On radical honesty, and other confounding problems in ethics
Lying is inherently bad, as we were taught when young. Trust is what binds societies together; without which currency notes or even languages have no existence. Being honest is a good attribute, but the question that has perplexed me so long is how far. A trend these days is to be brutally or radically honest in all realms of life.
Consider a situation in which a coworker of yours have a workplace affair and you know it. Would you be brutally honest and share the info with his or her spouse? Of course, ramifications would be profound; in a sense that your ‘brutal honesty’ could break a relationship apart. Another situation, you are a scientist at a defence research institute; would you be brutally honest to outsiders and ‘leak’ the internal secrets? Consider yet another scientist who is working on bioactivity assessment of plant extracts. He softly massages the data by cherrypicking results that confirm to the conclusion that he wanted to present, that the extracts are significantly bioactive. Yet another situation, you witness a crime or corruption; would you be brutally honest and inform the authorities, or you rather assume a stance of being silent? Edward Snowden famously said:
“When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals”.
“Silence in the face of evil itself is an evil”
declared German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A few months ago, one tribal man named Madhu was prosecuted in public by a group of a charged mob for a petty crime of shoplifting groceries in Kerala. The mob assaulted and brutally killed him attracting wide protests in social media and elsewhere. Among many who lamented the murder on Facebook include Malayalam film superstar, a sensational post with millions of likes and shares. Equally, a viral post surfaced in no time, criticising Mammootty to be selective with his lamentations; why did he keep quiet when members of one political party got murdered ruthlessly? Where did his conscience go at that time? It looks like you will be blamed for the things you won’t say as well.
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.”
said German theologian Martin Luther.
Of course, brutal honesty is not at all welcomed in most social situations. People are inherently averse to criticisms. Negativity bias is a well known cognitive bias in which we are a lot more affected by negative things than positive things. Even if you gain 10000 rupees through mutual funds if you lost a wallet containing 500 rupees will linger in your thoughts for a long time ( loss aversion ). Chances are high that critical comments, even if intended to improve persons or organizations, would be treated with negativity and suspicion; no one likes to be criticised. However, the lack of straightforwardness affects an organization utterly and at every level. Feedbacks need to be candid even if ‘truth hurts’. Plato said:
“No one is more hated than the one who speaks the truth.”
His student, Aristotle, said something equally profound satirically:
“to avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing and be nothing”.
Does that mean you should keep quiet and let the system get rotten? Won’t you be blamed for the silence, like what Martin Luther said?
Is it all about finding the sweet spot between brutally honest and stoically silent; finding the ‘just right’ amount of honesty? Not too much, not too little, but just right, like Swedish word (in moderation), or Goldilocks Principle? Perhaps not. Take, for example, is murder inherently unethical? You might say yes; killing another human is wrong. What if that killing is done by the state itself? A soldier killing another soldier across the border, or an executioner enforcing capital punishment in prison gallows. How about children signing informed consent to remove life-support for their parent, in effect, killing the parent instantaneously? How about a doctor administering euthanasia, mercy killing? Or consider the famous Trolley Problem of ethics:
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options: 1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice?
Of course, there is no right answer to the above problems; ethics is in fact highly subjective. Is it morally wrong that we drink a cow’s milk, which was for its calf? Won’t you consider you are stealing it from the calf? How ethical is killing other animals for eating it? Is opting for an abortion, eating a chicken egg or eating fruit all equally ethically wrong? Is masturbation self-rape, as frequently warned by religious organizations? Do you agree with Texas conservative politician Jessica Ferrar that masturbation is an act against unborn child and vote to impose $100 fine?
Honesty falls under ethics and like the rest of the other problems in ethics, honesty, too, is subjective and complicated. I consider honesty as a system; it is neither good nor bad but is situational. A postmodern stance, indeed. Honesty depends upon situations and is entirely upon us to act according to our core values, virtues and principles. And, of course, that act, like rest of our acts, judgements and decisions, is under the influence of our subconscious cognitive biases, logical fallacies and mental heuristics. Even choosing the very decision to exercise brutal honesty or not itself is an artefact, as free-will is an illusion.
By the way, moral compass indeed hurts.
“A philosopher’s school, man, is a doctor’s surgery. You shouldn’t leave after having had an enjoyable time, but after having been subjected to pain.” — Epictetus in Discourses.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Why not initiate a discussion by commenting below?
