In Praise of Contempt

In Praise of Contempt - A Rejoinder
by Jeffrey Perren

First, my sincere thanks to all who discussed the article, In Praise of Contempt. Even where I disagree (see below), I view the experience as very instructive. And far from dismissing your feedback, the impact of your comments will be reflected in future versions.

My particular gratitude to Andrew for his perceptive analysis and to Linz for the 'moral support', and not least to Philip and Barbara for their cogent criticisms. (Since my reply is nearly 2,500 words, it was thought best to skip posting and respond as an article.)

(For general comments, not directed at any particular post, skip the following paragraphs and go down to 'General Comments'.)

Philip's Post

Philip writes "This is a culture which is dripping with contempt."

True. We are looking from different contexts. I don't gather my data of society solely, or primarily, based on the evening news and weekly magazines, nor what takes place in university classrooms. (Nor do I ignore them entirely.) My data is gathered and my view formed, in large part, by the people I meet (and have met) every day over a period of several decades. In that context, I meet people of all different kinds-some very bad, most 'in the middle' of the ethical scale, some very admirable, a few spectacularly heroic. Hence, deserving of different responses. It is these people of whom I was thinking when I said they would not take kindly to expressions of contempt. Your post tends to confirm it, since I wasn't even expressing contempt, but only suggesting we should have the social 'freedom' to do so.

Philip writes "This is an absence of benevolence." I didn't realize that was mandatory in every article. Nor do I see why one is morally required to express benevolence (nor its opposite, I hasten to add) for the general populace "as a whole." I believe the readers on this forum can take cases and apply the general principle correctly most of the time. Nor do I agree that expressing a "negative judgment" in the form of contempt, towards bounders is "not benevolent."

That said, I would agree that any individual you meet is morally "innocent until or unless he adequately demonstrates otherwise."

Philip writes "This is […] a form of 'psychologizing.'"

If you are suggesting that I imply, when I express contempt, an evaluation of a person's motives, then yes I am psychologizing. How can one form moral judgments without considering motives that may be unstated? Does objectivity require that one regard only physically perceptible behavior? Or, that one consider every logically possible alternative before reaching a conclusion and acting?

Philip writes: "What is missing is—admiration—or simply giving people the moral and psychological benefit of the doubt."

Are you suggesting that every article should always contain an expression of allegiance to what is good; or to re-assert perpetually that someone can be honestly mistaken? Or is one only permitted to take to task religiously motivated terrorists and anti-liberty Government officials? (See General Comments below.)

Philip discusses some of the behavior of those at Objectivist organizations.

Are you implying that because a principle can be misapplied, and thereby do harm to innocents, one should never act on it? Should we discard the enforcement aspects of the legal system?

Philip refers to Rand's view that "mistakes of this magnitude are not made innocently" as a mistake. Debating that would take us far afield. I will only say that not only is that view not a mistake, it is rather a perceptive insight. I made no reference to the criteria one should apply, nor under what circumstances one should adopt the attitude.

Philip writes: "Why on earth presume the worst possible interpretation of every philosophical mistake…?"

I said nothing that would imply that I believe the vast majority of the population (or any sample, or any individual, you wish) is deserving of contempt. Nor that any one or any group is frequently deserving. And far from "presuming," I state explicitly,

"who are genuinely deserving" and "Done appropriately, with due regard to the facts and a proper evaluation of the person…"

(See General Comments below.)

Side note: As to assertions I made in my article, The Keating Phenomenon I would prefer to discuss that separately, in the thread for that, if you wish. I would welcome learning more of the point of view of someone who, apparently, disagrees.

Final comments to Philip's post. There is much value in the points Philip makes. In my rejoinder, I imply positions that are sufficiently absurd that I do not believe Philip holds them. The points are made, as reductio ad absurda, to show where they can lead.

Lee's Post

Lee writes: "When you look at the world, do you see it suffering because there isn't enough contempt? Do you see a world where people are afraid to express their outrage at injustice?"

Every large company I have ever worked at in thirty years, where expressing outrage at injustice (much less contempt) can get you fired, passed over for promotions, marginalized, and so forth. Or do you think that all those Dilbert cartoons (granted they are exaggerated in some cases) were entirely from Scott Adams' imagination?

And yes. Many totalitarian states, such as China or Iran where the expression of outrage at injustice can get you jailed or killed.

I agree that "lack of curiosity" is a problem. A big one.

That said, I'm not blind to the many admirable and joyous things to be experienced in life. This particular article just isn't about them, except by implication. ("Chastising the harmful helps support the good—within oneself and probably elsewhere." Yes, I understand some disagree with this point of view.)

Lee writes: "The article felt like 'What the world needs now is Hate…Sweet Hate.'"

No, what the world needs now is honesty and integrity and justice—all of which are served (in part), I submit, by appropriately directed contempt. (No, not as a full time profession.)

I do not advocate indiscriminate contempt. Nor indiscriminate admiration. Nor indiscriminate anything.

Andrew's Post (#15)

I couldn't say it better than he does.

Robert's Post (#36)

Robert writes: "Contempt is an emotion -- an automatic response to something that offends our standards. But an emotion is not a virtue; virtues are actions"

I agree. I state as much when I include the definition at the very beginning of the article. I meant, as I had hoped was clear from the context, that expressions of contempt can be virtuous. An expression of an emotion (in the form of words spoken, for example) is certainly an action.

That said, I agree that my formulation is poor. Note, however, that nowhere in the article is the term virtue even used. It was used in the summary, and I agree was a poor choice of phrasing. Incorrect, if you prefer.

Robert's post clearly shows what I was reaching for, but obviously said poorly. As 'an automatic response to something that offends our standards' it is OK to feel it, and in the appropriate context to express that feeling. I state, for example,

If, as is certainly the case, one is to regard heroes with respect, admiration, even awe then justice dictates that one be free to look upon those who've made no effort to strive in the direction of that state with contempt.
(emphasis added)

I am not using 'free' in the political sense, but in the broader sense. I.e. expressing contempt for those who genuinely deserve it should not get you automatically chastised by those around you.

I also state:

Now a word of warning for those who see the above as a license for unbridled disdain. Focusing exclusively for long periods on persons and products that are contemptible is not healthy. Nor is regarding everyone and their actions with contempt in one's self-interest. One can wield a hammer to great effect, but swung wildly and at random it is not an efficient tool with which to drive nails. And it's hard on the thumb.

Further, I am not suggesting one should seek out opportunities to do so, quite the opposite —- I recommend avoiding them. All I'm saying is that there are people, etc who (sometimes) deserve it and it is sometimes best to actually express it.

But putting in writing all the qualifications necessary to form a paper precise enough to pass inspection in a philosophy department would make it not only dull, but shift attention away from the main point: That it's OK to disapprove of people (put in all necessary qualifications here) and you shouldn't get it in the chest full blast when you do.
(True, this disapproval goes on all the time on nightly editorial broadcasts, on the radio, etc. See my remarks to Lee above.)

General comments:

NOTE: By making the following comments I am not (even implicitly) ascribing any view to any of the posters. The comments are on ideas and their implications, not those who have expressed their views in this thread.

I acknowledge the obvious, though, that many of the comments spurred the thoughts expressed below. In other words, what follows is not to be regarded as a personal attack on anyone.

1. I said nothing about the criteria one should employ, nor the (kinds of) people, things, or events that should be regarded with contempt.

2. I did not imply, rather the opposite, that it is always proper (i.e. in one's self-interest) to express contempt anywhere outside the privacy of one's own mind — even when deserved.

3. Nor do I imply that one should seek out opportunities to do so. The real world is here. One does not have unlimited nor always pleasant choices about the kinds of people with whom one deals on a day-to-day basis — if you are going to live in society. Yes, you can seek out people you like and admire. Good.
But, whether working, shopping, going to entertainment outside the home, driving, or any one of dozens of other everyday activities necessary for even minimal survival in a population you will necessarily have to deal with people of all sorts. Some of them will be bad, most will be mixed, some will be good, and some will be spectacularly heroic.

4. I, too, much prefer to admire. (It will surprise some, but I spend a very small percentage of my time thinking about the bad —- people, events, ideas, etc. —- anymore. Almost all of my time is spent, now, creating fictional and non-fictional works populated by people, products, and events that almost everyone I've read on this forum would agree are admirable. And, those works give very little 'screen time' to the villains.) I seek the company of the admirable and minimize contact with the contemptible.

5. That said, I assert that expressing contempt does tell you about your values. Tells you, even if it doesn't tell other people; though, they will often conclude accurately what you like based on what you dislike. It isn't difficult to discern the reasons behind the contempt expressed by Ward Churchill vs. those of his critics. Neither side is shy about explaining their motives, but even before you do it isn't hard to know why they hold the position they do.

I never suggested you should seek out opportunities to express contempt (he says for the third time). Are we never to engage in direct confrontation with a bad idea or person? Are we only to admire and simply ignore everything else?

6. Or is it permissible to confront those who intentionally inflict harm only when they are members of Government or terrorist organizations and their supporters? Do you live (only) in that world day to day?

Or is, rather, most of your day, spent among people who are much less bad, some of whom are merely mistaken, some of whom are admirable? I.e. do you live in a world populated by all kinds of people? I do.

True, oftentimes, it isn't worth the time or energy to express contempt, even when it's deserved.

7. The point about egalitarianism, moral relativism, skepticism being the root cause of much of the disapproval for expressions of contempt seems to have been entirely overlooked or ignored. THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS OF THE ARTICLE. I.e. I was attempting to get at the root cause of the disapproval for expressions of disapproval. I actually thought it would be old news to writers on this forum, but I was attempting to not leave everything implicit.

The argument seems to be that contempt:
a) Makes you feel bad, so don't ever (deliberately) do it.

b) You can never, or rarely, know when someone deserves it, so don't do it.

c) It's not benevolent (presumably towards the innocent). And this is a virtue, but it's 'corollary' (contempt for those who willfully harm the innocent) is verboten because of a) and b).

d) Contempt is the wrong word to describe what it actually is OK to feel or express.
e) It is an error, or worse, to attempt to 'idealize' or regard contempt as a moral virtue.

(a) and (b) strike me as simply, empirically, incorrect. (c) therefore falls. (d) according to the definition given at the beginning of the article is accurate but deserves more explanation to distinguish it from the alternatives — 'garden variety hatred', disapproval, disgust, loathing, etc. But I won't take this opportunity to write at length an analysis of the subtle, but potentially important, differences.

(e) This is a most cogent criticism and almost stopped me making any reply at all. I hope what I say everywhere else in the rejoinder addresses this point. (My gratitude to Barbara for this point.)

Given the personal experiences of some (I have had many similar ones), it's understandable why the use of the term 'contempt' could touch a nerve. It can be misdirected at the innocent. So can any form of unpleasant attention. Inside Objectivist circles this may well be too often the case. I wouldn't generalize too broadly based on experiences within those circles. Life happens mostly outside them. I don't think one should throw out the baby with the dirty bath water.
Maybe it would have been better if the article were entitled "In Defense of the Freedom To Express Mild Disapproval On Alternate Leap Year Days, Provided One Doesn't Seek Out Occasions To Do So." (That's, perhaps a pathetic attempt at, humor. Don't read too much in to it.)

Concluding remarks

By all means, focus the majority of your time, efforts, and attention of the positive aspects of life wherever you may find or create them. (Does this really even need to be said in this particular forum?)

Need that imply complete indifference or inaction (physical or intellectual) in the face of the intentionally harmful? Are they so rare or so ineffectual they should simply be ignored? I think not. Is contempt (sometimes) an appropriate reaction towards (some of) them? I think so.

Discuss this Article (10 messages)