Just Be Nice By Stephen L. Carter

Just Be Niceby Stephen L Carter

Just Be Nice by Stephen L. Carter Stephen L. Carter is a professor at Yale Law School and has written extensively on topics such as affirmative action, the judicial confirmation process, and the role of religion in legal and political cultures. The following argument was written for the Yale Alumni Magazine in 1998 and was later included in Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. The essay emphasizes the importance of civility, manners, and moral norms in maintaining a functioning and respectful society.

Historically, civility and manners were an integral part of childhood education, including how to answer the telephone and set the table, without objection from society. However, modern education has seen a decline in teaching these norms, focusing more on issues related to sex and personal rights rather than foundational moral conduct. This shift reflects a broader cultural movement away from shared norms of behavior towards a focus on individual rights and self-expression, often at the expense of community welfare and mutual respect.

The erosion of trust between individuals and institutions replaces reliance on moral codes with suspiciousness and cynicism. This shift fuels an exaggerated focus on rights, which are often misused or misunderstood. Rights that lack historical context or moral grounding—such as the 'right' to pierce one's face or be overweight—are more susceptible to abuse because there is little societal consensus or tradition to guide their responsible exercise. Even constitutional rights, like free speech, lose their value when their use is detached from shared norms and history.

Legal cases such as Cohen v. California illustrate the tension between free expression and civility. While the Supreme Court upheld protected speech in Cohen’s case, emphasizing the importance of the right to non-obscene speech, it is crucial to recognize that the framers of the Constitution envisioned a context of shared moral values. The absence of such a context today complicates the boundaries of acceptable speech, especially when offensive language becomes a constitutional right without underlying norms.

The essay argues that moral norms and civility demand restraint and responsibility, especially in areas like personal appearance, language, and conduct. Acts of self-expression, such as racially hateful acts, are morally wrong and often illegal because they harm community cohesion. The celebration of shock jocks and offensive content disregards the importance of moral discipline necessary for a healthy society. While protecting free speech is critical, it does not justify abuse or harm, and the state’s role in regulating speech should align with civility principles that promote mutual respect.

Words are powerful tools that can build morality, progress, and hope, or cause wound and division. Proper use of language is an essential aspect of civility, guiding how individuals treat one another on a moral level. Historically, etiquette and manners served to govern speech and behavior, emphasizing the responsible use of words and actions. Even contemporary regulations on harassment and hate speech are rooted in civility, aiming to discipline desires that threaten social harmony.

Ultimately, the essay contends that how we speak and treat one another reflects our moral commitments and community standards. Civility is not merely about following rules but about embodying a moral attitude that respects others and recognizes the power of words and actions to harm or heal. Cultivating civility involves acknowledging our shared moral duties and exercising restraint for the collective good.

Paper For Above instruction

In his essay "Just Be Nice," Stephen L. Carter explores the critical role civility and moral norms play in maintaining a functioning, respectful society. He underscores the importance of manners, restraint, and shared values, contrasting past communal norms with contemporary attitudes that emphasize individual rights and self-expression at the expense of social cohesion. This analysis will examine Carter's arguments concerning the erosion of civility, the misapplication of rights, and the importance of moral discipline in speech and conduct.

Historically, civility was embedded in childhood education, encompassing manners such as answering the phone politely or setting a proper table. These norms, though seemingly trivial, fostered mutual respect and community trust. Yet, modern education has largely abandoned such teachings, replaced by a focus on sexual morality and rights. Carter laments this decline, asserting that society’s current preoccupation with individual rights often undermines the shared moral fabric necessary for civility. For example, he discusses cases like a student disciplined for sagging pants, where community leaders attribute such acts to racial injustice, ignoring the broader moral questions about personal responsibility and societal norms.

Carter emphasizes that trust—particularly in strangers and institutions—is essential for civility. The latter has been undermined by widespread cynicism, which breeds suspicion and diminishes mutual respect. Instead of trusting institutions or authorities, individuals place faith in rights, which are often misunderstood or misused, leading to behaviors that erode social harmony. The example of rights to pierce one's face or be overweight reflects this trend. While these acts may express personal desires, they lack the moral context and tradition that would inform responsible exercise of such rights. This disconnect diminishes the societal value of rights, including protected rights like free speech.

Legal precedents such as Cohen v. California exemplify the complexities of free expression. The case involved a shirt with a provocative message, and the Supreme Court protected the speaker’s right to non-obscene speech. Carter stresses, however, that the framers envisioned a context of shared moral values—an environment where speech, even if heated, rested on common understandings. Without such norms, offensive language becomes a constitutional right devoid of moral anchoring, encouraging a disregard for civility. Additionally, acts like racial harassment or offensive dress are condemned because they threaten social cohesion and moral standards.

Carter advocates for moral discipline in speech and conduct, highlighting that acts of self-expression must be tempered by considerations of community welfare. For instance, racially motivated acts like cross burning are morally wrong and often illegal because they incite fear and division. Similarly, celebrating shock radio hosts who promote racist or offensive content exemplifies a society neglecting the moral responsibility inherent in free speech. While legal protections are necessary, they should not serve as a license to harm or offend without restraint.

The power of words is profound—they can instruct and uplift or wound and divide. The essay emphasizes that how we use words reflects our moral commitments and respect for others. Etiquette and manners historically governed speech, guiding individuals on the responsible use of language. Even modern regulations on hate speech or harassment are rooted in civility, aiming to foster a respectful social environment. Carter’s core argument is that civility involves exercising restraint and moral judgment, not just adhering to rules but embodying a moral attitude that values others.

In conclusion, Carter’s essay calls for a renewal of moral norms and civility as essential components of a democratic society. The act of speaking and behaving ethically requires conscious effort, rooted in shared values and respect for community welfare. By embracing civility, individuals affirm their moral duties and contribute to a more just, respectful society, ensuring that words and actions promote progress and hope rather than division and harm.

References

• Carter, S. L. (1998). Just Be Nice. Yale Alumni Magazine.
• Wilson, J. Q. (1993). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They Do It. Basic Books.
• Benjamin Disraeli. (n.d.). Quotation on misfortune and calamity.
• Supreme Court of the United States. (1971). Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15.
• Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.
• Tocqueville, A. de. (2000). Democracy in America. (F. Bowen, Trans.).
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Pantheon Books.
• Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.