Lesallan | October 22, 2025
Ohio Christian University
PHL2100 Ethics (ONL25F3A)
Professor Mark Godbold
This discussion explains how individuals with opposing ethical views can engage in productive dialogue, applies those principles to a difficult real-life encounter at the author’s Aurora, MO apartment, and evaluates which elements produced constructive or destructive outcomes. The discussion draws on standard problem-solving techniques in ethics, the Weston framework for practical ethical reasoning (Weston, 2011), and Christian moral teaching as relevant guidance (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:27-31, King James Version).
Principles for Creating a Productive Ethical Dialogue
- Seek mutual understanding before persuasion. Begin by clarifying terms, intentions, and perceived harms, using active listening to restate the other person’s position accurately.
- Establish shared norms for the exchange. Agree to ground the conversation in respect, turn-taking, and evidence-based reasons rather than emotional attack.
- Use Socratic questioning and principled reasoning. Ask focused questions that probe underlying values, duties, and consequences, and present reasons that connect facts to ethical principles (e.g., rights, duties, virtues, consequences).
- Manage affect and safety. Recognize and defuse hostility early, use de-escalation techniques, and, when necessary, pause the conversation until parties are calm and safe.
- Aim for epistemic humility and shared inquiry. Acknowledge uncertainty, invite counterexamples, and treat the dialogue as collaborative problem solving rather than a contest to win.
- Apply practical fallibility checks. Distinguish assertion from evidence, avoid ad hominem responses, and check for confirmation bias or motivated reasoning when evaluating rival accounts.
These principles align with practical ethical problem-solving that emphasizes clarity, charity, and principled argumentation (Weston, 2011).
Case Analysis: The Aurora Apartment Incidents
Description of the Events
While at home doing schoolwork, the author experienced two confrontational episodes with a young man unknown to him. The first consisted of loud accusations at the front door, the presence of a friend offering a weapon, and a police response after the young man called authorities. The author responded by locking the door and acquiring a baseball bat for perceived defensive safety. In a later incident, the same individual approached aggressively with a golf club, again yelling; the author retreated and closed the door. Subsequent allegations led to a municipal court summons for an assault/ordinance violation based on claims the author had behaved inappropriately toward a young woman; the author denies these claims and suspects retaliatory coordination among neighbors.
Ethical Issues at Stake
- Personal safety and self-defense versus escalation. The author faced a tension between protecting bodily safety and avoiding actions that might be interpreted as threatening or provocative.
- Reputation and justice. A false allegation threatens the author’s moral standing and vocational future, raising concerns about fairness, truthfulness, and remediation.
- Intergenerational conflict and community responsibility. The author perceives changing neighborhood norms and attributes blame to younger neighbors, implicating duties of neighborliness, civility, and mutual accountability.
- Forgiveness and non-retaliation under Christian ethics versus practical legal self-defense and reputation management (King James Version, Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:27-31).
Why the Exchange Produced Less Than Positive Outcomes
- Absence of mutual understanding and facts. The confrontation began with aggressive accusations without an established factual basis or an attempt to clarify the alleged grievance, making constructive dialogue impossible.
- High effects and perceived threat. Yelling, apparent weaponization, and fear created a high-arousal environment that triggered defensive reactions rather than reasoned conversation. This violated the principle of affect management for productive discourse.
- No shared norms for engagement. There was no prior agreement on acceptable methods for dispute resolution (e.g., notifying authorities, mediation, calm conversation), so parties resorted to intimidation and police involvement.
- Asymmetric background knowledge and distrust. The author and the young man lacked shared credibility; the author suspected coordination and revenge, intensifying distrust and preventing cooperative inquiry.
- Choices that escalated perception of threat. Grabbing a baseball bat (intended as defensive) and flipping off the neighbor (an emotional reaction) increased the possibility of legal and reputational harm by providing apparent evidence of hostile conduct, even if the underlying intent was self-protection or frustration.
- Failure of intermediaries to restore dialogic space. Police visits addressed immediate safety but did not create a forum for mediated fact-finding and reconciliation; the legal summons suggests unresolved conflict moved into adversarial systems rather than restorative conversation.
Each of these elements maps to standard barriers to productive ethical dialogue: lack of calm, absence of shared procedures for conflict resolution, and breakdowns in trust and communication (Weston, 2011).
How a More Productive Approach Could Have Unfolded
- De-escalation at first contact. Calm verbal boundary setting (“I do not understand this accusation; let us speak calmly or involve building management/police”) could reduce immediate hostility and create time for facts to emerge.
- Prefer neutral witnesses or mediators. Inviting a neutral third party (such as a building manager, a neighbor known to both, or an officer present for safety) to hear accounts would help establish an agreed factual baseline.
- Document and preserve evidence. Politely request contact information, note times, and, when safe, document noise or threats; factual records protect reputation while avoiding retaliatory acts.
- Use formal channels for accusations. If the neighbor believes a wrongdoing occurred, insist that they file a report or pursue mediation rather than confronting an unknown person at the door; this shifts the encounter from an impulsive accusation to a verified process.
- Maintain Christian moral commitments with prudential clarity. Practicing “turning the other cheek” is compatible with prudent documentary defense and lawful recourse; forgiveness and non-retaliation do not require forgoing legal protections for reputation and safety.
These corrections align with Weston’s emphasis on clarity, principled reasoning, and procedural remedies when moral disputes escalate (Weston, 2011).
Personal Reflection and Ethical Judgment
- Moral self-assessment. The author’s instinct for non-confrontation and adherence to Christian virtues is ethically respectable and contextual to his lived disposition; however, virtue ethics also recognizes prudence as a cardinal virtue that recommends forethought and appropriate defense of self and reputation.
- Responsibility to truth and community. If false allegations threaten one’s vocation and standing, ethics requires active, proportionate steps to restore truth—engaging legal counsel, seeking mediation, and collecting corroborating evidence—while avoiding vindictive responses.
- Attitude toward younger neighbors. The categorical assertion that “there is no productively discussing ethics with this younger generation” is an understandable expression of frustration, but it becomes an ethical hazard if it forecloses any attempt at restorative engagement; productive dialogue requires resisting sweeping generalizations and instead seeking concrete steps toward peaceful resolution where feasible.
- Faith and action in tension. The biblical call to love and non-retaliation is not ethically incompatible with using lawful institutions to protect oneself and pursue justice; both can be integrated in a manner that preserves conscience and seeks restoration rather than revenge (Luke 6:27-31, KJV).
Conclusion
Productive ethical dialogue requires a calming effect, establishing shared norms, clarifying facts, applying principled reasoning, and, where interpersonal channels fail, using neutral mediation or lawful procedures. The Aurora apartment incidents illustrate how rapid escalation, unclear facts, and a lack of agreed-upon procedures produce destructive outcomes, including legal jeopardy and reputational harm. A more constructive pathway would combine prudent self-protection, careful documentation, mediated fact-finding, and a commitment to restorative practices consistent with Christian ethics and practical reasoning (Weston, 2011; Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:27-31, KJV).
Peace and Grace,
Lesallan
References:
Weston, A. (2011). A practical companion to ethics (4th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
King James Version. The Holy Bible. Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:27–31.
Explanation of how the above academic post came about:
To the Honorable Judge and the Prosecuting Attorney,
The issue that was less than positive was at my apartment in Aurora, MO, Fogle Drive—sitting, minding my own business, doing my schoolwork, when there was a knock upon my door. I opened the door, and a young guy was yelling and shouting about his sister. I had never seen this guy before, so I calmly asked him what he was speaking about. He says, “Stay away from my sister!” I am like, “I don’t know you or your sister. What are you talking about?” He was acting aggressively, so I grabbed the baseball bat I keep by the door, as this apartment building has gone straight to the dogs. The younger generation has replaced the quiet people who once resided here. In this town, the North has moved South. He tells his buddy, who was with him, to give me the gun. I immediately closed and locked the door. Next thing I know, the police (Aurora/Marionville) are knocking on the door. I told the police the same thing; I did not understand what he was talking about. Apparently, he called the police.
This stems back, I now know, to an incident when I called the police a few weeks earlier when I believed a domestic disturbance was happening across the hall. I heard screaming, shouting, and what I thought were slapping sounds. Shortly after the first incident, a second one occurred. I am out back by the pond on my patio, cleaning it up. Suddenly, this same guy comes around the corner with a golf club and heads straight for me, yelling and screaming again. I immediately went inside the screen door and made the statement, “Can we not discuss this in a peaceful manner like adults?” No results: the same yelling and derogatory language continued to spill from his mouth. I went all the way inside and closed the big door.
I am a basic recluse and have a fear of people (Anthropophobia) and social situations. I rarely come out of the apartment through the front door and spend my time in the back on the patio by the pond, where it is very secluded. I order most of my groceries from Walmart and have them delivered. On this particular day, I placed an order that arrived soon after the second incident. The delivery woman said the cops are out front. I signed for my delivery and then walked around the building from the rear door to see what was going on. Here is this guy talking with the police. My Christian senses were lost for a moment. Out of frustration, I flipped him off. Apparently, he called the police again (on himself; it should have been). Needless to say, the two officers came to my back door and asked me what was going on. I told them about the golf club and the previous issues. They asked why I did not call the police. Given my Christian set of ethics, I did not wish to stir up controversy or cause any problems. Turn the other cheek and all. If they ask for your shirt, give them your coat also. Love your neighbor as yourself. The police then left.
Shortly after, I received a summons to appear in municipal court on a charge of assault, a municipal ordinance violation. Apparently, their story is that I grabbed this girl and tried to kiss her on the cheek (never happened). This is still pending in the Aurora Municipal Court.
Using critical thinking and logical deduction, it can only be assumed that the individuals I reported to the police, as well as this person, are working together. First, the incident never happened. As an ordained minister attending a private Christian University, my ethical mindset would not permit such behavior. Unethical behavior as described would ruin my reputation and potentially jeopardize my future endeavors. The people I called the police on are the ones I share a slotted wooden fence with on our patios. These are the only people who could have told the guy I was outside. Who brings a gold club out to a pond if there are no bad intentions present? He only wanted to escalate the situation.
Ethically, I believe I was in the right. How about them? A revenge scheme was worked up in the minds of young people with nothing better to do. There is no productive discussion with this younger generation. I am 64 years old, retired, and disabled, a full-time university student with no time for this nonsense.
I respectfully submit this account for your consideration and ask that the facts be weighed carefully. The narrative that I forcibly grabbed or kissed anyone is false. I did not assault anyone. I acted to protect myself when confronted by aggressive and threatening behavior. I have sought to live by Christian ethics, to avoid escalation, and to treat neighbors with decency despite hostility. I ask that you consider the possibility that these events are retaliatory in nature and that the charges before the court rest on a false account.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Lesallan Bostron
Aurora, Missouri
