Here is something I am pondering but also that I think society is pondering at a number of levels...
I pose these as a number of questions.
Is it better to believe/know the truth or a non truth?
This one seems simple... the truth is a pretty high value fairly universally in our context.
Is it better to believe/know the truth because of a non truth or to believe a non truth because of truth?
To state it again: Which is preferable truth base on something false or something false based on truth?
Another question along these lines would be is it better to be right or to be rational?
Ok so now we add an interpersonal dimension.
Does non truth need to be corrected?
Probably a fairly simple agreement from most people...
Who is it more important to correct: Mr. Wrong Conclusion or Mr. Wrong Premise?
To place this in a faith context: would you destroy someone's faith over a false premise?
Would you tell a lie to convince someone of the truth?
I think these are harder and more complex questions than we think.
Obviously truth and non truth are often not easy to separate or discern... However this is in part why some of these questions arise...
Our society seems to be thematically repeating the idea that society needs to believe a lie to function... That order requires a certain amount of deceit. Batman: The Dark Night in particular highlights this. But I've noticed it come up in a few other things and contexts recently... (sorry I am failing to recall specifics).
Anyway, I would love to have some dialogue about this... It is particularly the value judgement that I find fascinating...
Certainly for The Dark Knight I would have expressed it as: "Society will function *better* if it has good symbols/myths/heroes/ideals to hang onto". That's a little more nuanced than "*needs* *lies* to function (at all)".
ReplyDeleteThe remaining conundrum, in the movies context, is that the story of the hero being proposed, would be, at least in part, untrue.
I think my rewording has a lot of truth in it. Without ideals to guide it a society will lose its way. And ideals are often most powerfully and memorably expressed in stories.
The difficulty arises in holding up actual people as embodying such ideals. This will always, in the end, fail, because people all have flaws. So, I think the remaining question, in this particular context, is how you treat "heroes". Should *anyone* be made a hero (because they will always, eventually fail). But without *any* actual heroes, how will the ideals seem believable? Can we make "nuanced" heroes? Ones that inspire in some limited sphere, while, at the same time, realizing that in other spheres, or over time, they will fail. Can that be done? Would it be useful?
Trite answer I realize, but I think its just better to be honest regardless of the consequences. I don't think this mean you share every secret someone has confided in you. There are things I know about my friends and my wife that that want don't want the whole world to know. But I don't think you have to lie or communicate a non truth. to do that. In every other matter though Honesty is better - because honestly convays trust.
ReplyDeleteImladris,
ReplyDeleteFair comment. I tried to avoid using the word lie through most of the post but succumbed to its rhetorical effect in that last section. There is some literary theory regarding hero stories vs carrier bag stories i.e. the mammoth slayer vs the strawberry picker... I think the question do we need heroes/hero stories to be very interesting and how do we create/allow them. Are they as necessary and helpful as we suggest or do they tend to play into status quo power dynamics... I think that we think that they encourage us to be bold and courageous... but do they really?
Dan,
I don't think arguing for honesty is trite although I'm not sure it answers the questions I'm grappling with... I like what you say about honesty conveying trust. How much trust are we called to with everyone. Certainly, one can be overly trusting... Where does omitting truth fit ethically? There are often situations where I omit thoughts or opinions for fear of rejection (fear which may or may not be warranted). At what point do I become "dishonest"? and at what point do we wind up in ridiculous legalism?
Part of this line of questioning would be in regards to religious discussion...
Do I have more respect for the atheist earnestly pursuing truth to the best of their abilities? Or the Christian who is deliberately and dogmatically ignorant? (clearly I am making value judgements and showing my bias in the way I pose the hypothetical question) But to push it further and more personally: Would it be better for me to be an earnest atheist or a skeptical christian? Is a Christian whose faith is founded on all the wrong reasons actually Christian? Would you rather wake up to discover all of your reasoning wrong but you conclusions correct? or all your reasoning correct but conclusions incorrect (either for lack of knowledge or faulty information)?
I asked would you tell a lie to convince someone of the truth...
What if I rephrase it to would you share a potentially suspect/certainly uncertain piece of information to convince them of something that you are certain about? Would you tell a true story? Can true stories be used to suggest untruths? I think this is an obvious yes. So we run into the conundrum that lying is not merely about what is said but also what is unsaid and what is implied for all of these things are communication. So therefore communicating with integrity must in some fashion be more complex than a rule about lying... but this is off topic from my focus of whether we should value results or process.
are held accountable for actions, results or intentions? or all three? is there a scale here?
ReplyDeleteI have no answers, but am loving the questions. I simply offer my life as an example.
ReplyDeleteMy average day does not consist of these questions. My days at the present might be considered mundane, however, even in my current situation I am finding myself dealing with some of these questions. Specifically telling a lie, in order to get nearer to the truth.
Let me give an example. At work I sometimes discuss theology with a co-worker. I enjoy it, I think he appreciates it too. The only problem is the vast difference in the amount of time we have spent pondering such questions. As we talk we often end up sharing different opinions. Mine, which I of course think are nearer to the truth, and his. But in order to change his mind I need to wrestle past the vast gulf between us. I have found myself pushing things (ideas and concepts) much more logically (specifically with binary choices)than I normally would, and in doing so choose the lie of rationality to move conversations in the direction I think they should move. This process, for me, is an exercise in lying. I lie because I think the out come, even if reached through means that I disagree with, is better than the "wrong" that was began with and has now been corrected.
It is almost like playing by the rules (of rationality) to achieve some change, rather than attempting to re-write the rules (to what I think is closer to the truth) for a person who is not at a point where re-writing the rules is beneficial.
That is my life, but on the other hand, and ideally, I value pursuing the truth more than the outcome. So taking Duncan's example of the honestly searching atheist or the dogmatic Christian. I would take the Atheist 100% of the time. Once again I seem to have a split in my own thinking, ideals and practice, maybe one day they will line up.
>are we held accountable for actions, results or intentions? or all three? is there a scale here?
ReplyDeleteOff hand I'd be inclined to say we can reasonably be held accountable (by God, by the law or anyone) for intentions and actions. These two things are entirely within our control.
Results are the grey area. Off hand, again, I'd be inclined to say one can be held accountable for results to the extent that they were reasonably foreseeable.
Imladris:
ReplyDeleteI think your response that results are a grey area is fascinating. I say this because of our propensity to, in hindsight, consider particular results inevitable and consider particular people directly responsible and therefore celebrate or condemn them... This seems incredibly common... However, as you suggest results are a grey area and there is never a single cause responsible for a particular result rather a milieu of events and actions combine to create reality... Our society generaly cares almost exclusively about results. The phrase "you can't argue with success" captures this well.