The invention of the internet has allowed the public sphere to expand beyond national borders and across the globe. This global public sphere has created a universal community of humans in which discussion and debate can take place, art can be shared, and government can be critiqued. However, the internet has also created an impolite and disrespectful culture. Debates are for ‘destroying the left’ or ‘embarrassing the right’, there is little room for respectful discussion and mutual understanding. The aim of this essay will be to, from the philosophical armchair, examine why this disrespectful culture exists and why we should care about something as trivial as rudeness.

One of the most influential accounts of dignity and respect came from Immanuel Kant, an 18th century Prussian philosopher. Kant suggested that every human being has an innate right to freedom, a right to pursue their own ends and this is deserving of respect. For Kant, humanity is above all value which means it cannot be an object and must only be an end in themselves. Objects have value that is conditional upon our desires or interests, but the worth of an end itself is not dependent or conditional upon the desires or interests of others — its worth is intrinsic and unconditional. This worth is the source of our dignity and why we must:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end (Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals).

Respect is something we give to people because they are a person, we can see a common humanity in them. The classic argument that is often referred to when highlighting disrespect online is the anonymity involved. While I believe this is a contributing factor, I believe it isn’t the most important one. In person, we avoid being disrespectful as we can see humanity in the person we are insulting. Online, people are not perceived as such, they are a username and a profile picture. Perhaps the clearest understanding of this is in dating apps, specifically Grindr. A simple ‘hello’ is often exchanged for a ‘dick pic’, something that would probably not occur at a face to face meeting. We cannot see the humanity in those with which we interact online, we see them as mere objects whose only value is to advance our own ideas, prove our intellect, or gain followers.

A notable symptom of this online impoliteness is the phrase ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’. It is used in political debates to state that emotions cannot change the state of reality. While it is true that facts do not have the capacity to consider emotion, the fact conveyer doeshave this capacity. Knowing this, we should be careful in how we deliver our arguments because wecan tell if the subject is upsetting for someone. For instance, the manner in which you tell someone that their mother has died is notably different from how you tell someone it’s their round on a night out. This is not to suggest that we should avoid these difficult conversations, but that we should choose our words carefully. Facts don’t care about your feelings is a vapid phrase that excuses the use of either cold or disrespectful language. It suggests that, because facts cannot care about your feelings, I should not care about your feelings either.

One could object that if someone is offended by rudeness online, they should avoid the internet and online debate; but this is beside the point. One should be able to have discussions on political issues in a polite and respectful manner. Naturally, the right to offend is contained within the right to free speech. If we did not have a right to offend, then we could not have a right to free speech. The right to offend is an example of a right to do wrong scenario (RTDW), or more specifically, the legal right to commit a moral wrong. Your free speech gives you the right to insult someone, but it remains morally wrong to do so as to insult someone is to disrespect that person. In other words, the right to do wrong is a right to be an asshole. It is a scenario in which an overarching legal right protects the exercise of a moral wrong. The simple permission, or lack of consequences, should not act as a justification for an action.

A moral nihilist might agree that there is no reason to be disrespectful, but is there any reason to be respectful either? Aside from the Kantian obligation to respect individuals, there is also the argument that a respectful argument is a better and more constructive argument. A debate should no longer be seen as an opportunity to destroy or embarrass others in arguments. This is the ‘Ben Shapiro’ style of argument, in which the goal is to mock the other person:

The only reason to have a conversation or be friends with anyone on the left is if you’re in public in front of large audience & your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible (Ben Shapiro).

Rather, a debate should be an opportunity to challenge your own ideas, to fix them where necessary, and to understand the opposing argument. When arguing online, we should aim to make these ends our own. Not only will this lead to more respectful behaviour and debate, but it will also lead to better debate and argument. It will make people more comfortable sharing their ideas without fear of being insulted and allow people to change their views without fear of ‘losing’ the argument.

Online debates do not have to be toxic or rude. If we remember that the individual with whom we are interacting is deserving of respect we can, not only facilitate a more respectful and welcoming culture, but also achieve a better and more worthwhile discussion.