In response to this post, a few comments talked about how honesty is a virtue. That it can't be a vice. My opinion is that "a virtue is simply a form of systematized behaviour that helps one to live life in the way one wants to", a means to an end. A vice is simply something which doesn't help the cause.
So let's suss this out.
Claim - Virtues can't be vices.
Counterclaim - Virtues are relative. Or, they can be vices depending on the "climate"[1].
One of the first interesting puzzles that one comes across in logical reasoning[2] is the "door-puzzle". A popular version of it goes like this - you're a prisoner awaiting execution. In front of you are two doors, a sentry guarding each door. One door leads to freedom, the other leads to death. The guards know which door leads where. You also know that one of the guards lies. But you neither know which door will keep you alive or which guard speaks the truth. You are allowed to ask only one question to one guard. What question will you ask? And which door will you choose based on the answer?
The key to solving the problem is consistency[3]; that the guards won't deviate from their behaviour; that both the guards are capable of virtuous behaviour based on their own moral code; that you can use your understanding of their moral code to your advantage.
What if the guard who speaks the truth speaks a different kind of truth? A truth which believes that the prisoner (who is actually guilty of theft) should be punished, that the guilty should not escape. According to that truth, he would actually lie (so that the prisoner chooses the wrong door and dies) but still speak the truth. What if the guard who lies believes in a different kind of truth? A truth which believes that theft is a demonstration of superior physical and mental ability. According to that truth, he would actually speak the truth (in terms of the doors) but still lie (if lying meant any act that helped the guilty escape).
I hope you are thoroughly confused now.
The point is, in the problem -
1. Dishonesty is a virtue as much as honesty is. That is if one looked upon a virtue as defined in the counterclaim.
2. Dishonesty is the opposite of honesty.
3. So what we are essentially looking at is something like -
Let's assume that, as per the claim, A is a virtue and A' is a vice.
Therefore,
A' = (!A) {inverse of A}
But as per the problem,
A' = A {the argument that lying/dishonesty is a form of truth in itself}
=> A = (!A) [4]
Or, if A can be a virtue, A can be a vice as well.
The problem with terms such as virtue, vice, truth, lies etc is that these are all dependent on the prevailing moral climate. The virtue (pun intended) of reading Nietzsche is that he awakens you to questioning the basic premise of society as it exists today -- why should the weakest survive? Why should the strong have to relinquish their strengths just to fit in with society? Protecting the weakest is the basic rallying call of society today. And honesty -- as a virtue -- is based around defending the weak. Defending the weak then becomes the way society wants to "live its life", and honesty is a form of "systematized behaviour" to achieve that. If society were to focus its efforts towards ensuring the survival of the fittest (fittest in any form), then the form of honesty required in such a society would be different. Why did the SS thrive during the Nazi regime? Why was betraying the Jews seen as honesty? Were they all so brainwashed? I don't think so. Just that almost all of them believed in the moral code which Hitler espoused.
To conclude, 'honesty' is just a term to denote a form of behaviour which helps society achieve its goals. What is important to note -- and think about -- is that there is no intrinsic value difference between protecting the weakest and ensuring the survival of the fittest[5]. They are simply two different ways of organizing society, each with its own arguments.
1 Climate being moral, social and political
2 A certain three-lettered exam should come to mind right now4 "A is A" anybody?
5 Which is why I will always consider Pudhupettai a fabulous movie.
Posts
4 comments:
Dei start writing stories and poems again da. Ohh and as an aside - Robert Pirsig thought too much and ended up in a mental hospital :))))
karthik
:) ... yeah, but then there were a lot of other people who didn't.
Poems and stories -- when I get the time :(
good post..
Though, I felt that you were exploring more than concluding on anything.. But the tone then abruptly shifted to a conclusion.. Was it an inherant need for a conclusion? Or did you feel that any argument must 'logically' conclude?
As for the door puzzle, I wouldnt categorize the gaurd's conviction/perception as his "truth". Its probably his comfort zone, something that defines the 'climate' and is defined by the 'climate'.
Your foot note reminds me of the one of the rare discussions I had with a common friend of ours that ended amicably.
Ah! the premises...The ultimate 42 of life :)
~such~
The idea was to present the issues at stake without trying to sell one's argument, and then having presented the issues, to try and see if I would take the same path to the same conclusion. I find that even if one deosn't conclude, one must be very clear about what it is that one hasn't decided about and why it is that one has refrained from concluding. One must have the intellectual honesty to accept a right conclusion even if it goes against one's grain. Often the undecided people I run across are those who refuse to change after having been confronted with ample evidence and a solid argument.
As for your opinion on the problem, I agree. To each his own. Which is why talk about honesty being a rigid virtue is short-sighted.
And I can guess quite easily which footnote and which friend :-)
Post a Comment