1.5.10.5.1 Personal Interventions

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Here we consider personal interventions potentially applicable against someone else’s offending.  Personal in this context means that the intervention is not managed by some organization or other.  It includes interventions by families, friendship groups and local communities, when we don't involve the police or other authorities.  We are not here addressing self-discipline.

The offending in this context is not criminal behaviour that warrants calling police or other authorities.  It is inappropriate behaviour such as hurting people or damaging their property that is below criminal levels; oppressive or domineering behaviour that is below criminal levels; excessive teasing or bullying; sexual or other harassment; unwanted touching, inappropriate jokes; insults and disrespect; treating others as less worthy; offensive language, including (racist, sexist, ageist etc) language; rudeness, including excluding or ignoring someone; taking liberties with another’s property or things; petty theft; lying; failing to keep promises; betraying a trust; disclosing things that should be confidential; cheating at games; cheating on your boss; excessive gluttonous, slothful or covetous behaviour; pushing in a line; bumping into others; continually interrupting or overtalking; poor personal hygiene; turning up knowingly with a contagious disease; offensive eating habits; excessive farting and sniffing; making a mess and leaving it; avoiding a fair share of cleaning up; inappropriate drug use (eg in front of children or at work); holocaust denial or other egregious distortions of science or history (which still allows a wide diversity of opinion on other matters); generally being unfair or unkind.

The personal interventions we are discussing here don't include the long term social interventions, such as those to reduce inequality and promote prosperity, social welfare, education and so on.  Personal interventions should be potentially effective, relevant and proximate, and not put the person at risk.  The goals are to minimize harm and suffering, promote happiness and well-being, treat people equally as appropriate, while promoting a safe and secure community in which offences such as those listed above are minimized.

Violent Interventions

Generally, as a practical matter, as well as a matter of principle, it is better to not respond violently.

●   A priori, violence involves inflicting harm or suffering, contrary to our core value of Love.

●   Ultimately violence could lead to death – in one punch – contrary to our core value of Life.

●   Violence is certainly inappropriate for most offences against property and verbal offences.

●   If we respond with violence, this often leads to a violent response back.  Violence breeds violence.

●   We prefer to set an example of resolving situations without violence, so others do the same.

●   Society as whole will be safer if everyone promotes non-violence in resolving conflicts.

●   If we behave violently we lose the moral high ground: we lose our platform to preach what is right.

●   If we are violent we could be charged with a criminal offence or sued for the hurt we cause.

There are exceptions to the general rule.  Sometimes it is OK to respond with violence because the overall harm is reduced.  We must be wary of rationalizations and other self-justifying deceptions.

●   We are permitted to defend ourselves and others from harm if we perceive a serious threat.  National jurisdictions have covered this area extensively.  The threat must be of serious harm and not unreasonable: the simple fact that a person is black in a white neighbourhood is not sufficient.  The violence used must be the least possible to eliminate the threat.  If the attacker is restrained we cannot “mete out summary justiceâ€� and punch or kick them.

●   It is sometimes OK to physically apprehend an offender to prevent them absconding or arrest them.  Again national jurisdictions have clarified this area.  Any force used must be proportionate to the crime: we cannot shoot a fleeing petty thief.  Nor can we kneel on a man’s neck until he dies. 

●   Sometimes, at school, after the school says it has taken or is taking all the steps it can, it is best for the other students to rally together and respond to a violent bully with proportionate violence.  (People who say otherwise have unusually perfect schools or live in fairyland.)

●   Sometimes it is appropriate for a parent to smack a misbehaving child (without causing harm), when the child is not verbal, not responding and other management techniques have failed.  Sometimes instead a simple hug that constrains movement without hurting works well.

Non-Violent Interventions

Non-violent responses available depend on who is involved. 

●   A parent dealing with a young child can include explaining the implications of an act, removal of privileges, and so on.

●   One person dealing with a peer has a different set of options to a parent with a child.  Responses can include: a glare or frown, a negative exclamation, calling it out, ostracising the offender, etc.  Most people are sensitive to how others react to them, and most people hope for others’ approval.

*    An immediate and short-lived negative response is sufficient for many people to change their ways.  This includes a sudden look, or glare, or a negative exclamation (eg What was that?).

*    Calling out the bad behaviour, not only as the target of it, but as a bystander.  Abusive behaviour is easy when no-one objects to it.  It decreases if the offender gets no kudos for being offensive and more so if they are likely to be confronted about it.

*    One possibility is to more or less treat the offender as we would if they had free will, and scold them or lecture them, which we previously (section 1.5.10.3) called berating.  If we assess that berating the offender in this way would have potentially been effective (in stopping the offending) if it had occurred before the offending then it may be effective after.  Otherwise it's probably a waste of breath.