth, telling the truth is not worth the drama it causes.

2. I don't think it is cowardly to want to avoid unnecessary drama, (in this case caused by someone deciding to feel offended) just practical.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The only debate here is whether:

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?

(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

I won't talk about the term 'unhinged' specifically, since I might have some baggage there (my wife's job has coloured my view on the use of some pejoratives over time).
To the questions at hand though;

1) No, definitely not. Civility is nice, but ultimately it's goal is to facilitate discussion and inclusion. If, as it can be, it moves to become a cloistering set of polite rules, it's actually counter-productive. I say all this despite being generally considered a very 'polite' person, and my mum having invested a lot of effort in ensuring this was so.

2) Yes. But I think we should avoid the thought that people who don't speak up are cowards. There are simply too many factors at play. Even just considering social/cultural factors is a minefield (and anyone who has toured Asia and done business will be well aware of this).
It can be expediency/pragmatism (ie. is speaking up likely to lead to punishment), it can be the setting, there can be both mental and physical factors at play, etc, etc.
So...whilst not speaking up for fear of offending can be due to cowardice, I don't think we can assume that. It's situational. With the way you framed the question, that makes my answer a pretty clear 'YES'.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. Disagreement need not be uncivil, however sometimes the truth, telling the truth is not worth the drama it causes.

And what is "the truth"? Isn't calling someone "unhinged", "stupid", or
another such epithet really just expressing a hyperbolic opinion to insult?
When it's "not even wrong" (subjective), it's hardly "the truth". But claiming
that it is appears to be license to be uncivil.
There's good reason that it's against the rules of RF to opine about other
posters when that type of "truth" (subjective or objective) will offend.

 

[Terry Sampson]

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?
(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

• Consider first, to whom you would speak, and ask yourself:
  • Does the Other have something I want? or
  • Is the Other able to give me something I don't want?
• If the answer to either question is "Yes", avoid offense at all costs: lie instead and say nothing.
  
• If the answer to either question is "No", speak the truth and be prepared to add them to your "Ignore" list.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And what is "the truth"? Isn't calling someone "unhinged", "stupid", or
another such epithet really just expressing a hyperbolic opinion to insult?
When it's "not even wrong" (subjective), it's hardly "the truth". But claiming
that it is appears to be license to be uncivil.
There's good reason that it's against the rules of RF to opine about other
posters when that type of "truth" (subjective or objective) will offend.

Yet it ought to be perfectly acceptable to say, "this is wrong," and provide your reasons for saying so. And to do that doesn't require you to make any comment about the other person's mental state at all.

 

[Stevicus]

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?

I don't think civility needs to entail outright lying, although there might be nicer, more diplomatic ways of telling the truth.

Or perhaps, more specificity and accuracy. "Unhinged" seems a more subjective term and open to interpretation.

In any case, I don't see that it would be intellectual cowardice to refrain from making a psychiatric diagnosis without the training or expertise to do so.

(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

I don't think it could be considered cowardly. It depends on what the truth is, and whether it's something even worth bringing up.

In the case of your former mayor, since he's no longer in the position and presumably a private citizen, then it's not cowardly to refrain from making any statements about another private citizen.

Of course, it doesn't stop anyone from doing so, as we all have freedom of speech, but I don't see that there's any civic or moral obligation to speak against someone who is no longer a public figure.

So, perhaps it can be argued that an individual's right to privacy can be respected, regardless of any truths one might wish to speak or not speak.

 

[Sunstone]

At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?

 

[Revoltingest]

At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?

I question the applicability of insistence on civility being "blind".
But to answer the question....
At the point where it changes from civil expression of cogent
criticism to becoming silence regarding, or even approval of
faulty reasoning, wrongful acts, etc.
Hmmm....I'm reminded of Ned Flanders turning the other
cheek no matter what abuse he endures from Homer.

Certainly, it's useful for RF to require civility in addressing issues,
& prohibit incivility towards the person. Oh, if only such restraint
were the norm in public discourse outside of RF.

 

[crossfire]

At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?

A person's mind who is overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion will very likely engage in intellectual dishonesty and lying. Keeping this in mind will cut down on blind insistence towards civility. Oftentimes, it may be a matter of "damned if I do, damned if I don't." How good of a judge are you of the person in question's ability to keep control of their mind?

 

[Thief]

At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?

when the boss man's golfing buddy becomes the toolroom slacker

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, there is definitely a place for telling the truth over being polite.

The plain fact of the matter is that people often dare us to do just that. And very often the choice is one between being passive accomplices or hurting the feelings of people who merrily decided to pressure us into such a situation.

We all should forgive ourselves for not always being capable of avoiding such situations. And be aware of how harmful a polite lie can be.

One of these days I must resume my reading of Sam Harris' book about lying.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, the issue is not whether the former mayor is "unhinged". Almost no reasonable, informed person would argue against that fact. The only debate here is whether:

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?

(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

EDIT: (3) At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?

This is coming from me, with Asperger's, but I feel the cowardice lies in those who get upset so easily and make life necessarily difficult on others trying to tell them in "soft/padded/more considerate ways." I just want to tell them, but that often hurts feelings in ways that wouldn't have happened had someone with some social finesse told them.
Neurotypicals are weird.

 

[Orbit]

It's always fine to say the emperor has no clothes

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yesterday evening I went to dinner with a friend of mine. While waiting for our pizza, he told me that he had been recently talking with a mutual acquaintance of ours who upbraided him for being "uncivil" when he described a former mayor of our city as having been "unhinged". My friend then asked me if I thought it was "cowardly" to refuse to ever, even once, tell the truth about someone out of fear of being "uncivil"?

To be sure, the issue here is not whether the former mayor is "unhinged". That is pretty much beyond doubt. The only possible way you could argue that he was not "unhinged" is by changing what my friend meant by "unhinged". Sadly, there are a whole lot of dishonest people these days who would do exactly that. Nevertheless, almost any reasonable, informed person would agree that the former mayor made a whole lot of bizarre, notably dysfunctional decisions while in office that resulted in mess after mess being inflicted on the city, and that collectively cost people millions of dollars. Which is probably why he was a one-term mayor.

No, the issue is not whether the former mayor is "unhinged". Almost no reasonable, informed person would argue against that fact. The only debate here is whether:

(1) Should we always lie in order to be "civil"? Or are there circumstances in which it is best to tell the truth even when telling the truth might not be the most civil thing to do?

(2) Can it at times -- in some circumstances -- be cowardly to refuse to tell the truth out of a fear of offending people?

EDIT: (3) At what point does blind insistence on civility turn into condoning and encouraging intellectual incompetence, wilful ignorance, wilful stupidity, and lying?


________________________________
Now here's a tune for you in a futile effort to make it up to you for an unhinged post....

It depends on what country and region you live in, and it depends upon what setting you are speaking in. It is common in some countries to avoid directly stating negative information. This is not the case in the USA, and if the mayor is unhinged we might directly say "The mayor is unhinged" for the benefit of our fellow citizens. There are countries where you criticize by leaving out a compliment about the mayor. In some cultures you always compliment the politician unless you don't like them, or perhaps you limit your compliment. Its like table manners where if you don't compliment the cook then that means you don't like the food. This is not how we pursue political discourse in the US. We say directly that we don't like the politician.

 

[gnomon]

God forbid any of you work in retail management.

 

[Sunstone]

God forbid any of you work in retail management.

Unfortunately, I'm way over-qualified for retail management.

 

[gnomon]

Unfortunately, I'm way over-qualified for retail management.

Careful now....

You have got me in too much trouble.

But throw a flower in support for the dying breed.