Are People Responsible for Their Words?

In this episode, David discusses the differences and similarities between words and actions and puts forward the notion that we are morally responsible for our words and the way they affect others.

Contents:
- introduction
- differences between actions and words
- similarities
- objections
- moral responsibility
- morality

My email address:
david.tonner2010@gmail.com

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083209401005
https://www.facebook.com/dtonner

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/reasoned_intuitions/
https://www.instagram.com/tonner_david/

Links:
Moral responsibility:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_responsibility

Transcript

Podcast introduction

Welcome to the Reasoned Intuitions podcast. My name is David Tonner, and I discuss personal ideas on moral issues in modern society and try to come up with improved ways of thinking and behaving, in the hopes of becoming a better person and causing the least amount of harm. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that I am not an expert in either philosophy, psychology, or anything else, for that matter.

My opinions and positions are provisional and open to change with new information or an improved understanding of the issues I discuss. My intent is not to provide definitive rules or to tell anyone how they should live their life. I merely want to share my ideas and insights, in the hopes that they can be inspirational or in some way helpful.

I employ pragmatic ethics and try to reason from as broad and objective a perspective as possible. Some of my basic assumptions are that unchosen suffering is bad, and we should strive to minimize it. Joy is the most pleasurable sensation, and thus we should strive to maximize it. Empathy is universal, with some exceptions, and it should be the starting point of any good ethical system. 

Intro

Welcome to another episode of Reasoned Intuitions. Today, I want to talk about a topic that I've recently come to feel quite strongly about. I think this may be one of those topics that proves more contentious than it seems at first, so I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it. The question I want to explore is whether or not people are responsible for their words. 

Conventionally, we accept that individuals are responsible for their actions, and we create rules and consequences to either encourage or discourage specific actions and behaviours, depending on whether we see their outcomes as positive or negative. This happens both on an informal level, in the shape of social approval or disapproval, as well as on a formal, or legal level, where people are punished when they act badly, so to speak.

Instances of bad behaviour range from simple things like inappropriate speech, dress, or public display, which is most often simply discouraged socially, all the way to various types of unwarranted violence, and of course, anything a particular society deems illegal. The legal rules of each jurisdiction are extremely complex and cover every type of behaviour imaginable, and under ideal circumstances, these rules are known and understood by everyone, so that we are mostly aware of what our society does and doesn't permit, especially if we have grown up or spent a significant amount of time in that society.

Additionally, formal rules are constantly updated in order to account for novel situations that haven't been encountered before, such as anything to do with online conduct prior to the creation of the internet. Rules are also improved as our general knowledge and understanding of specific circumstances and human behaviours gets better.

Most of these rules, however, apply only to actions. In a democratic society, very few official restrictions are placed around what people can and cannot say. Exceptions might include things like incitement to violence, and to some extent, a category of words termed “hate speech”. I want to point out that, to my chagrin and that of many other people, restrictions in this area seem to be increasing in liberal nations. I don't want to delve into that topic very much today, but I'll mention that I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, and I think the concept itself is spurious. As with most things, however, my views on the topic are still developing, and it's possible that I will feel differently about it at some point in time, as my understanding of the subject improves.

Another thing I don't wish to focus on is the legal aspect of what people can and cannot say, as well as its repercussions. Since this is a podcast primarily focused on morals and exploring ways that we can be better to each other, what I want to talk about is the idea that each one of us carries a certain amount of responsibility for the words we speak and the effect these words have on others.

Whenever I talk about responsibility, I have to be cautious not to give the impression that I'm contradicting myself. After all, I've previously mentioned that I don't believe in free will, or agency, and if that's the case, it's not appropriate for me to talk about ultimate responsibility. Rather, when I discuss morals, I do so in the context of practical consequences and accountability, not in order to blame or assign moral dessert. 

Differences between actions and words

Okay, so we accept almost universally that a person is responsible for their physical actions and the impact these have on others. Let's use a slap as an example of an action and to distinguish it from words. A slap involves physical contact between one person and another. Essentially, it's a direct transfer of physical force and therefore, it has a direct and causally linear impact. This does not conventionally apply to words, however, primarily because, even though on a molecular level, words are sound waves and sound waves are themselves an energy transfer, we don't consider them to have a direct impact on another person in the same way that a slap does. In theory, words can simply be ignored or tuned out, whereas the same cannot be said about a slap, a push, or a knife to the heart, and this is why we attribute direct responsibility to a person for their actions but not their words.

Similarities

So far, I've outlined the differences between words and actions. What about their similarities? On the most fundamental level, there is intention; words and actions can both be intended to cause hurt. Then of course, there is the effect that they each have on the intended target. For the time being, I'll avoid speaking about unintended consequences.

I'm going to argue that in terms of impact, or effect, there are many similarities between words and actions. Both can cause hurt and suffering. The difference lies in the method of delivery, as well as the manner in which the injury manifests within the body. While a word, or a set of words, cannot bruise skin, break a bone, or pierce an organ, a carefully selected expression can often cause just as much, if not more pain than a slap to the face, and that is because the way I internalize words and the meaning I attribute to them affects my neurochemistry.

I apologize in advance for the gross oversimplification of the vastly complex system that I'm about to describe. Neurochemistry is a physical component of my person, and fluctuations in specific neurochemicals directly influence my levels of joy and sorrow, among other things. A carefully chosen string of words can lower my dopamine levels, leading to a feeling of sadness, or in the very least, a decrease in joy. Similarly, an increase in my cortisol levels can lead to an uptick in my stress levels, etc. These and other changes in neurochemistry, triggered by the words spoken to me, will lead to a cascade effect within my brain and consequently my entire body. While I can control this to some degree, either by preparing myself for what I anticipate another person will say or by generally becoming better at dealing with hurtful words, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that most of us are at least partially affected by words intended to be critical, hurtful, or demeaning.

It's also important to point out that one doesn't have to be savvy about neurochemistry or psychology to know how particular words will impact other people. Understanding how our words affect others is pretty much innate, and we can even see it among children when they swear and shout at each other and the way they expertly use words as tools of injury and debasement, despite the fact that they have barely any life experience and not an inkling of how and why their words can be so powerful.

There are categories of expressions that can reasonably be predicted to have particular outcomes and effects on people. This is true both for positive and negative effects. Think of words of praise, for example. Expressions of kudos or congratulation almost universally make us feel better and conversely, statements of critique or deprecation engender feelings of anger or sadness. There is profanity and slurs, which are targeted at people's identities, and there are words that uplift and empower us. There are threats, which we universally understand as aggressive, and terms of affection, which are imbued with warmth and love. Most people, as long as they are neurotypical, not experiencing mental illness, and whose intelligence isn't significantly below average, grasp this intuitively, and by the same token, they understand that words have power, even though they may not break your bones, like sticks and stones.

Moral responsibility

Now, on a legal basis, it can't be argued that because I uttered threatening or demeaning words, the person at whom they were targeted has been directly harmed due to the cascade of neurochemical changes that took place in their brain after hearing me speak. The law, for the most part, adjudicates cases where I have physically performed a harmful action.

What about on a moral basis? When it comes to establishing moral responsibility, the three key factors to consider, in my opinion, are intention, expected outcome, and empathy. Let's look at each one in turn:

If my intention is to hurt you, then it seems indisputable that I am morally responsible for the injury that occurs to you consequent to the words I choose to speak. If my intention isn't to cause hurt, but I can reasonably anticipate that you will be injured if I speak to you in a particular manner or using specific words, then again, I think I am morally responsible for my words. Lastly, I believe I have some degree of responsibility towards you even if my words weren't intended to cause you hurt, and if I also didn't have the ability to predict your resultant injury.

You may notice that we have now strayed into the territory of unintentional hurt or offense, and even unexpected outcomes. To illustrate why I hold this position, I'm going to use the analogy of bumping into someone on the street. Even though it wasn't my intention to do so, I am still the causative agent of our unwelcome physical interaction, and therefore, there is a burden upon me to hold that responsibility and to acknowledge it—if only by apologizing—both for the purpose of letting the other person know that it was unacceptable for this to happen to them, as well as in an effort to make them feel better after they have suffered injury. My desire and impulse to improve that person's mood stems from my empathy and the knowledge, both intellectual and emotional, of how it feels to be in their place and how, if I were in their shoes, I would want to be comforted and for that injury to be healed.

Objections

I'd like to address a couple of possible objections that someone might make at this point. The first one goes like this: “Sure, I can reasonably predict the effect that my words will have on you, but the responsibility ultimately lies with you in how you interpret my words, whether or not you internalize them, and certainly how you react to them. You have the final say, the ultimate control, over how you respond to my words, and this absolves me of responsibility.” And of course, this is exactly what the law states, and except in some circumstances, such as direct incitement to violence or hate speech, the law does not hold people responsible for their words.

I want to stress once more that I am not advocating for a modification in the legal status of language. In fact, I am of the opinion that the legal category of hate speech should be abolished, as I don't believe it is necessary or in any way constructive to punish people for what they say. Here, you might ask, if I believe that words have a physical effect on another person, as described earlier, then why do I hold a double standard with respect to the legal status of words and actions? My answer is that in a perfect society, legal restrictions on personal freedoms should be created with much care and parsimony, and only actions that have a direct deleterious effect should be proscribed. I believe in a society that extends a great deal of leniency toward people and only punishes, or administers legal consequences, where it is absolutely necessary and where no better solution exists.

In this case, because of the degree to which I value freedom of speech, I think one should be allowed to say almost anything they want in just about any context. Additionally, it's crucial to stress that the consequences of words are indirect, unlike the consequences of actions. Everything we do, whether aimed at someone or not, has direct and indirect results, and surely, we cannot be held liable for all the downstream effects that our actions cause. So again, legal rules should be created with a great deal of parsimony and careful deliberation, as well as a thorough understanding of human behaviour, motivations, and overall psychology.

Ultimately, the argument I am making does not relate to legal consequences but rather to moral implications. This is predicated on my belief that the way in which we establish morality should be based on increasing the well-being of sentient organisms and decreasing their suffering.

A second objection would be, “what about frivolous accusations? What if I say something that I deem to be completely innocuous, and someone accuses me of being offensive and hurtful?” Well, there's a difference between being incidentally hurt by what I say, even if my words themselves were neither intended to be hurtful nor would they conventionally be interpreted as such, but due to specific circumstances, this person has been triggered. In this instance, as mentioned previously, I would still feel compelled to try and make them feel better, not as an admission of culpability, but partly for my role in their injury as well as my desire to soothe that wound.

On the other hand, it's a different story if someone frivolously accuses me of being insensitive, or if they do so based on a belief or ideology that they hold, but which I disagree with. In this case, while, again, I can do my best to be sensitive to them, if I can reasonably ascertain that they are either trolling me or if their claim has little credibility in my worldview, then I don't have to feel responsible.

I guess what this demonstrates is that there is some degree of subjectivity as well as flexibility in the way that I assess the context, and that's totally fair, because that applies to many situations in life where my own judgment allows me to decide how I react and how much responsibility I take upon myself.

What is moral responsibility?

This last point actually leads me to the way I wish to wrap up this episode—by defining what I mean by moral responsibility. There is a component of this that refers to how people judge each other, and of course, in addressing the topic, I am indirectly suggesting where it is fair, or appropriate, to assign responsibility. But more importantly—and this is something I stress in the introduction to my podcast—my focus is on how I wish to behave as a moral person in order to do as little harm as possible, while creating joy for others wherever I can.

In order to fairly evaluate the morality of my actions, I need to first and foremost be honest with myself. I need to be able to admit to myself things that I may not be as willing to state openly to others, especially as relates to my intentions. Oftentimes, when we've done something wrong, it's easy enough to deny having intended for that to happen, or perhaps to say that we couldn't have anticipated it, either out of shame or embarrassment.

Sometimes this is true, of course, but if it isn't, we are the only ones who know one way or another. Many of us suffer from cognitive dissonance in a variety of situations, and some live in complete denial of their occasional dark tendencies, such as the impulse to hurt someone, which, again, is normal once in a while. But if my intention is to be the best person I can be, I need to be completely honest with myself about my intentions as well as what I do and don't know.

Morality

Morality isn't an either/or concept, it's more of a spectrum. On the one end, there are pure and angelic beings who never do any harm, while on the other reside absolute monsters whose sole reason for living is to inflict maximal suffering. I don't think either of those caricatures exists. We all fall somewhere on that range, and our place on it, as well as our degree of morality, depends on different situations, different periods of our life, even different times of day, as our unique neurochemical balance fluctuates. In my view, for someone to say they are never responsible for their words would constitute a complete shirking of moral responsibility as well as an abject lack of empathy, but of course, nobody can be held liable for every downstream effect of every word they speak. Similarly, we carry different degrees of accountability for our physical actions, depending on context and intention.

So, to sum up, I believe that if you wish to be a moral person, just as you would consider the ways in which your actions affect others, you must also think about the effects your words have, and to hold yourself accountable, both in order to learn and improve as well as to take the appropriate remedial action in each instance. 

Thank you

Thank you so much for listening. I truly value your interest in my opinions, and I'm eager to hear your thoughts on what I put out in my podcast. I would love to hear from you, and I encourage you to share your feedback with me, either on social media or by email. I'll put all my links in the show notes, so don't hesitate to reach out. Also, I would love it if you could share my podcast with anyone you think might enjoy it or get value from it; this is the best way to support me. Thank you again, and until next time.