I am still thinking about truth and what makes truth. A couple of posts ago I noted context and then said very little about that; this is a difficult area for me. I am an ethical pragmatist: I believe in being honest but do not believe that everybody is entitled to the absolute truth. OK, if your head is spinning as much as mine as I read that last line, we are on the same page. It seems like a contradiction, I know. I have to say that I do not believe in absolute ethical imperatives; while I am not a pure situationalist, I do believe that we/I have to consider the context and how truth will be used before it can be told.
- Consider the madman who demands to know where your children are so he may kill them. You know his intent. He is capable and will continue, as he is intent upon the death of your kids. Is he entitled to the truth?
- Consider the politician that wants to be reelected and alters the facts of his or her history. Is that person entitled to change the truth?
- Consider the physician who knows that your condition is extremely serious, but tells you that you stand a good chance to recover because the doctor knows that your attitude is central to your body's recovery process. Is that an acceptable lie?
What are the acceptable limits - if any - for a deception? I don't think that it is an issue of personal comfort, indeed the good is rarely comfortable. I think that the end is vital in understanding what can and should be said. What affirms life? What makes possible the best outcome for the most people? Certainly, there are situations that call for deception, war being the most obvious. But it seems to me that war is immoral by its very nature.
I think that there are times when deception is the best choice, but those times are few and far between. I do not think that it is a case of self-justification. The guy who does not tell his spouse that he is sleeping with somebody else because he will be divorced if she finds out is engaging in a lie, pure and simple. Why? Because he is breaking faith with his spouse. There is a promise made. Ignoring the promise is a reprehensible action. Deception to conceal the action is even more so.
So much to consider... and I, like Winnie the Pooh, am a bear of very little brain.
Writing sometime later in the day...
What about not telling the whole truth? Omitting details or not declaring intention to conceal intent? "You didn't ask, so it's not a lie..." What is the role of candor in the discussion? I tend to think that concealing by omission is not of the same order as concealment by deception, inclusive of the deception that there is not more information that is germane. This is the sort of lie upon which our legal system is built, I'm afraid.
More basic to that question, indeed the questions referenced above, is the utlization of the truth. The moral question in the classic scenario of the madman intent on doing harm is whether a lesser evil is justified to assure a greater good. To what ends will the truth be used? If truth becomes a tool of "evil" does it remain truth or is a distortion of facts more congruent with the ideal of truth? Finally, the question of definition is central. The President of our nation lied. This is nothing new; sadly, it is expected that our leaders will deceive us. The President lied in order to prosecute a war in Iraq. Thousands of people have died - and continue doing so - in a war that was predicated not on a clear and present danger that required immediate and forceful action, but the lies of a political leader. Some people observe that the capture of a dictator justified the means of making war on a false pretense. Did he lie? Most assuredly.
