My esteemed colleague Rushworth M. Kidder, who is the founder and guiding light of the Institute for Global Ethics, has drafted a Blog-Poster’s Code of Ethics. I like it, but Dr. Kidder has asked for feedback before making it final; Rush is suggesting that blogs post the Code as a statement of principles.
What do you think? Post your comments here, and I’ll pass them along.
The Blog-Poster’s Code of Ethics
As a resident of a global community of engaged thinkers, I agree to abide by the five shared values that create and sustain communities everywhere:
RESPECT: Communities depend on mutual respect. In my posts, I will respect the dignity, motivation, and intelligence of others at all times. I will neither engage in personal attacks or derogatory comments, nor tolerate those who do. While I welcome vigorous and strong debate, I will nevertheless strive to maintain civility in the face of disagreement and reasonableness in the presence of polarization.
RESPONSIBILITY: Communities comprise identifiable, recognizable individuals. I will take responsibility for what I write, using my own name rather than hiding behind the anonymity of an avatar or pseudonym. If I absolutely must remain anonymous, I will consult the editors to ensure that they know my identity and that readers know why I am not using my name.
HONESTY: Communities thrive on transparency. I will strive for candor, openness, and truth-telling in my posts. I will avoid gossip, innuendo, unsourced data, and deceptive spin, but will seek to reflect accuracy, completeness, and relevance — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — in my comments.
FAIRNESS: Communities require the even-handed application of justice. I will seek always to represent issues as fairly as possible, honoring arguments on both sides even as I seek to persuade others to choose my side. But I will strive to avoid bias, discrimination, and misrepresentation, and will courageously expose bigotry and prejudice where I find it.
COMPASSION: Communities prosper through mutual caring. I will strive to use my posts to elevate and ennoble, rather than to lambaste, tear down, or harshly criticize others. Seeking to promote kindliness and good will, I will treat other people and their ideas with the same sense of caring attention I would want from them.
Ethics Alarms 
Most of this is laudable, but I’m not so keen on the “Compassion” part. There are some people whose ideas are repugnant enough that it’s not just *acceptable* but *morally obligatory* to “harshly criticize” them. See, oh, say, stormfront.org for examples. I think the “Respect” section sufficiently covers the ethical way to treat your opponents.
I think I agree—heck, you know I agree, if you read some of my replies. It’s a tough balance, and I struggle with it. Is it ever acceptable to just say flat out, “Look, you’re a bigot and and an ignorant fool” when a poster is, in fact, both? I don’t believe all opinions have equal or even any validity. I think the point Rush is going for is that some offensive opinions spring from low IQs, poor reasoning skills, toxic cultures or a lack of education, and compassion needs to be in the mix. That seems reasonable.