I understand the animal sense of "fairness." It seems to operate strongly in mammals. On my desktop, I have a before-and-after of a dog who was cheated. His master was playing catch, throwing the ball, throwing the ball, throwing the ball... Then one time the human pretends to throw. The dog races off, hunts all over, gives up, comes back, and sees the ball. He glowers. He knows that he was tricked. We have cats, now just one, but over the years, up to four. They know favoritism when it happens.

But that is not moral condemnation.

A moral being is of necessity a volitional being, a self-aware entity. The matter is not well-explored, but I believe that humans could not be moral before the invention of writing, certainly not before the development of conceptual language.

Conceptual language may not be unique to humans, but it is distinct from mere animal calls. I grant that ravens have a "language" of 30 calls, and in three "dialects" -- or so I have read. It is acceptable. But that is not the same thing as we are doing here.

Without conceptual language, moral condemnation is impossible.

What you are referring to is the avoidance of the ad hominem fallacy as a debate tactic. I for one would love to see fewer fall into this trap noting that I am not immune. But there is also the categorization of people, belief sets, etc. which tread a very fine line between being ad hominem and being accurate adjectives. In most cases, talking about principles instead of people makes it very easy to focus on the critical aspects of a conversation rather than making things personal. One can focus on what is true rather than who is right.

But I will also echo what CBJ said that we do have some control over how we react to such name calling. A wise man once said “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”

True, but sometimes I notice that particularly provocative, incendiary words are used. Example: I saw the use of Hitlery and Shillery as Hillary Clinton substitutions. Libtard is another I have seen frequently.
Is it really necessary to do this (and no, I am not saying that you personally have done this, CBJ)?

I must admit whether I agree or disagree with the person's opinion, once I see this kind of rhetoric and incivility, I tend to dismiss the person. Am I the only one who feels that way?

Often times we don't even notice what we project. A lab tech could be approached by a guy, the other makes an expression of jealousy or distaste. One person could bring another food but not the other person in the group causing a facial expression or a body expression that the monkeys can pick upon. I do think jealousy and even vilification is part of nature, perhaps not necessarily exclusively human.

Mimicking their captors in what way? The captors are not acting out fairness scenarios for the monkeys to imitate. They are setting up fairness scenarios among the monkeys to see how the monkeys react. The monkeys are not necessarily grasping fairness as a concept, but their behavior shows that they experience unfairness emotionally within a social context.

Just curious, and I'm not trying to argue, how can moral condemnation predate humans? I would think morality, unfairness, and culture all human constructs. It could be argued that caged monkeys are just mimicking their captors.

A sense of unfairness can lead to a response that is either civil or uncivil. It's totally up to the responder to choose.

Thanks CBJ for the link as well as weighing in. So, are you also suggesting that because the sense of fairness that is ingrained also adds to name-calling and a lack of civil discourse?

Thanks Mike for weighing in...and all without vilification and name-calling. This is the kind of civil discourse that I think Objectivists can participate in.

Modern experiments indicate that a form of moral condemnation, arising from perceived unfairness, likely predates humans. This article cites an example:

http://www.livescience.com/2044-monke...

“The latest findings suggest that a sense of fairness is deeply ingrained in human evolutionary history rather than the idea that it's a more cultural response, and thus, learned from other humans.”

The human invention of moral condemnation has roots no more than 10,000 years deep. It took the invention of special language and internal reflection for that to be possible. Friezes from Ur show men being beaten for not paying their taxes. Our modern view of that must be contrasted with the fact the action and its meaning would have been incomprehensible to the first humans.

And it was a long, slow process. But it became so ingrained that even the gentle Quakers and Amish have their shunning for transgressions that are merely deviations from custom, not the actual harming of a person or the cause of material loss. "She is not simple", a moral condemnation among them, would be a backhanded compliment here in the Gulch.

But, as Jerome Tucille pointed out It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. The anthology The Virtue of Selfishness included an essay from The Objectivist Newsletter, "How to Live a Rational Life in an Irrational World." The answer: never fail to pass moral judgement. That essay did close with the warning that you do not need to actually announce your verdict to the guilty. It is often socially inappropriate to do so, but, at least in your own mind, you must be clear on the issues.

That said, Ayn Rand and her inner circle did promote a nice, poetic vocabulary of condemnation. It enabled followers to craft epithets such as "range-of-the-moment context-dropping Kantian social metaphysician."

On the other hand, facts are real. Someone who advocates placing others above self as an abstract principle actually has their hand in your pocket -- and ultimately around your throat.

I say that quite consciously. Many of us here and in "Objectivish" circles are in protective services: police, military, courts. The harsh reality is that protecting others often requires the ultimate price. That said, however, we are not kamikaze. In fact, those in protective services are specially trained so that what seems like derring-do to the outsiders is actually practiced routine. On the other hand, nothing about fire fighting is routine, and when fire fighters are lost, it is usually in teams. As individualists here, the very concept of teamwork may be alien to many.

Moreover, in this forum in particular, but also online in general, we tend to write short statements. I am easily one of the most verbose here, but I write for a living, and this is all an exercise for me before going out to my day job. Even so, we all tend to risk being misunderstood because we write ad hoc. And writing does not carry the emotive meanings of face-to-face interactions. It is why we often invite each other out for a beer to discuss something. That usually never happens, as we live far apart, but the intention is that we recognize the limitations of writing.

I also offer an upside to moral outrage, especially in forums such as this. We tend to share common values. When someone expresses an opinion that we perceive as outside that norm, we are taken aback. "If you believe what I do, how can you believe that other claim?" I think that the problem there is ultimately internal. Their deviation causes you to question your own beliefs. Before that can happen though, cognitive dissonance closes off those pathways, and the internal questioning never happens. Just for example, some of my best friends have been communists.