On second thought, I agree. "Justified" wasn't the proper word, as that would imply my action were right or just. It is still wrong to act in that way, even if my case is understandable. I should have said "excusable". I think, at times, being rude is excusable.

...I remember being intentionally rude to some people because I thought they deserved it.

Respectfully, I would remind you, that that says more about you than it does about them.

As I see it, a person with self-respect would not stoop to such behavior.


{p.s. NO OFFENSE INTENDED; please do not take any. Do not wear any 'suit' that doesn't fit.}

Suppose someone shouted expletives at you and your family - would you feel justified being rude to that person? That is, would you feel they deserved rudeness? Does your being rude to that person after what they did mean that you don't have self-respect?

We often feel that others deserve punishment for things they do, and rudeness is just one sort of punishment.

Do you think there is ever an instance when rudeness is deserved?

What is your definition of "to deserve" without going around in circles, such as by offering synonyms?

I could state without shadow of a doubt that all the people with who I already had a dispute on some issue, obviously fully deserve and have my respect not just as as human beings, but also as fellow philosophers and companions in search for enlightenment and self improving conditions.

Some people, though, deserve rudeness. In that case, it would be justifiable. Unless you believe that no one deserves rudeness. Bernard Maidoff comes to mind as someone who deserves rudeness. I remember being intentionally rude to some people because I thought they deserved it.

We often feel that others deserve punishment for things they do, and rudeness is just one sort of punishment. Now, I'm not saying that I often think people deserve my rudeness (as I mentioned earlier), but it is easy to see how people could consider rudeness deserved at times.

And there is also the possibility of someone asking for others to be rude, by deliberately provoking them. This can be done by reveling in stupid nonsensical gibberish while pretending such foolishness is profound philosophy. This may be especially provoking to someone who has devoted his or her life to the study of philosophy, as it is, in a manner of speaking, making a mockery of one's life's work.

Respectfully, I would remind you, that that says more about you than it does about them.

As I see it, a person with self-respect would not stoop to such behavior.


{p.s. NO OFFENSE INTENDED; please do not take any. Do not wear any 'suit' that doesn't fit.}

Well, I gave one example of when I thought rudeness would be justified. I think that those who were swindled by Maidoff would be justified in being rude to him. And the person I was intentionally rude to, had been trying to swindle me. I think that such persons deserved rudeness. Why don't you?

Sure but when is it deserved? And when is it worthwhile being rude?

I can surely see why this would make you upset, as this would be a emotional responcse, but to me a eye for a eye seems conterproductive even though it may seem to relieve the stress that has been caused. but at what cost?

Isn't that a personal question? That would seem to spawn a rather long discussion, which probably wouldn't be worthwhile, by the way. I mean, I can give you examples of when I think it would be deserved, but you can easily just discard them.

How is it personal, compared to any discussion of ethics? We do more than just list rules of what we think is moral and immoral, and discard them if we don't agree.

I think you are correct. I just don't want to discuss it, but I'm sure everyone else in the thread will.

I can surely see why this would make you upset, as this would be a emotional responcse, but to me a eye for a eye seems conterproductive even though it may seem to relieve the stress that has been caused. but at what cost?

I see. It just seems immensely practical to me compared to the lengthy discussions we have on whether it is right send a trolley in one direction if it kills less people.

Isn't that a personal question? That would seem to spawn a rather long discussion, which probably wouldn't be worthwhile, by the way. I mean, I can give you examples of when I think it would be deserved, but you can easily just discard them.



If someone ever curses at my girlfriend, I will curse at them back (I will be rude). That's just the way it is. Some people deserve things. If you disagree, that's fine. And I personally understand your position. But I think you should be able to understand this position.

Well, I have not thought it through. I do not know exactly how I feel regarding the matter. I know for sure I think that rudeness can be excusable, not to be confused with justified. That is, even if I come to the conclusion that no one ever deserves rudeness and that being rude is never the right thing to do, I would excuse people from being held accountable for that wrong action.

For instance, if I had a daughter, and someone raped my daughter, I would find many things, like my being rude to the person who just raped my daughter, excusable.

...If someone ever curses at my girlfriend, I will curse at them back (I will be rude). That's just the way it is. Some people deserve things. If you disagree, that's fine. And I personally understand your position. But I think you should be able to understand this position.

How is it personal, compared to any discussion of ethics? We do more than just list rules of what we think is moral and immoral, and discard them if we don't agree.

That's not "just the way it is"; by which I mean: It doesn't have to be that way.

You are describing an automatic reaction, almost robot-like, as if the reacter is a machine who MUST do b when a occurs.

You have conditioned yourself to respond that way, by telling yourself things like "That's just the way it is." "I musn't let that party get away with such talk."Two wrongs make a right" ... or other fallacious beliefs that you cannot logically prove.

We are not bound by the generalities of Pavlov or B.F. Skinner who say we are inevitably going to fall for conditioning (by the culture - or by some deliberate manipulator or brainwasher.) We can escape those restraints. We can express individuality. We can tell ourselves that we are devine. Or we can tell ourselves that we are too dignified to stand there and shout curses aloud. Skinner taught us that the best way to extinguish (non-criminal) undesirable behavior is to ignore it. It will then tend to fade away - very much like if your phone rings and no one speaks at the other end you are likely to hang up after a while. You are not getting reinforced for holding on, for listening for something. Eventually you sign off.

In the same way, if the rude one gets NO ATTENTION eventually he tends to behave that way less and less in the future. His crudeness has no payoff. It extinguishes over time. That's what the experimental studies show.



Greetings Ken,

Those who Madoff swindled are (partially) angry at themselves, and are blowing off steam if they are rude to him. (And that, of course, is very understandable!)
He is a mental case which even a psychiatrist would be very tentative about explaining. As a former head of a psychotherapy group for a few years, I'll make a stab at it.

He is largely driven by ego; he cannot admit that he indulged in erroneous thinking. He couldn't admit to people who threw money at him that he was no better at picking stocks than they were. He couldn't admit that just because he was on the Board at the New York Stock Exchange that he didn't know how to out-guess the market. He kept telling people "Don't give your money to me. Out hedge-fund is full", but they kept insisting he take them in. So he did take them in. And he noted how the SEC let him keep getting away with it: 'So how could it be wrong?' he told himself.

He repressed any thoughts that some day it would all come crashing down on him and his employees; he de-sensitized his conscience on those topics. People didn't want to listen to him when he pushed them away. He didn't want to listen to his conscience.

His mind is far-gone -- beyond your rudeness or discourtesy. That sort of behavior only reflects on you. Sure it is irritating that anyone would even attempt to swindle us, but if we get angry we are neurotic. Deep disappointment is normal and healthy. Anger (fury) is not. Rude behavior is not practicing ethics. It is, in fact, the opposite. A lawsuit to recover as much of your "investment" as possible is rational, and an effort to solve a problem.

Ethics (in the new and improved Unified Theory of Ethics) teaches us to see in everyone countless possibilities [perhaps for an uplifiting mutual benefit. Perhas just spontaneously out of pure good will] Another name for this is "love." But if you can't love an individual, at least you can respect him. And if you can't respect him, at least you can show courtesy and decorum. Anything less on your part is uncivil, and thus unethical [according to the new paradigm.] Some of the new ideas are counter-intuitive but Physics gives us lots of such ideas and hardly anyone complains too loudly. Why should Ethics be any different? (rhetorical que.)