Ethics in Conversation: Why 'Mere' Civility is Not Enough

• Author: J.P. Messina
• Position: J.P. Messina is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University
• Pages: 1033-1054

Ethics in Conversation: Why “Mere” Civility is

Not Enough

J.P. MESSINA*

ABSTRACT

In her excellent Mere Civility, Teresa Bejan distinguishes between three con-

ceptions of civility, arguing that the third, Mere Civility, is best positioned to help

us navigate our increasingly polarized world. In this paper, I argue that Mere

Civility does not ask enough of speakers. As participants in important discussions,

we should hold ourselves to more exacting standards. Specifically, when engaging

in discussion of matters of public significance, speakers have defeasible reason to

constrain their speech to that which engages rationally with others’ contributions.

In doing so, speakers ensure that the temperature of the conversation stays low

and that political action is underwritten by the genuine exchange of reasons rather

than by chance. I defend this view against several objections.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034

II. THREE CONCEPTIONS OF CIVILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036

A. Civil Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036

B. Christian Charity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037

C. Mere Civility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039

D. In Defense of Mere Civility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040

III. WHY MERE CIVILITY IS NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043

IV. RESPECT AMONG STRANGERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044

V. KNOWING OUR LIMITS AND THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY . . . . . . . 1046

VI. STRATEGY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049

VII. OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051

VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054

* J.P. Messina is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University. © 2022, J.P. Messina.

1033

I. INTRODUCTION

According to some, we are witnessing a new age of incivility. Gone are the

days in which those who disagree seek to learn from one another. Ours are the

days in which disagreements regularly destroy families and friendships.

1

In our

moment, political partisanship encourages us to see those with whom we disagree

as enemies to be vanquished, rather than persons with a different perspective who

may be potentially valuable in our common pursuit of truth and justice.

2

Nastiness, the story goes, has replaced decorum in politics, even (and in some

cases, especially) among the politically powerful.

Proponents of this view might cite a 2019 survey revealing that 93% of

Americans believe political discourse has a civility problem. Nearly 70% believe

that this problem is severe.

3

WEBER SHANDWICK, CIVILITY IN AMERICA 2019: SOLUTIONS FOR TOMORROW 2 (2019), https://

perma.cc/AZ7Q-G6DM. Even if believers in a civility problem are wrong, it might not matter. As Bejan

points out, the crisis “of incivility is identical with the growing perception that there is such a crisis and

that something must be done.” See TERESA BEJAN, MERE CIVILITY: DISAGREEMENT AND THE LIMITS OF

TOLERATION 3 (2019).

To justify their concerns, these “civilitarians” might

note that 62% of Americans report a fear of expressing certain views because of a

hostile political climate.

4

Emily Ekins, Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share,

CATO INST. (July 22, 2020), https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-

political-views-theyre-afraid-share#liberals-are-divided-political-expression [https://perma.cc/GEA8-

ZHY3].

Of course, not everyone is convinced. For many, calls for civility and a less

hostile climate for discourse are thinly veiled attempts to maintain the status quo

or quell revolutionary momentum. Defenders of this view often appeal, plausibly,

to the dark history of civility and the ways in which it is weaponized against those

vying for their rights. As Alex Zamalin put the point, “the idea of civility has

been enlisted to treat black suffering with apathy or to maintain an unjust status

quo.”

5

“Worse,” he continues, “it has been a tool for silencing dissent, repressing

political participation, enforcing economic inequality, and justifying violence

against people of color.”

6

When great values are at stake, civil engagement with

those who threaten those values is properly out of place.

In support of this view, the radical Herbert Marcuse famously argues that, in

contexts of inequality, universal toleration is likely to do little more than enshrine

1. Any such view likely romanticizes the past.

2. This worry animates Jonathan Haidt and his effort to promote a more heterodox academy. As he

sees it, civil disagreement among ideologically diverse practitioners is the antidote for an academy in the

grips of ideology. See JONATHAN HAIDT, THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: WHY GOOD PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED BY

POLITICS AND RELIGION (2013); GREG LUKIANOFF & JONATHAN HAIDT, THE CODDLING OF THE

AMERICAN MIND: HOW GOOD INTENTIONS AND BAD IDEAS ARE SETTING UP A GENERATION FOR FAILURE

(2019).

3.

4.

5. ALEX ZAMALIN, AGAINST CIVILITY: THE HIDDEN RACISM IN OUR OBSESSION WITH CIVILITY 6

(2021).

6. Id.

1034 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 20:1033