How Do We Keep Honesty? (part I)
Originally posted January 2004
Thanks to Bob, Lou, George, Eric, & Ian, who helped make this a better article.
I also extend an (admittedly somewhat grudging) ‘thank you’ to life in general — were I not exposed to the bad as well as the good, I would not be able to try constantly to improve myself. Sometimes it’s very hard, or not much fun, but I think (I hope!) it’s worth it to keep trying.
Michelangelo’s motto works best for this, I think:
“Ancora Imparo“
(Still I am learning)
In the study of philosophy there are classic questions used to help determine the nature of truth. These include issues such as if it is wrong to use the “placebo effect,” or to lie to save the life of another. Most of those are answered, at least to my satisfaction, in Sissela Bok’s excellent book Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life.
Philosophy is extremely useful for defining, clarifying, and arranging the broad parameters of belief in one’s life. However, it’s when philosophy slams up hard against reality that you discover if your ideas can withstand the test of real life. Recently I’ve observed a few such, um… impacts, up close and personal — and it’s made me review my personal philosophy, in order to make sure it’s standing up to the test of real life.
In order to conduct any experiment (verbal, physical, or otherwise), it helps to define one’s terms first, then lay out the experiment’s parameters — or in this case, state the questions being asked. After that one can examine the data in light of those questions, and finally a conclusion is drawn. For scientific accuracy, repeatability is also important, so if anyone applies my conclusions to their life experiences, I’d be quite interested in the results.
Defining Terms
I want to discuss potential aspects of lying, so first I need to define what is honesty and what is a lie.
Honesty consists of sticking to the truth and avoiding lies or falsehood. It does not include (at least for purposes of this article) telling the absolute truth because you know it will hurt another. An example of this sort of non-honesty would be the above philosophical question, as to whether it is wrong to lie in order to save the life of another.
Kant would have one believe this sort of lie is reprehensible. More pragmatic philosophers suggest that kind of lie is commendable, or at worst forgivable. I happen to agree with the more pragmatic philosophers, in this case. A self-righteous ‘honesty’ achieved at the cost of the life of another, just to assuage Kant’s definition of truth, is no honesty at all, in my book.
Another example of this unkind type of pseudo-honesty is the gossipy person who tells you something painful, which they know will hurt you, “for your own good, dear!” That’s crap — it’s never for your good. It’s because they’re thoughtless, or for their malicious titillation, or to assuage their conscience at the cost of your peace of mind, or something else similar… but never truly for your good.
So, for the purposes of this article, honesty will be defined as: sticking to the truth — but not for self-aggrandizement, and not at the cost of the self-respect of another.
Lying is equivalent to being a vector for non-truth; a meme for falsehood. For the purposes of this article, therefore, I’m going to define lying as: deliberately promoting falsehood.
Update (12.03.04):
As noted by Eric (a scarily smart friend), my definitions of lying are really only feasible if applied between adults, and within this particular culture. I find this unsurprising, since I don’t have much to do with children in my daily life, and must live within this culture — but it bears noting nevertheless.
There was a time when the word “philosopher” had religious connotations.
Then again, it’s frequently argued that an absence of any kind of religion leads to an absence of any kind of morality. This viewpoint was popular in the anti-communist heydeys.
I would think religious philosophy would make sense at the time of its inception, since culturally then one looked to the gods for guidance and leadership in all things, yes? It’s an unfortunate truism that texts tend to be destroyed by the ravages of time and jealous rivalries, of course. Still, as far as I’ve read there were very few (if any) Greeks who had, as Pierre Simon de Laplace famously put it, “no need of that hypothesis.”
This, combined with your second statement, raises an interesting possibility: what of a sort of Gnostic secularism? If religion and spirituality were believed to be personal quests for knowledge, would a spiritual science be a logical result? I’m reminded of Ada Byron King, Countess of Lovelace’s comment in a letter to her mother, “You will not concede me philosophical poetry. Invert the order! Will you give me poetical philosophy, poetical science?” Would that sort of poetically reflective science be a more holistic endeavor, with the gnosis-seeking scientists perhaps giving more thought to the potential applications of their discoveries? I’d love to see that.
Then again, I’ve always found ridiculous the assertion that morality is by definition confined within religion. If the various religions are still squabbling (often violently) about whose invisible friend is the greatest, how on earth can I choose which one to turn to, to define morality for me? Further, considering the many hideous abuses “organized” religion has perpetrated on humankind throughout history, I can only conclude they feel their definition of moral behavior should be extended only to those they consider “theirs” — an immoral and deeply flawed assertion, to my way of thinking.
If I ever find an organized religion which recognizes the intrinsic worth of all life — even life which is not a tithe-paying member of its church — then I’ll consider joining. Until then I’ll continue as an irreligious but perhaps spiritual individual, in my search for both gnosis and morality. If nothing else, it’s an interesting journey. :)
This definition, like many, benifits from a happy medium: not rigid, and capable of discussion and debate not just in generalities, but when specific instances arise. Most encounters and conflicts are always situational, and it is therefore important to keep philosophies fluid in most respects, just as it is with honesty.