RE: On Universal Ethics
An asshole's an asshole. It also has no bearing on whether or not consent has been violated. Someone shouting obscenities at you does not constitute a violation of property.
As for the sidewalk example, while it could be construed as a trespass, the nature of the trespass warrants little more than asking for an apology, one which may or may not be given. Reciprocity deals with the level of violation. Bumping into someone on the street is neither intentional, nor severe, and the response for such should accord with the level of harm suffered by the person whose property was violated.
(I'd also like to note that, if two people agree to a duel with pistols at dawn, there is nothing immoral in that situation, as both parties consented freely to the duel; this is no different, essentially, than a boxing match)
Well, in determining what the 'social truth' is about assholery, we run into this question:
They are a asshole by what measure?
Is that action assholery?
Do 30 out of 30 randomly selected people see that person as a asshole or the behavior as assholery?
What if 15 out of 30 people see that person as a asshole?
We do prefer accuracy here to inaccuracy right?
The bumping could have been intentional and severe or at least perceived to be so. Harm registered by the person being bumped is somewhat subjective.
(No problem with dueling, there was just a brushing away of offense as if there would be no risk in doing so, I typically will assign some margin of risk per possible offense, not so much for risk oversion, but more for risk awareness)
Question about assholery: what relevance does this portion of the discussion have? Absent the discussion about violation of consent, the only relevance creating a uniform standard of assholery serves is in establishing social conventions or mores. Being an asshole isn't, itself, immoral behavior unless it involves the violation of another's property.
Harm can be measured objectively. The perception of harm is certainly subjective (my pain isn't your pain), but how it violates property and to what degree are empirical questions, not social ones.
On the point about dueling, duels are consensual acts; without the consent of the other party, the initiating party cannot engage in the duel. It then becomes murder/attempted murder, which is immoral, as no violation of property occurred prior to the use of deadly force. So if you were suggesting that dueling is somehow a risk one incurs for social slights, then I don't see how that is, as one can simply refuse.
If you're trying to illustrate the whole "you shut your mouth or I'll beat your ass" situation, then yes, you can ascribe risk to offenses, but the point I'm making isn't that being a dick won't make people violently angry. My point is that getting violently angry over something that doesn't violate property is immoral. It cannot be justified in a sound, valid way. Thus the guy throwing a punch at someone over words is the aggressor, and as stated above, can be retaliated against without moral consequence.
I'm trying to illustrate that empirical truth is empirical truth, and social truth is well....something else. That's it.