Moral Dilemma #2

[Betsy Speicher 0]

A friend or acquaintance has just asked you a very personal question (about your love life, an embarrassing health condition, etc.). You really don't want to answer it, but you feel obligated to say something.

What do you do?

[Elizabeth 0]

What do you do?

←

I would ask them why they ask.

Generally people do not ask personal questions unless somehow it relates to something they are experiencing. Depending on my relationship with the individual I would help them find the answer to the question they are looking for.

I would not be obliged to discuss myself, however.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

"I'd rather not talk about that" ... "Sorry, that's private" ... something like that.

I also like Elizabeth's idea of asking why they want to know.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Be concrete enough to give them a general idea but vague enough to conceal the aspects you don't want them to know.

[chrissandvick 0]

I really don't have a lot of secrets from my closest friends so I would probably answer it. Since they usually know me pretty well they often have insight on something that is bothering me well I before I recognize it.

If it was an acquaintance I would just tell them they we don't know each other well enough to answer that.

[Inspector 0]

I would ask them why they ask. 

←

That's the key. They would have to provide an objective reason for why they need to know. Supposing it's a disease, then they might be asking because they fear they have the same disease and want to know the symptoms. Then details might need to be given.

If, however, they are just wondering how my health is, then I can give them a satisfying answer without details, such as "I am fine" or "It's taking its toll."

[Janet_Busch 0]

A friend or acquaintance has just asked you a very personal question (about your love life, an embarrassing health condition, etc.).  You really don't want to answer it, but you feel obligated to say something.

What do you do?

←

My answer would depend on whether it was a close friend or a mere acquaintance. Elizabeth's "Why do you ask?" is usually my first response. However, I never feel obligated to answer any question, in the context provided, just because it is asked.

Why do you classify this question as a moral dilemma?

[JRoberts 0]

A friend or acquaintance has just asked you a very personal question (about your love life, an embarrassing health condition, etc.).  You really don't want to answer it, but you feel obligated to say something.

What do you do?

←

To a friend (which I would take to mean someone pretty close to me)-I would change the focus from me to the actual issue by asking them what exactly they mean by their question-or what exactly they are getting at. I have noticed that most of the time when people do this, they are actually wanting to speak about an issue and seek to 'relate' to you in some way.

To an acquaintance, it would depend upon the situation. However, most of the time I would just say in an easy tone, "Why would you want to know?" (Not as offensive). If I understood their intentions, then I would judge the situation and respond accordingly.

[ADS 0]

A friend or acquaintance has just asked you a very personal question (about your love life, an embarrassing health condition, etc.).  You really don't want to answer it, but you feel obligated to say something.

What do you do?

←

It depends on what the question is and who is asking; for example, it makes a big difference (at least for me) whether it is a friend or an acquiantance. But, to offer a novel solution: under the right circumstances, I think one could at least make the argument that it would be proper to answer the question, but lie. Quoting Dr. Peikoff from OPAR:

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie.  For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers.

I've always wondered what exactly Dr. Peikoff had in mind here. But I can imagine a case in which someone asks you a very personal, "Yes or No" question, such that -- not only would giving the true answer give away your privacy -- but any attempt to elude or dodge the question would also essentially give away what the actual answer to the question is. Under this kind of circumstance, I think it is at least plausible to maintain that one should lie to protect one's privacy (but I'm quite interested in hearing an argument to the contrary, since I'm not certain).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But I can imagine a case in which someone asks you a very personal, "Yes or No" question, such that -- not only would giving the true answer give away your privacy -- but any attempt to elude or dodge the question would also essentially give away what the actual answer to the question is.

I have heard this said, but I have never heard an example of such a question that would necessarily be revealing. Have you seen Rod Lurie's film The Contender? A fascinating drama that deals explicitly with this issue.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

(U)nder the right circumstances, I think one could at least make the argument that it would be proper to answer the question, but lie.  Quoting Dr. Peikoff from OPAR:

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie.  For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers.

I can't imagine doing that because:

1. In non-force initiated situations, I don't think it is ever "necessary" to lie. If the questioner is a sensitive person, a simple, "That's personal," or "I'd rather not talk about it," usually suffices. If the questioner is aggressively prying, a shocked and embarrassingly loud "Why would you EVER ask a personal question like THAT!" puts him in his place.

2. Telling any lie puts me at odds with reality, leads to living in fear of the truth being discovered, etc. It's not worth it.

3. I am a terribly inept liar.

[JRoberts 0]

It depends on what the question is and who is asking; for example, it makes a big difference (at least for me) whether it is a friend or an acquiantance.  But, to offer a novel solution: under the right circumstances, I think one could at least make the argument that it would be proper to answer the question, but lie.  Quoting Dr. Peikoff from OPAR:

I've always wondered what exactly Dr. Peikoff had in mind here. But I can imagine a case in which someone asks you a very personal, "Yes or No" question, such that -- not only would giving the true answer give away your privacy -- but any attempt to elude or dodge the question would also essentially give away what the actual answer to the question is.  Under this kind of circumstance, I think it is at least plausible to maintain that one should lie to protect one's privacy (but I'm quite interested in hearing an argument to the contrary, since I'm not certain).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that you should try to discern the intentions of the person who asked you the question. If it is harmful to you (ie. credit card theft as a broad example), then I think that it would be moral to lie. However, if it is non harmful-or if it is not malicious in nature-then I don't think it would be proper to lie. If someone asks you a personal question and is not trying to harm you, then I think what Betsy suggested would be more than appropriate to handle the situation.

[Janet_Busch 0]

Why do you classify this question as a moral dilemma?

←

I asked this question because it didn't dawn on me that one would answer with a lie! That certainly adds a moral dimension.

There are very few instances where I would even consider lying about a personal question. Unless, of course, answering "I'm fine" to "How are you feeling?" would be considered a lie if I'm not well. For me, this question is personal, but no one but a friend would ask it as anything other than the usual courtesy, or opening question. I think it is better to decline to answer at all rather than offer a lie.

[ADS 0]

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie.  For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers.

I can't imagine doing that...

I guess I'm the only one so far that is in agreement with that quote from Dr. Peikoff, so let me try to flesh this out a bit. I'm still not certain of my position, but the following are my current (and admittedly provocative) thoughts on this issue.

First of all, I think there clearly are situations where a question is necessarily revealing. If your parents ask you point-blank if you’re homosexual, and you in fact are (or you yourself think that you might be), it seems practically impossible how you could avoid the question and yet not give away the fact that the answer isn’t a straightforward “No.” This is not to say that I think this is a case where you should lie, but it is to say that there is such a phenomenon as someone asking you a question where the questioner is going to be given a pretty good idea of what the answer is unless you do lie.

And what I’m saying is that this kind of thing can happen in situations where you are being asked to reveal an extremely private fact that the asker of the question has no moral right to know -- or to even be given a suspicion about. If a coworker decides to tell you that she is going to have an abortion, and asks you if you have ever had an abortion, and you did in fact have a very emotionally painful one a long time ago, it’s not at all clear how this question isn’t also necessarily revealing. If you try to say that that is a personal (and thus improper) question, it becomes transparent that you probably did have an abortion at one time.

I’ve been witness to situations exactly like this, and no matter how crafty the person tried to be to get out of answering the question -- no matter how much the person tried to chastise the questioner for even asking -- everyone within earshot walked away suspecting that the answer to the question probably wasn't a simple "No." A listener will even sometimes say out loud, expressing an actual sentiment, "Well, I guess we all know what their answer to the question is." And I submit that this kind of actual suspicion (never mind near-certainty) on the part of the listeners is exactly what one has a moral right to protect oneself against. Your privacy should not be able to be violated simply because another person chose to ask the wrong question in the wrong context.

So, the bottom line is: if someone puts you, through no fault of your own, in a situation where you either lie or for all practical purposes give away an ultra-personal fact about yourself, I think it makes sense that you would just choose to lie. You would not be lying in order to gain a value, but only in order to protect a legitimate value (i.e., your privacy) that you have no other real means to protect. (And observe that this distinction between lying to gain a value and to protect a value is fairly central to how one validates lying to criminals (see OPAR, p. 275-276).)

2. Telling any lie puts me at odds with reality, leads to living in fear of the truth being discovered, etc.  It's not worth it.

But my contention is that it sometimes is worth it: both to protect oneself from criminals and from "snoopers," and for the same essential reasons. (Also, I don't think you're "at odds with reality" if you're lying to protect a legitimate value -- not in any fundamental sense anyway. Some lies are acts of upholding "the good and the true" (OPAR, p. 275).)

3.  I am a terribly inept liar.

←

And I'm also terribly inept at trying to extricate myself from a point-blank, too-personal question without lying. But I'd get a lot better at either if I knew that it was the proper way to protect my values.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

First of all, I think there clearly are situations where a question is necessarily revealing.

But as I indicated previously, no one has ever detailed an example of this for me which, in fact, was necessarily revealing. I see nothing wrong with responding to all of the examples you give with a "That's a personal matter that I do not want to discuss," or "I am not comfortable talking about things like that," etc.

In what way is a response like that "necessarily revealing?"

[ADS 0]

But as I indicated previously, no one has ever detailed an example of this for me which, in fact, was necessarily revealing. I see nothing wrong with responding to all of the examples you give with a "That's a personal matter that I do not want to discuss," or "I am not comfortable talking about things like that," etc.

In what way is a response like that "necessarily revealing?"

←

I would say that it is necessarily revealing because, in the question-asker's context, the most likely (or even the only plausible) reason why you'd give those kinds of responses is because the answer to the question is "Yes." This strikes me as most clear in the homosexuality example I gave. If a parent asked their 30 year-old son if he was homosexual, and he refused to discuss it, would this not engender in the parent a strong suspicion (or, in some contexts, near-certainty) that he is in fact homosexual? I just don't see how it wouldn't.

Or, take the abortion example I constructed. I'll add some additional context to make it more convincing. Let's call the woman who is trying to protect her privacy "Jane." Imagine if Jane had previously said other personal things to the coworker, such as: "Yes, I do think it's a good idea to talk to your children about sex; I did." Or: "Did you hear about that vicious father who molested his children? Thank God I have great, loving parents." In this context, if the coworker asks Jane if she's had an abortion, when Jane has been (completely rationally) forthcoming about those other facts, Jane's suddenly trying to reject the abortion question as improper is unfortunately going to "blow her cover," whether Jane likes it or not. In the coworker's mind, whether Jane had an abortion is not a priori more personal than if her parents molested her -- so when Jane is forthcoming about one and elusive about the other, I'm afraid the context gives away the fact that the reason why Jane is treating them as fundamentally different questions is because they have fundamentally different answers.

Granted, I'm not saying that the question-asker in either of these contexts is necessarily given certainty about what the answer is, but I just don't see why they wouldn't at the very least conclude that the answer is most likely "Yes." And, again, I think one has a moral right to not give other people a very good idea as to the nature of one's most personally private experiences.

[CoireFox 0]

In what way is a response like that "necessarily revealing?"

I would say that I am mostly good at telling whether or not someone is lying. There are certain things that a person does that give away the fact that something has struck a chord with them. When I was younger(around 12), I was once asked by some classmates if I liked a certain girl while one of her friends was in our company. The first thing I did was blush, then I said no, but of course everyone knew I was lying, because of the blush and my subsequent body language.

[ADS 0]

Have you seen Rod Lurie's film The Contender? A fascinating drama that deals explicitly with this issue.

←

In the flurry of my attempts to give the best possible case for my position, I've neglected to answer this question! And the answer is: no, I haven't seen it, but since I find this issue fascinating I really should watch it. It's now on my list.

[Janet_Busch 0]

I would say that it is necessarily revealing because, in the question-asker's context, the most likely (or even the only plausible) reason why you'd give those kinds of responses is because the answer to the question is "Yes."  This strikes me as most clear in the homosexuality example I gave.  If a parent asked their 30 year-old son if he was homosexual, and he refused to discuss it, would this not engender in the parent a strong suspicion (or, in some contexts, near-certainty) that he is in fact homosexual?  I just don't see how it wouldn't.

Or, take the abortion example I constructed.  I'll add some additional context to make it more convincing.  Let's call the woman who is trying to protect her privacy "Jane."  Imagine if Jane had previously said other personal things to the coworker, such as: "Yes, I do think it's a good idea to talk to your children about sex; I did."  Or: "Did you hear about that vicious father who molested his children?  Thank God I have great, loving parents."  In this context, if the coworker asks Jane if she's had an abortion, when Jane has been (completely rationally) forthcoming about those other facts, Jane's suddenly trying to reject the abortion question as improper is unfortunately going to "blow her cover," whether Jane likes it or not.  In the coworker's mind, whether Jane had an abortion is not a priori more personal than if her parents molested her -- so when Jane is forthcoming about one and elusive about the other, I'm afraid the context gives away the fact that the reason why Jane is treating them as fundamentally different questions is because they have fundamentally different answers.

Granted, I'm not saying that the question-asker in either of these contexts is necessarily given certainty about what the answer is, but I just don't see why they wouldn't at the very least conclude that the answer is most likely "Yes."  And, again, I think one has a moral right to not give other people a very good idea as to the nature of one's most personally private experiences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alex, I understand what you are talking about. Americans, in particular, are a very open people and many will talk about anything.

I was not brought up this way, however. That which is personal remains personal. You don't burden others with such things. You don't open yourself up to having your personal experiences being exploited by others to your detriment. "Mind your own business" and allow others to mind their's is the rule. You don't discuss such things as abuse and abortion except in the most abstract terms.

If you have followed this pattern in your dealings with others, then they have no call to assume answers to personal questions. If they do make such assumptions, you are not responsible, just as you are not responsible for anything someone thinks. There are those who will think what they will, no matter what you say.

If I lived in a different kind of society, such as Saddam's Iraq, for instance, where my life would be endangered by the truth, I would certainly have no problem with lying my little heart out. But, as a general rule, I prefer to say nothing rather than lie. It's not because I think that it is immoral to ever tell a lie. It's just that, like Betsy, I don't care to put myself in the position of having to remember what I said to whom. Plus, if the truth comes out, I have given it a weight that will work against me. I have wrecked my reputation for honesty, which is worse than anything that someone might find out about my personal life.

In most situations, however, it never comes up. It is usually easy to deflect such questions, responding in such a way that you never answer the question asked. (Politicians do it all the time. ) Thankfully, I've never found myself in a situation like one in the examples you've given.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I would say that it is necessarily revealing because, in the question-asker's context, the most likely (or even the only plausible) reason why you'd give those kinds of responses is because the answer to the question is "Yes."  This strikes me as most clear in the homosexuality example I gave.  If a parent asked their 30 year-old son if he was homosexual, and he refused to discuss it, would this not engender in the parent a strong suspicion (or, in some contexts, near-certainty) that he is in fact homosexual?  I just don't see how it wouldn't.

To begin with, if the parents of a 30 year-old were not yet aware of the fact that their son was gay, I would say that, at the minimum, serious communication problems exist between the parents and their son. Assuming that it is the son who wants to conceal his homosexuality, he could easily continue with such communication problems by stating emphatically "I refuse to talk with you about something like that!" Note that I can easily see a non-homosexual son, with similar communication problems between him and his parents, answering the same to the same question.

Or, take the abortion example I constructed.  I'll add some additional context to make it more convincing.  Let's call the woman who is trying to protect her privacy "Jane."  Imagine if Jane had previously said other personal things to the coworker, such as: "Yes, I do think it's a good idea to talk to your children about sex; I did."  Or: "Did you hear about that vicious father who molested his children?  Thank God I have great, loving parents."  In this context, if the coworker asks Jane if she's had an abortion, when Jane has been (completely rationally) forthcoming about those other facts, Jane's suddenly trying to reject the abortion question as improper is unfortunately going to "blow her cover," whether Jane likes it or not.  In the coworker's mind, whether Jane had an abortion is not a priori more personal than if her parents molested her -- so when Jane is forthcoming about one and elusive about the other, I'm afraid the context gives away the fact that the reason why Jane is treating them as fundamentally different questions is because they have fundamentally different answers.

The assumption you are making here is that once Jane broaches the personal realm with her coworker that all personal items are necessarily open and fair game. Jane might feel free to talk about the things you mentioned but not about, for instance, her menstrual cycle or the abnormal size of her big toe. In response to her coworker's question about abortion, if Jane were to say "There are certain personal things I do not thing proper to discuss," that could equally apply to a multitude of things, even if Jane, in fact, did not really have an abnormally big toe but felt that talking about one's body parts were off limits even among friends.

I think you are just assuming that a person must necessarily be revealing a personal fact about themselves simply because they make clear that such an issue is not a proper one for discussion. I again encourage you to watch the movie The Contender for a really interesting dramaticization of this.

Granted, I'm not saying that the question-asker in either of these contexts is necessarily given certainty about what the answer is, but I just don't see why they wouldn't at the very least conclude that the answer is most likely "Yes."  And, again, I think one has a moral right to not give other people a very good idea as to the nature of one's most personally private experiences.

We cannot be responsible for what other people may or may not conclude on their own. If a person feels strongly that ccertain personal facts of their life are off limits to others, all they need do is make that fact clear. But to lie in order to conceal the fact is to be dishonest to oneself and reality. If Jane does not want to talk about her abortion, or if the son does not want to talk about his homosexuality, that is their personal choice. But to assume that making clear that some subjects are off limits is even "most likely" evidence, is to grant that people do not reasonably have the right to keep some issues private, whether or not they are homosexual, and whether or not they have had an abortion.

[Sarah Beth 0]

I would like to chime in here if I may.

I have been in the situations ADS describes. I am unusually candid and also unusually modest. It depends on the context.

People may infer what they like from my responses. I am a terrible liar and if they infer a truth I do not wish them to know from my refusal to answer then to hell with them, I disliked them from the time they had the audacity to ask-obviously not being being my friends if they would dare to infer anything from my refusal to answer (not that one can't make judgements they keep to themselves and then maybe privately discuss with me, but any other case is disgusting) it is really as arbitrary to me as their very existence.

Noone has a right to that which is personal in yourself. Either they are benevolent and concerned and will act appropriately, or are hostile and petty and the latter is of no concern to me. I certainly wouldn't lie to protect their image of me. (knowing my own clumsiness though I would probably say NO too loud and thus be awkwardly revealing).

I like especially the scenes in Ayn Rand's novels where the heroine haughtily raises her chin and honestly reveals that most painful truth, as if daring them to judge her because she knows her own actions and those who don't be damned.

I respect honesty in the utmost, and I think the Speichers are ultimately right, although I am quite aware of the problems ADS brought up.

[Sarah Beth 0]

I'd like to clarify, that what I liked, was that the heroines knew the morality and immorality of their acts, they had rationally made the decisions to behave as they did. I am not saying that I am morally irreprehensible.

Also, perhaps I was unclear that a friend would always judge an action of mine to be moral, but that is not what I mean.

A friend will take appropriate factors into consideration, and their judgement will be benevolent even if not in my favor (am I being clear?)

Also what I said about saying "NO" akwardly, I meant knowing myself I would just state "NO" and not "That is not appropriate" thereby being quite revealing. I do not like to hide things about myself, and I feel threatened if put on the spot in the way ADS describes.

I suppose one thing I am learning from Objectivism is to be less candid, which is funny, in regards to this thread, and in regards to how hard it was to pull me out of my shell as I did a few years ago.

I think I am digressing, but what I mean is that I was always very private, but once you get me going I am an open book.

I recently read G Stolvanesky (sp?) II (on the Autonomist website-the essayist they constantly refer to and I think he has been in TIA daily too) wrote an essay on private life vs. public disclosure I'm not sure I agree with. I have a page on it on my website, perhaps I can post later with the link I mean...

[Sarah Beth 0]

Ahhh, sorry about the 3 posts (where is your edit button Mr Speicher??)

I meant:

G Stolyarov II

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In what way is a response like that "necessarily revealing?"

I would say that I am mostly good at telling whether or not someone is lying.

But saying "That is none of your business," and meaning it, is not lying.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Ahhh, sorry about the 3 posts (where is your edit button Mr Speicher??)

←

Right next to the "Magic" button which changes the facts of reality.

Seriously, though, the "Edit" button has been removed. Do your editing before you post. I'm sympathetic towards its use for minor mistakes, like typos, but I find the notion of being able to re-write the historical record in terms of thoughts and ideas, to be reprehensible. If you change your mind about something like your understanding of an idea, or your position on an issue, you are always free to write a follow-up post to clarify. But I find it offensive to re-write the historical record after the fact. Hence, the absence of an edit button.

While I am here, I thank you and Janet for your own contributions to this thread. You have both (especially Janet) said some things more clearly than my own formulation.