Reading your comments on Sarah’s post, it sounds like your objecting to a norm where someone criticizing is expected to address private feedback they get from an org before publishing?
That’s definitely not the only thing I’m objecting to.
This norm should not exist at all, because it will inevitably reduce the probability that true and/or correct criticism reaches the public.
The downsides you point out are to the organization (or person) themselves. But I do not think that members of the public have any obligation to consider the org’s interests in such cases. Indeed, it would be wrong to do so, to whatever extent that consideration of the org’s interests (and any actions, or perceived obligation for actions, that result from such consideration) may tip the scales toward not publishing the criticism.
It seems to me that it’s morally acceptable to consider the org’s interests only insofar as they have an effect on the public (construed here in an identical way to “the public” in “learning true facts and correct criticism of an org benefits the public). And even in those cases, disclosure of true information and correct criticism must be weighted much more strongly than some other purported effects (in accordance with the principle of non-paternalism).
In short, the author of a critical post owes the target of the criticism no consideration of consequences, so long as obligations of honesty, accuracy, legality, appropriateness, etc. are met. The author may owe the post’s audience (a.k.a. the public) more than that, or may not; that may be argued. But to the target—no.
Almost not at all.
That’s definitely not the only thing I’m objecting to.
This norm should not exist at all, because it will inevitably reduce the probability that true and/or correct criticism reaches the public.
The downsides you point out are to the organization (or person) themselves. But I do not think that members of the public have any obligation to consider the org’s interests in such cases. Indeed, it would be wrong to do so, to whatever extent that consideration of the org’s interests (and any actions, or perceived obligation for actions, that result from such consideration) may tip the scales toward not publishing the criticism.
It seems to me that it’s morally acceptable to consider the org’s interests only insofar as they have an effect on the public (construed here in an identical way to “the public” in “learning true facts and correct criticism of an org benefits the public). And even in those cases, disclosure of true information and correct criticism must be weighted much more strongly than some other purported effects (in accordance with the principle of non-paternalism).
In short, the author of a critical post owes the target of the criticism no consideration of consequences, so long as obligations of honesty, accuracy, legality, appropriateness, etc. are met. The author may owe the post’s audience (a.k.a. the public) more than that, or may not; that may be argued. But to the target—no.