MORALITY question -- Are there situations in which engaging in character assassination is justified?

Question

IS this a morality issue? Is it always "wrong", sometimes "wrong", never "wrong"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

Answer 1

I suppose there are some times that it could be justified, but I really wouldnt want to stoop to that level.

Answer 2

All is fair in love and politics, or was that war? Well, politics can be war. ;)

Politicians do this sort of stuff all the time. Its about power. If they can run their opponents name threw the mud, they can attempt to make themselves look better by playing up and exaggerating their opponents faults, and if they play the victim they can try and gather sympathy from people. Politics is a game, a very nasty game.

There are no moral absolutes. In a lot a situations you cannot say something is always wrong or never wrong. If someone was engaging in character assassination against Hitler back when he was alive and first coming into power, would you still say it was wrong? Or would you think it was somewhat justified because you know what happened when he got into that position of power?

Sometimes there are wrongs that need to be pointed out, and sometimes other people get fed up with their character attacked so they retaliate. Just remember, there's two sides to every story, Zero Cool. :)

Answer 3

If I'm going by your attached definition, no. This definition requires that character assassination include intentional manipulation of facts. This in my opinion creates waste. How can one solve a problem or heal a misunderstanding if more smoke is blown over the issue by manipulating the facts? I don't take is as much as a morality issue as I do a critical thinking issue.

If the situation involves a person, why manipulate the facts to discredit them? Would it not be more effective to showcase their true inconsistencies or at best reason with them by appealing to their sense of logic (assuming they have one)?

As far as a sense of fair play is concerned I would also hope others would give me the chance to answer to my own flaws rather than hand me new ones! My favorite movie of all time, The Lion in Winter, contains a scene at the end during which two of Henry II's sons are facing the possibility of execution by their own father and debating how to handle the situation. One says, "does it matter how one falls?" the other replies, "when the fall is all there is, it matters." If I'm going to take a fall, I'd rather it be due to my own mistakes than a fabrication placed on me by someone else.

Answer 4

The definition provided by your link includes the concept that the information spread is false or at least exaggerated. The only way I can think of that it would be justified to criticize a person's character would be to expose the truth which has been kept hidden, at least to the extent it is relevant to the situation. For example, if a public figure (say a televangelist, for a random example) has been critical of gays, and then is proved to have engaged in gay sex. Or perhaps has been condemning drug use, and has been proved to have bought illegal drugs.

Of course, those are just hypothetical examples. But it shouldn't be necessary to use lies or exaggeration to expose such a person, and it would rebound if those statements were exposed as lies or exaggerations.

Answer 5

Yes.. For example, I know a man who really and truly is the sickest most disturbing individual I have ever met. He is a pedophile, a predator of women(children), theif, liar, and a downright scary person. I do everything in my power to assasinate his character, and I hope for his sake that there is a hell reserved for people like him. I believe I am justified in doing this to him even if it means exaggerating the facts and spreading rumours, because for every person I warn about him I hope I am saving someone from being abused or molested by him. To me nothing can be more justified than preventing a predator from being able to prey upon someone.. Now sometimes character assasination can be wrong, especially when the person really did nothing wrong and is simply being accused of it.. Depending on the circumstance character assasination can be wrong or right, justified or unjustifiable. It all depends on the motives of the person doing the assasination and the true character of the person being assasinated. Is it really wrong for me to tell people the truth albeit exaggerated sometimes if it means that I can stop this person from hurting someone?? I don't think so. I'm sure you would agree that I am doing society a favour by warning people to keep their daughters away from a man who would sexually assault or molest them... even if it means exaggeration of the facts to convey the truly bad character of the person I speak of.

http://www.reneesweeney.com/

Answer 6

When a question, such as this, is asked, I ask myself how I'd feel if I or a loved one was subject to the painful, negative result of such viciously inspired misrepresentation? For me, it's not such a 'morality' issue, more a human issue applying a 'golden rule' standard? Personally, I don't think character assassination is justifiable under any circumstance. If I thought about it more, I guess I might come up with an exception...but I doubt it?

Answer 7

It's just my opinion, but I think you should probably know all there is to know about someone before attempting "character assassination." At least then, you may have some basis in truth. Someone making stupid unfounded claims about someone else just for revenge, or simply to make themselves look good is totally wrong. It's like in politics - everyone is a sleaze monger, all out to make themselves look better by outright lying (or at least bending the truth) about what the other says or stands for. THAT'S what I call character assassination.

Answer 8

Character assassination is wrong. It is malicious and dishonest. I would only consider it necessary if there were some sort of situation by which this would save a life of a loved one or save the life of others. I can't imagine what that situation would be but that would definitely make almost anything the right thing to do.

Answer 9

I think it is immoral and illogical. If someone says or does something that you feel the need to address, it is much more effective to address the issue. The logical fallacy of character assassination is known as argumentum ad hominem which is Latin for attack against the person. An example is when a Theist resorts to saying something like, "You can't believe anything that dude says; he's an Atheist."

Answer 10

It involves creating a lot of negativity. That's always sad. I think it more often 'rationalized' than justified. By that I mean it is usually self justified (by the assassin) - but the justification does not hold up to conversation with objective others.

Answer 11

I did not click on the link, but from my point of view, i have come to view "gossip" as character assasination.... that is like murder with words....
No it is not right.....i think that if there is something to be said then it should be said in front of the person that you are talking about....
If you are not a big enough person to do this, then perhaps you should keep your comments to yourself.

just my humble pagan thoughts
bb
)o(