4.4.2  Socially-Acceptable Behaviour

(This is an archived extract from the book Patterns of Power: Edition 2)

Despite people's different beliefs – their “comprehensive moral conceptions” in Rawlsian terminology[1] – there is some commonality in what they regard as acceptable behaviour.  The Golden Rule is consistent with all religions (4.2.2.2) and most philosophies (4.2.3) ,[2] and it can therefore constitute the “social” aspect of what Rawls referred to as an “overlapping consensus” on how to behave,[3] as illustrated:

This illustrates that acceptable behaviour includes many, but not all, agreed human rights and that many aspects of religion (“comprehensive moral conceptions”) are not relevant to behaviour towards other people. 

Compliance with the Golden Rule is at the heart of this concept of acceptable behaviour.  In the negative form previously stated by Karen Armstrong, the Golden Rule requires tolerance – although mutual understanding is not required or assumed:

“Do not do to others what you would not have done to you.”

This formulation only requires a minimum level of empathy for another human being and is sufficient to avoid friction and violence even where people don’t want to have much interaction with members of other communities.  In this form the Golden Rule provides a solid foundation that allows many “comprehensive moral conceptions” to be compatible with socially-acceptable behaviour.  It is not only a theoretical formula; it has repeatedly been found useful.  It constitutes a minimum standard for behaviour between people from different communities.  People may have higher expectations from each other within each community (4.3.2).

It is necessary to enquire how the Golden Rule is applied in peaceful societies; there are differences in the details of its practice.  Any society might have reached agreement on human rights (4.2.4) and these will often have been published (some as part of the law), so socially-acceptable behaviour must include respecting other people’s rights as defined by that society.  The legal enforcement of people’s human rights in these matters is not enough – it also has to be reflected in interpersonal behaviour if everybody is to perceive society as inclusive. Other aspects of behaviour, though, will probably be less explicitly articulated and it is worth trying to articulate what might be needed.   Respect, courtesy and integrity are all important.

The term 'respect' has several meanings; it is used here in its sense of behaviour which acknowledges the equal status of other people within the community, and which therefore avoids antagonising them.   It implies recognition of their equal membership of the same society and their equal negotiating rights in all the dimensions of governance.  It requires the following types of behaviour:

·      It includes treating other people as equals when meeting them and in conversation: avoiding any assumption of superiority on the basis of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, health, wealth, class or education.  Each of these potential dividing lines has been problematic at some times and in some places, but none is defensible.

·      It requires the avoidance of contemptuous or dismissive behaviour which is likely to offend.

·      It is necessary to acknowledge that other people's views, whilst one may not agree with them, appear to be valid to the people who hold them – so any assumption of superiority is inappropriate.  All human beings have only a partial understanding of the universe, and it can be viewed from different perspectives, so nobody is entitled to claim complete wisdom.

·      It is necessary to obey the instructions given by people whom society has formally appointed to positions of authority, within the scope of their authorisation.  The scope for face-to-face disagreement with an official who is performing a function should be limited to polite questioning of that individual’s interpretation of the function.  Challenging the official is very rarely the best way of challenging the nature of the power relationship which led to the individual’s appointment.

·      It is also necessary that officials treat people with respect: as customers (who, in the case of public servants, are also collectively their employers).

None of these types of respectful behaviour imply esteem for other people’s merits or approval of their views – which would be impossible in a pluralist society.  Everyone is entitled to be treated with respect.

‘Courtesy’ includes the overlapping concepts of 'politeness' and 'consideration':

·      In a pluralist society, the obvious default form of politeness with strangers would be in the form of conventions determined by the majority culture – such as customary greetings.

·      Within small close-knit groups from a minority culture, ethnic customs might be observed between group members – but with strangers it is clearly more tactful to comply with majority customs, at least to begin with.

·      It is a basic courtesy for people to speak the language of the region where they live.

·      The term ‘courtesy’ also includes considerate behaviour: avoiding annoyance to other people, for example, and acting to avert their discomfort.

·      People may want to ask others to behave differently – for example, to reduce their noise level.  It is courteous for people to accede to such requests, particularly if politely made – though there can be difficulties, as discussed in the next section (4.4.3).

Within this meaning, the term ‘courtesy’ does not require agreement with the other person’s views and beliefs.

 ‘Integrity’ is related to ‘trustworthiness’, and has several elements:

·      It means keeping one's promises whenever possible – that is to say unless the circumstances had unforeseeably changed to the extent that it would be possible to negotiate forgiveness with those to whom the broken promise had been made.

·      It requires consistency between words and actions: avoiding double standards.

·      It requires adherence to the law, irrespective of whether one is likely to be caught.

·      It means telling the truth; all sorts of relationships become unworkable if one cannot believe what the other person is saying.  There are circumstances where other considerations might outweigh the importance of telling the truth,[4] but only if an independent adjudicator might agree; the default rule must be honesty.

·      Sincerity is important: without it, ‘respect’ and ‘courtesy’ would be of little value.

People must have confidence in each other’s integrity for trust to develop; deeper relationships then become possible.

Socially-acceptable behaviour, as defined here, is compatible with all the main religions.  It complies with the Golden Rule: such behaviour is what one hopes for from other people.  It does not put onerous requirements on people.  It is widely practised on a daily basis in peaceful societies.  It is, though, hard to define precisely what it is – so it is not appropriate to apply the coercion of the law to enforce it.  The requirements are rarely articulated and are taken for granted by most well-meaning people, so it might be argued that they are so obvious that they are not worth enunciating – but it is nonetheless important to society.  There is a need to educate children appropriately (4.4.7.1) and to put moral pressure upon anyone who doesn’t comply, as discussed next (4.4.3).

© PatternsofPower.org, 2014