Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

12 August 2024

Need to speak the truth?

It has been pointed out to me that when someone tells me they need to speak ‘the truth’, I roll my eyes and grimace.

Let me offer some words to explain the meaning behind my pre-verbal expression.

Essentially, it communicates two questions: 'is it really true?' and 'is it kind to speak it?'

What is truth?

Truth is an ‘epistemic’ concept – which is a fancy way of saying it is about ‘knowing.’

Mostly when we say we ‘know’ something, we’re saying that we believe it to be true.

The truth however, is that ‘truth’ is decidedly difficult to pin down. That is, you may firmly believe it to be true, but whether it is or not is another matter.

For instance, when I was young, my mother would chide me for some misbehaviour, and as we were walking away from one another, she would say ‘And don’t roll your eyes’.

It was ‘true’ that I was rolling my eyes, but how did she know?

As a very young child, I believed that she had x-ray vision that allowed her to see backwards through both her tough head and mine and therefore, see what my eyes were doing.

As a louche youth, I believed that eye-rolling was my habitual and non-verbal way of expressing doubt about her judgment.

Which belief is true? My mother thinks it’s the first, I think it is the second.

We (the majority) generally believe it is true that humans have walked on the moon.

Now, without saying I doubt that it happened, I can admit that I was not there – and I’m almost certain you weren’t either. (Are you rolling your eyes?)

Perhaps it was faked? (Are you grimacing?)

To be clear, I do not think it likely that the moon landings were faked. But who knows what is true! I believe it is true that man walked on the moon. But I might be mistaken.

What should be spoken? (What is right action?)

Speaking – and in particular choosing what to say and what not to say – is an ‘ethical’ concept. That is to say, it is about how one behaves.

More generally, ethics is concerned with the question ‘what is right action?’ But here, I am focusing on the action we call speech: ‘what is the right thing to say?’

What is the right and wrong thing to say (and more generally do) is difficult to pin down. Maybe even more difficult that ‘what is true?’

The guiding principle for self-behavior is probably kindness. You know, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, ‘if you can’t say something kind, don’t say anything’, etc.

So what do you say to a child who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of Christmas Eve and the delivery of presents to the stocking at the bottom of her bed by Santa Claus?

You could start by asking whether Santa Claus is ‘true’. And most grown-ups believe he is a fiction. Or you could argue that he is a figure based on Saint Nicholas, or is the personification of God (and who knows whether He is true – eye rolls), or is a very real representation of the idea of altruism, kindness and anonymous gift-giving.

So let’s pass on the question of ‘the truth’.

What is the ‘kind’ thing to do?

To answer that question, we must consider the hearer and their needs and wants. What is the right thing to say might be better coloured by kindness than by what the speaker thinks is the truth.

To press on this point of kindness before truth, consider the dreaded question ‘Does my ass look big in this outfit?’

If ‘the truth’ for the responder is that their ass does look big, then the responder has been given an uninvited choice which is difficult: speak a lie to be kind or tell an unpleasant truth.

That is, the questioner (whose ass does look big in the outfit) has offered the responder a choice between a shit-sandwich and a crap-wrap!

In a sense, we can flip the same question back on the questioner: is it kind to ask this question 'does my ass look big?' – even if it is ‘true’ that the questioner wants to know?

Feel a need to speak the truth?

Maybe ask yourself:

  • is it really true? (Thank you Byron Katie!)

  • is it kind or considerate speak it?

To be more blunt, imagine you are confronted by an evangelist or fanatic who truly believes in the truth of X - where 'X' is a religious view, a political view, or some other cause they care deeply about. And they feel impelled to tell you ‘the truth’.

Did I just see you roll your eyes and grimace?

So you see and understand my point?

And if you do, then you probably recognise the irony of my whole defence.

My eye-roll plus grimace is me expressing disbelief about your belief. The truth is that I’m questioning what you think is ‘truth’. I’m claiming that truth is something that is squirly.

I’m also challenging whether you’re being kind – but yes, in an unkind way.

The truth is that the eye-roll expresses doubt, disageement, disapproval, dismissiveness, even disdain.

And so yes, in truth and in kindness, I probably should not roll my eyes and grimace.

I'm working on it!

--------------------

Eye-rolling and how to respond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyXW2L3VyyQ

A case for truth-telling – occasionally, in the right place and the right time: https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-varieties-of-travel-experience/articles/be-mean

29 July 2018

To do: nothing

"Just don't do it."

Just do nothing.

Ethics is the philosophy of action. So part of its domain surely therefore includes, the philosophy of inaction.

And this is a defence of doing nothing.

But there's so much to be done!

How can I defend inaction in a world with so many inequalities and injustices that plague our lives?

My answer? For precisely that reason! Precisely because so many are raging at inevitable inequalities and injustices which will forever plague our lives.

17 April 2015

Vaccinate or don't - it won't hurt much either way

Is there a middle ground in the debate on vaccines?
The debate about whether to apply more coercive pressure to vaccinate such as the ['no jab no pay' policy] is being clouded by polarised polemic.

Each side appeals to a reasonably valid ethical claim: pro-vaccination to the public good, anti-vaccination to individual rights.  However, these ethical claims sometimes seem to serve vested self-interest rather than public interest. Moreover, that self-interest reflects an over-estimation of the relative risks to health of vaccination and non-vaccination respectively. 


03 May 2014

Flying high: sexism, paternalism and sheer idiocracy

What are the dangers to a kid flying alone ?
Airline policies and parents concerned about allowing unaccompanied minors to be seated next to men make a travesty of both reason and justice.

That this fear feeds paternalistic policy and parental concerns is ludicrous.

If you send your child unaccompanied on a plane, your child has more chance of dying in a plane crash than being molested!

Tracey Spicer, journalist and Sky News anchor has recently affirmed her support of this controversial airline policy saying “I don’t want my kids sitting next to a man on a plane.”

Her statement is, as she admits, sexist. It most certainly is, but my major issue is that it is patently wrong and misleading.

It is said that we use only 10% of our brain, that 20% of statistics are made up, and the remaining 90% of the population aren’t any good at proportions.

28 November 2012

The risks of immunisation & implications for social marketers

 

Social marketers confront some extra ethical challenges that do not confront commercial marketers.

When you are given a medication by a doctor, you get to read all about the possible side-effects and decide on whether the benefits offset the risks.

When the medication is a vaccination, the same freedom of choice for the individual is more restricted.  An individual decision to not vaccinate may attract criticism, ridicule and even rage.

Yet, vaccinations can be harmful to your health.  Admittedly rare, but when it happens, someone (maybe you, maybe your child) 'takes one for the team.'

This is a tough space.  Public health and social marketers are therefore obliged to tackle the difficult space defined by what is 'good for all' on one side and an individual's right to choose on the other.

------------------------------

See this article at The Conversation covering this issue.
http://theconversation.edu.au/preaching-to-the-unconverted-immunisation-risks-and-public-health-11007