Abstract
The principal objective of this chapter is to identify the most salient properties of social appropriateness or etiquette. First, the chapter contrasts the view of many contemporary Western philosophers, who reject a conceptual connection between etiquette and morality, with that of Confucianists, who argue such connections exist. Second, by identifying examples in which socially appropriate behaviour and morally justifiable behaviour conflict, we reject the Confucianist claim that adhering to norms of etiquette is essential to morally good action. Third, we then identify the prominent features of social appropriateness including interdependence of action, conformity, publicity, and overlooking slight noncompliance. Finally, we pose the question whether an individual’s past of grievous wrongdoing could render her morally undeserving of participation in the practices of etiquette. By emphasizing the importance of moral merit to our ordinary moral practices, we conclude that the norms and practices of socially appropriate behaviour are not completely divorced from morality as many contemporary Western philosophers argue, even if they are not inherent to morally good action as the Confucianists would have it.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
“Morality” is understood broadly as the practices, judgments, and values defining right, wrong, good and bad.
- 2.
The authors I categorize as Confucianist in the following discussion do not necessarily view themselves as such and do not always cite or recognize Confucius as a philosophical ally. However, if an author argues in favor of an inherent connection between etiquette and morality, then they can broadly be seen as adhering to this Confucianist doctrine. For this reason, I refer to such authors as advancing a “Confucianist” rather than “Confucian” position.
- 3.
See especially Book X of the Analects where Confucius is portrayed as a moral exemplar through his strict adherence to rules of etiquette.
- 4.
“Social” and “moral” are used here as they are used in ordinary language. “Social” refers to activities or practices in which people interact. “Moral” refers to the practices, judgments, and values that define right, wrong, good, or bad.
- 5.
The point is analogous to Wittgenstein’s insight concerning the impossibility of private language. Since any language is in principle understandable, it cannot be private (Wittgenstein 1958, §256).
- 6.
See Gilbert (1987) for an explanation of how a group can hold a belief even if no single member of the group holds that belief.
- 7.
Overlooking slight noncompliance is not exactly synonymous with tact or tactfulness. Tact, by definition, is the keen sense of what to say or do in order to maintain good relations or avoid offense. However, one might have various motivations for overlooking slight noncompliance. Avoiding offense is one possibility. Thinking that a confrontation is not worth the effort is another.
- 8.
- 9.
Alternatively, one might hold that moral merit does not affect an individual’s moral worth and that an individual does not deserve a hostile response for past wrongdoing. The Christian tradition exemplifies this approach.
- 10.
For a definition of evil action, see Goldberg (2018).
References
Beauchamp, Tom L., Norman E. Bowie, and Denis G. Arnold (eds.). 2008. Ethical Theory and Business, 8th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, Cheshire. 2000. The Virtue of Civility. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29: 251-275.
Clarke, Randolph, Michael McKenna, and Angela Smith (eds.) 2015. The Nature of Moral Responsibility: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coates, D. Justin and Neal A. Tognazzini (eds.). 2013. Blame: Its Nature and Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, Elizabeth Burns. 2013. Etiquette: The Aesthetics of Display and Engagement. Aesthetics 23 (1): 68-91.
Foot, Phillipa. 1972. Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives. The Philosophical Review 81(3): 305-316.
French, Peter. A. 2001. The Virtues of Vengeance. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Gilbert, Margaret. 1987. Modelling Collective Belief. Synthese 73: 185-204.
Goldberg, Zachary J. 2018. Was ist eine böse Handlung? Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 66(6): 764-787.
Goldberg, Zachary J. 2019. Evil’s Diachronic Characteristics. In Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evil, eds. Thomas Nyz and Stephen de Wijze, 328-341. London: Routledge.
Haslanger, Sally. 2005. What Are We Talking about? The Semantics and Politics of Social Kinds. Hypatia 20(4): 10-26.
Kekes, John. 2009. Blame Versus Forgiveness. The Monist 92(4): 488–506.
Kupperman, Joel. 2002. Naturalness Revisited: Why Western Philosophers Should Study Confucius. In Confucius and the “Analects”: New Essays, ed. Bryan W. Van Norden, 39-53. New York: Oxford University Press.
LaFollette, Hugh. (ed.). 2002. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Martin, Judith. 1993. A Philosophy of Etiquette. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 137(3): 350-356
Miller, Seumas. 1991. On Conventions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70(4): 435-444.
Murphy, Jeffrie G. 2003. Getting Even: Forgiveness and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Novaes, Catarina Dutilh. 2018. Carnapian Explication and Ameliorative Analysis: A Systematic Comparison. Synthese, First online: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1732-9.
Olberding, Amy. 2016. Etiquette: A Confucian Contribution to Moral Philosophy. Ethics 126(2): 422–446.
Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. “Appropriate.” https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/appropriate_1
Pojman, Louis P. 2007 Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings, 5th edn. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Quine, W.V.O. 1951. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60: 20-43
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2012. The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strawson, Peter. 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” In Perspectives on Moral Responsibility, eds. John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza, 46–66. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Theoharis, Jeanne. 2015. The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks. NY: Beacon Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. GEM Anscombe. Blackwell.
The “Analects” of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation, trans. Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr. New York: Ballantine Books, 1998. https://www.biography.com/activist/rosa-parks (accessed Feb. 11, 2020.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goldberg, Z.J. (2022). What is Social Appropriateness?. In: Bellon, J., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S. (eds) Soziale Angemessenheit . Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35800-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35800-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-35799-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-35800-6
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)