Well, I have no friends, so I'd say you either have to be about as much of a jerk as I am, or else pretty much everybody is jerky enough. Perhaps that's why we consider it wrong to gossip. Granted the question postulated verified jerkiness, but as Einstein established about simultaneity, verifiable jerkiness may be naive and misguided concept. Keeping two friends after they divorce is notoriously hard, and while I suppose some of that is just realpolitik and about avoiding charges of disloyalty by your favorite of the two, I think we just don't easily sympathize with two victims when each is the other's victimizer. Anyway, beside issues of offense, I can hardly imagine another where second-hand testimony is as subject to doubt. And when a friend comes to you for sympathy, due dilligence is not an option. Ask my spouse. This is a nearly entirely irrational matter, is my intuition.
This is a damn good question, and one that philosophers seem to have a strong tradition of avoiding. I think that at least in modern analytic philosophy, this is beause it is hard to characterize. Lying, cheating, and stealing are obviously bad acts, but how does one rigorously define "being an asshole"? Plato and Aristotle come closest to saying that you shouldn't _be_ an asshole, but neither really discusses how one should treat friends who are assholes.
Is it innate character or cumulative actions that make someone an asshole? That is, is assholic behavior evidence of inate assholeness, or does engaging in such behavior literally make one an asshole. I dunno, but I suggest two cinematic case studies to prod our intuitions:
- In "The Sound of Music", was the kid who was dating the oldest von Trapp daughter an asshole all along, or did he become an asshole at some point during the movie? The sympathetic interpretation is that he waited for a few minutes before ratting them out, so they'd have time to escape. I don't buy it--screaming for Nazi troops makes him an asshole.
So was he an asshole all along? Or did he turn into one? (Now that I think about it, his part in that whole 16 going on 17 song might have been an indicator...)
- In "The Empire Strikes Back", when Han is looking for a place go after the asteroid field bit, he discovers that they are close to Bespin, where his friend Lando is in charge. At one point, Leia asks Han, "Do you trust him?", to which Lando replies "No, but he is my friend." That worked out badly, and Lando was clearly an asshole at that point. Chewbacca wanted to kill Lando, but the PG rating and the promise of a sequel intervened. And Lando made up for his assholeness by rescuing Han and helping to blow up the second Death
Star. But does that mean he was no longer an asshole? Was he absolved of that at some point?
This is hard practical ground for everyone. It might be new philosophical ground (or maybe I'm way out of the loop).
I wonder how much assholery depends on a misapprehension by the assholery victim of the intentions or motivations of the asshole. We can imagine situations in which asshole passes by the friend on the side of the road because asshole has had to make a split decision of importance (say, he's going to the hospital because another friend has been in a serious accident).
Maybe assholery is sometimes of use too? Or sometimes a matter of poor style? Sometimes, when teaching, one has to engage in triage among students discussing a problem or issue given time limitations. A student is moving discussion in a fruitless direction or says something irrelevant or dumb. The teacher has to balance basic participation with fruitful participation. One tries to find a way either to give a quick response to the student or divert what they've said back to the point at hand for the sake of others in the class. On a good day, I can be fairly skilled at this. On bad days, I can probably seem like an asshole. This is a question of style or technique. But assholery here may also be more useful to everyone else in the class.
Another question: is buttholery a more modest or benign version of assholery?
"Your Racist Friend" (track 06 on Flood) by They Might Be Giants addresses this question as well.
I'm having trouble sorting out my thoughts on this one. But for now, two things occur to me.
(1) I'm not sure we "have to give special [moral]consideration to people with whom [we're] in special relationship." Seems to me that we generally do, and there may even be some sort of psychological necessity that we do. If two people are stuck on the side of the road (to change your example), one a stranger and one a best friend, and I can only help one, chances are good that I'll help my friend because of my emotional attachment. But the "moral" thing might be to help the other guy--perhaps he has a medical condition, or needs to get home quickly because of a family emergency, whereas my friend might be in good health and doesn't need to get anywhere fast. In other words, I'm wondering if there are other moral variables that, at least sometimes, outweigh personal attachment.
(2) It's not clear to me that hateful behavior on the part of a friend towards someone else really can be "something that has no effect on your friendship" unless one engages in some pretty strenuous compartmentalization. "Okay, so Pol Pot has done some really bad things, but he's a stand-up sort of guy when he's around me." I know, the example is exaggerated. But the underlying point might hold: unless we want to fragment both ourselves and others, morally, socially, and psychologically, we need to respond as whole persons to whole persons. Presumably, my friendship with X is with all of X, not with just one of his personae. Otherwise, the friendship seems to lack substance or integrity (I'm not sure what the word would be here).
Does this make any sense?
I think that the normal sorts of reciprocity obligations that ground special consideration for friends apply even with asshole friends: that is, assuming the friend is merely kind of a jerk to strangers.
Now, if your friend is (eg) Hitler, then you have other moral obligations that would over-ride those reciprocity obligations. Hitler is at the extreme, showing that we don't have obligations to friends that are outright evil. Where the line between being rude and causing harm is may be a sticky wicket. If your asshole friend calls a fat person "fat" and really, deeply hurts their feelings, that causes real harm. On the other hand the fatso has some responsibility for changing their lifestyle if they are going to be so hypersensitive about their appearance. I think that in this case you tell your friend that he/she should try to be more sensitive in how they talk to people, but that the usual reciprocity obligations aren't thereby absolved.
Also, if you gain evidence that your friend is not merely a jerk to strangers but also unreliable and untrustworthy, so that you have reason to believe that you are being set up to be used or betrayed, then that might supervene on reciprocity obligations. We can imagine lots of ways that reciprocity obligations could be over-ridden, but ceteris parebus we should treat just being kind of rude as a minor personality flaw and not something that removes reciprocity obligations. The real interesting question is when does rudeness cross over into real harm for which the rude person is responsible and when does that begin to over-ride reciprocity obligations. At a certain point, your reputation is harmed by the excessive rudeness of a friend ("he is your friend. . . ewww."), so that directly diminishes what you owe in return for other benefits of the friendship, I suppose.
1) John Cleese once said in an interview that we have a soft spot for anyone that makes us laugh, no matter how awful they really are (Think Basil Faulty or Archie Bunker). It is no surprise then that Mencken is near to your heart.
2) Kerry second point is surely true, but does not clearly apply to all cases. Everyone acts like an asshole sometimes, so if we jetson friends for bad behavior, would would be awfully lonely. But I do not think that is the reason we do not do so.
I have puzzled over this as I had a friend in graduate school who was a complete ass towards anyone who he thought was intellectually inferior. As he was very smart, he was an ass towards a lot of people. We were, however, good friends, with lots of common interests. At the same time, it cause me pain to watch him be an ass.
We might compartmentalize to an extent. I certainly did not think of all the times he was a jerk when we were out having beers. I suspect that once the friendship bonds are made, it takes a lot of bad behavior towards others to break them. It is quite painful to break such bonds, after all. Perhaps sometimes you have to, but I dont think in actuality I ever broke those bonds based on the assholishness (nice word) on their part to others.
I also think Kerry's is a good start on an answer to this excellent question. In addition to the "special" obligations towards those with whom we have "special" relationships, I would argue that we have certain "ordinary" obligations towards anyone with whom we share a social contract (or just a species), and that circumstances may change the relative strengths of special and ordinary obligations. That this is true is borne out by my certainty that my friend will forgive me for leaving him stranded, and even feel bad about the names he called me, when he learns that I was taking a complete stranger to the hospital. Or that I had hit a dog and was racing to the vet clinic. Or whatever.
So the question becomes: how much assholery is necessary on the part of a friend before one's ordinary obligations to [society/humanity at large/the greater good/etc] outweigh one's special obligations to the asshole friend?
And for extra credit: in what units is assholery measured? I nominate the Dubya, abbreviated W of course, with the eponymous asshole as the unit standard.
The capital Dubya (W) is taken, for Watts. But the lowercase (w) is perhaps more appropriate anyway.
Kerry said basically what I was going to add to this conversation.
"Okay, so Pol Pot has done some really bad things, but he's a stand-up sort of guy when he's around me." I know, the example is exaggerated. But the underlying point might hold: unless we want to fragment both ourselves and others, morally, socially, and psychologically, we need to respond as whole persons to whole persons. Presumably, my friendship with X is with all of X, not with just one of his personae. Otherwise, the friendship seems to lack substance or integrity (I'm not sure what the word would be here).
Now, the analytic approach to this question, as far as I can glean from these responses, is to first define "assholery." That is not necessarily a bad idea, but Kerry's response jibes more with me in that we already have a sense, we have experience with, assholes. So the question is, how can one be friends with, or have moral responsibilities to, someone who is an asshole. Now, if the person really is an asshole, then it seems like a bad idea both psychologically and morally to count this person as your friend.
To be more of psycho-babble type for the moment, it seems to me that many of us who are "get-along" types tend to be nice to, or ignore the faults of, assholes. We like things to go smoothly and would rather not have to confront an asshole. If one is a rather nice person, he or she is more likely to attract assholes who know they can manipulate your niceness. This has been my experience, in any case. (Yes, I am going about this the way a phenomenologist would . . .). But, when I have found myself friends with someone who is doing rather heinous and unforgivable things to others, but then to me he/she plays the victim, the misunderstood one, or the easy-to-get-along with type, I now start to think I am dealing with an Axis II personality disorder type. When that realization hits, I run . . .
The capital Dubya (W) is taken, for Watts.
Quite right; lower-case w it is.
The other problem that occurs to me is that, if we adopt the Dubya as the fundamental unit, we have to measure ordinary everyday assholery in, what, femtoDubyas? AttoDubyas?
Hrrm. I have a friend who I believe to be an asshole, but not in the sense you used it. He is frequently kind and almost always polite. But he can also be officious, pompous and conceited. I've seen him have a short temper, but I, too, have been known to have a short temper. I always refer to him as an asshole who has been my friend for over 20 years.
Am I to stop being his friend? No. He has some ideas with which I disagree, and we sometimes argue about them. I find him sometimes overbearing, so I limit my exposure to him. But he's also funny, frequently kind, often entertaining and genuinely goodhearted.
On the other hand, we share a hobby, though we almost never participate in it together. As a result, i hear complaints about his behavior (as well as compliments about his behavior). I've learned to say, as I started this comment, "Yes, he's an asshole. But he's been my friend for over 20 years. I'll listen to and sympathize with your complaints, but it won't change the fact that he's my friend."
Wow. I'm out on my own in assessing the question as impossible. Can I buy insurance against being hauled into the Hague for crimes against humanity? My ethics are so far from the mean I'm starting to feel at risk.
Kerry makes a good point about the compartmentalization thing, and if I didn't see it work so much in practice I would agree with him. I have wondered about this a lot from the outside (not as a friend, but watching two friends). An example that comes to mind is the friendship of the killers in Truman Capote's Cold Blood (a relatively common criminal relationship). Here you have two men crazy enough to horrifically murder a family, but they never turn on each other. You would think that the kind of people who could kill like that would turn on each other at the slightest pretense and kill one another just as easily, but it doesn't seem to happen all of the time. I think some people can compartmentalize. But becuase it is impossible to truly tell whether someone can, it is better to avoid the immoral friends.
Actually, I think Aristotle did have a few choice words that would apply here, and I think it would apply, at least in part, to what Kerry is suggesting. What do you mean by *friend* in this case? I think we can get along with, work with, even have fun with on some level, people who in other contexts behave in ways we determine to be "assholic." But, if we really thought someone was an asshole, would this person really be someone who was a friend in the sense of a shared soul? No, we probably could only get so close to them because we would only have so much respect for them, affinity with them, etc. We can be friends on some level with assholes, but assholity strains the deepest levels of true friendship.
That said, this really is reserved for someone we truly consider to be assholes (not just someone we morally disagree with on some issues but not on others). If we jettisoned everyone who didn't live up to our moral standards, we would not only be lonely, we'd be arrogant moralists who probably shouldn't even be friends with ourselves if we were to be consistent.
I haven't wrapped my head around this question entirely yet, but it's very interesting. I think the first distinction that must be made is that between the sentiments of "S/he's being an asshole" and "S/he is an asshole." There have been many times I've been accused of being assholish and there have been many times when I've known myself to act assholish, but I don't consider myself (and I hope that no one else considers me) to be an asshole. So how many assholish acts must one commit to actualy become an asshole...or is it a general attitude.
I have two very close friends who come to mind when I think about this question. They would do anything for me and vice versa, and they know absolutely everything there is to know about. We're drinking buddies, we've played sports together, we've lived together, we've laughed and even cried together...but I've watched both of them act absolutely assholishly toward their girlfriends (former girlfriends). We're talking lying, cheating, yelling...unhealthy relationships. I consider it a flaw in both of their personalities...but I don't love them any less and I don't think these incidents really make them assholes b/c I've known both to be good people in nearly every other situation.
I think we do inherently compartmentalize. We take into account the acts that affect us the most, and then those that affect other family and friends, and then account for least the ones that affect others to whom we don't really have a link.
However, I don't think that if a person is truly an asshole we find it very easy to be friends (beyond acquaintances or drinking buddies)with them...that is to say, if it's a general assholish attitude one carries through life it's bound to show in many varied situations and we'll quickly rid ourselves of these "friends."
Is it true that Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole? I saw "Surviving Picasso" when it came out and he sure looked like one. I wanted never to admire a painting of his again.
"His politics were horrendous and I fully accept that you can't separate his politics from the sort of quotations that I love so much."
Hey SteveG, I disagree. I think one can in fact make such a separation. For instance, just because Heidegger was a Nazi sympathizer does not necessarily suggest his philosophy was/is therefore suspect. To dismiss someone’s statements simply by virtue of their politics may make sense from an emotional or moral standpoint, but it makes little sense in terms of their content. The truth value of what someone states is independent of their personal quirks, horrors, or whatever. Statements stand or fall on their own, not because their source was deemed good or bad.
Buridan,
I'll go with you halfway. I'll agree that it is an unjustified ad hominem attack to rule out the conclusions of someone's arguments on the basis of personality flaws. But in this case, I think it's different because Mencken's incredible quotations all have the politics contained within them. One can reinterpret the words to be more innocuous -- and with Mencken that's what makes them so much cynical fun -- but you always know that other level that contains the nastiness is there.
That’s true, Mencken's politics were inexorably tied to his statements - because his statements were almost always political - but if such statements were made by someone whose politics were not deplorable would that change their tenor, meaning, acceptability? If so, why?
By the way, I talk about this more thoroughly on my blog. I tried to trackback to you but it refused me for some reason.
That’s true, Mencken's politics were inexorably tied to his statements - because his statements were almost always political - but if such statements were made by someone whose politics were not deplorable would that change their tenor, meaning, acceptability? If so, why?
By the way, I talk about this more thoroughly on my blog. I tried to trackback to you but it refused me for some reason.
While Charles Sanders Peirce wasn't close to having Heidegger's execrable political views, he was kind of an asshole.
But it's a damn good thing that we don't think his work is worthless because he was kind of an asshole (maybe just a butthole). Harvard U did that and burned boxes of his papers after his death (he was living in a Haravrd-owned house), before the rest was saved by a couple of students.
Can an institution be an asshole?
Princeton or some other Ivy canned Kripke because the administrators found him so beastly they threatened to walk out. I guess that's an institution having an opinion at least of who's an asshole. Ought one to reject a principle of logic until somebody nice proves it?
Also: What about the fact that so many fashionable thinkers have been such bad dressers?
Nearly all women have seen at least one, and possibly all, of their male friends behave like a true asshole towards other women at one or more points in time. This is because most men behave like an asshole towards other women at some point in time - they are rude, condescending, belittling, sexist, domineering, violent (physically, emotionally, intellectually). In the workplace they interrupt, they take credit for the work and ideas of women, they discriminate and harass. Every single woman friend you know, knows of a male friend who has behaved poorly to another woman in this manner at some time. We know men - friends, brothers, fathers, uncles, next-door neighbors - who have raped and sexually molested us. We maintain relationships with many of these men. This all requires a serious, serious effort of compartmentalization, not just regarding the particular men, but for all men as a group, because lots and lots of women still marry men even though the evidence would suggest that on average, most men will behave like assholes to women. I would suggest that the relationship of men to women is a HUGE test case for your initial theoretical inquiry that needs to be addressed. It's real life, not just philosophy, but a nice chance for philosophy to tackle a real life issue.
Commenting by HaloScan
