RangerDave wrote:
Tbh, I've only skimmed a few of the highlights of the thread, so let me know whether this a fair summation:
AK's view: (1) Minor physical altercations that both parties clearly choose to engage in should not usually be matters that concern or involve cops and/or the courts. (2) Escalating verbal exchanges and minor physical altercations to the level of serious violence, including the use of deadly weapons, is generally dishonorable. (3) Even though many people don't accept or adhere to the foregoing principles, I'm willing to accept that risk on occasion when I feel someone's behavior is sufficiently out of line to warrant an angry response from me, though most of the time that response will just be verbal.
DE & others' view: (1) Outside of organized sports with established rules, it's rarely clear that both parties actually want to fight and almost never clear that they have a shared understanding of the "rules", not to mention the fact that fights often escalate suddenly and unpredictably, so fighting is rightly prohibited and punishable by the legal system. (2) Given the ambiguities just mentioned, a person's behavior in such situations should not be judged in terms of a subjective code of honor but by an objective standard of reasonable self-defense under the circumstances. (3) Again, given the uncertainties involved, it's stupid to take that risk.
Assuming those characterizations are right, I have to say, I'm kind of sympathetic to both views. I do think honor, like morality, is a legitimate framework for judging a person's actions despite its subjectivity and general lack of legal sanction. With that in mind, I personally consider it dishonorable to escalate the level of violence in many cases (which mostly, but not entirely, overlap with cases where the reasonable self-defense standard would also not be satisfied), and I think pressing charges or suing over a minor physical altercation that one provoked and/or willingly engaged in is kind of a douchy thing to do. Likewise, I'm sympathetic to the idea that when people act like assholes, there's almost something like a civic duty to call them out on it, particularly in defense of someone being intimidated/bullied (e.g. a woman being sexually harrassed by some dude on the subway). On the other hand, as a practical matter, I agree with the counterpoint that the inherent uncertainty of such situations means that the legal prohibition of fighting (other than self-defense) is legitimate and one should ultimately refrain from threatening behavior and physical violence except in genuinely necessary defense of oneself or others (though I maintain that verbal intervention in cases like the subway harrassment would still be warranted).
RD, I think we should note here that this entire discussion started from road rage confrontations, and has somehow gravitated over towards intervening on behalf of a third party. Much like the presence of your dog might complicate questions of self defense, the presence of the third party brings in a whole host of new variables, some of which fundamentally change the nature of the debate.
First, however, I want to point out that the question I (and as far as I can tell, Stathol, Rafael, Sam, and a few others) are addressing really has nothing to do with honor, morality, the ability to go to sleep at night, or douchebaggery, or anything like that. I don't, from a
moral standpoint see anything inherently wrong with intervening against rude behavior or harrasment. My point has never been "people shouldn't do this because it's not morally acceptable" or anything similar, it's "people shouldn't do this because it creates a fast-paced, emotionally intense situation that can quickly get out of control". This can happen because of fear, lack of knowledge of the other party's intentions, and different perceptions of the situation on different sides, among other things.
To put it more bluntly, honor and being able to sleep at night will not stop fists, bullets, knives, or lawsuits. The simple risk-reward assessment tells us that the reward is small (undesirable behavior has been addressed) and the risk is very large (getting shot, stabbed, or sued). Even if those outcomes are unlikely, their consequences are severe enough that they must still be given great weight.
The original situation was a confrontation over road rage. In this case, it's a simple matter of one person stopping to engage in a verbal confrontation with another, also willing to stop to do so. Almost certainly, neither knows a thing about the other, other than that the other person is sufficiently angry to stop and risk a confrontation on the roadside over a driving dispute. This does not happen in the safety and comfort of an internet debate, either with hours to type and revise clever posts; it happens very quickly, and the uncertainty means that a fight may easily be started by one side perceiving something the other said or did as a threat or the beginning of an attack. This perception may be correct, and even if not it may still be reasonable, because angry people often do not fully think through what they are saying or doing and how it would appear.
Furthermore, we know nothing about the parties involved, and where desperation or rage might take them. If one gains an overwhelming advantage, he might smash his opponent's head into the ground until he is dead or permanently brain-damaged. One side or the other may feel at a massive physical disadvantage and use a weapon. Minor physical altercations are only "minor" in hindsight; they can turn major in a heartbeat as Trayvon Martin found out the hard way. It is not safe to make the assumption that the parties are evenly matched, or will perceive themselves as evenly matched, or that they have any unspoken agreement to a "good honest tussle" or not to use weapons.. or much of anything else. The distinction of a minor physical altercation is one made by fiat in the course of discussion and which has no power to impose itself on the real world.
Finally, there is the nature of road rage itself. Just because one driver stops to correct what he perceives to be a rude or inconsiderate other driver does not mean that he is in the right to do so. The one doing the correcting may very well be driving like a total ***, and "correcting" other people only to express outrage that what he found convenient at the time wasn't what the other driver did. Just because he happens to feel he can handle himself in a "tussle" does not mean his correction of "rude" behavior would have any foundation, either in the traffic laws or in what the average person perceives as acceptable driving manners.
With the harassment of a third party scenario, there's a bunch of new variables - most importantly, what is the behavior of the third party like? Sure, if some woman or old person on a subway is being harassed right in front of us, it might be far more than a matter of correcting rude behavior, since the harasser might be emboldened by any number of things and eventually escalate to aggression if there isn't intervention. The line between harassment and threat by a stranger, in a public place, who has not lawful or reasonable purpose in doing so, is very thin.
However, such situations are rarely so clear. Particularly in cases where the third party is a friend or family member, irrational violent response to merely "inappropriate" comments is far more likely. Even in cases where it isn't, people that fancy themselves to be intervening generally just pick out whoever appears to be physically weaker (or.. more attractive) and intervene on their behalf, even if they are coming into a situation that has been developing for some time where they possess very few of the facts. It is quite common that both parties are equally responsible for the fight, or even that the so-called victim was the real instigator.
Semi-hypothetically (since I saw essentially this happen once when I was in college, except that in the real case the bartender intervened right away and threw all three of them out), lets take a guy who goes to the bar on a Thursday (traditional pre-weekend barhopping!) and sits down at the bar, and orders a cold one. He sits between his friend on one side and some guy on the other side. Right after that, the random guy next to him gets up and leaves, and shortly after that, two relatively attractive sorority-looking girls walk in, walk up to the bar, and one of them takes that now-open stool, while the other one asks the guy "hey, can I have your seat so I can sit next to my friend?" (loudly) The guy looks up at her and responds; I couldn't hear him but it was presumably negative. She puts a hand on her hip, cocks her head, and near yells "Dude, don't be a ****. Let me sit next to my friend".
At this point, some third random guy comes bounding across the room and starts telling the guy "Dude, give her your seat! She asked nicely!" The guy (again I couldn't hear him, but he certainly didn't get up) responds in the negative again, and the rescuer says something about "Not treating a lady properly" at which point the bartender catches wind of what's going on, waves the bouncer over, and sends all three packing, along with their accompanying friends. I don't know if there was any more trouble outside, or not.
However, hypothetically if the bartender doesn't intervene, there's a fight because the guy sitting at the bar is now being ganged up on by a girl with a sense of entitlement, and a guy (who might be drunk) thinking pushing her claim to the seat will get him laid.
This sort of thing is a common, everyday thing in bars everywhere, and while alcohol has a lot to do with it, its a problem in all kinds of situations such as concerts, stadiums, etc. People intervening in these sorts of conflicts, unless they're people like bartenders, bouncers, staff or (heaven forbid) the police, don't do so with the intention of defusing or descalating the situation; they do so with the intention of taking the person's side who they believe is right, and this only puts the other person on the defensive, possibly physically so if he perceives himself to be outnumbered.
People will say "oh, but those aren't the situations I'm talking about!" Well, guess what? They are the situations where people intervene against what they think is "unacceptable behavior", and while there are situations where its clearly necessary to do so (frightened subway woman) the interveners generally do not have the best of judgement, make the best of assessments, or cotton to the fact that the other person isn't just going to take their word.
Therefore, even in these situations, the intervener risks becoming the aggressor, both morally and legally, and one should not be possessed of such cock-sure self-righteousness that one's own perceptions of unacceptable behavior are necessarily accurate, and act on them.
Finally, in regard to fighting itself, one should bear in mind the
eggshell skull concept. If one is in the habit of getting into confrontations with perceived "assholes" one might consider that the potential civil or criminal penalties are potentially much higher than one would imagine.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
