Moral Dilemma #2

[Sarah Beth 0]

If you don't mind- since I have brought Mr G Stolyarov II into this thread, can I point at what I dislike most about his essay? If it is off topic of course I trust you to remove it, but I think it applies:

The objective need to keep bodily properties private leads to another behavioral/stylistic necessity, to which all rational individuals will adhere, clothing. Aside from those parts of the body which are indispensable to perception of and interaction with the outside world, such as the mouth, nose, ears, and eyes (and, in some cases, the hands), all others, which hint at the physical state of the proprietor individual, should be kept concealed from the view of any random passer-by. Of course, the degree to which such coverture is required is contextual; on a hot day one can wear short sleeves to prevent discomfort and nevertheless not reveal volumes about his bodily state. So can one, in a swimming pool, wear a bathing suit that is most conductive to unobstructed aquatic movement.

However, one should always seek maximum privacy in the coverage that his clothing can afford under the circumstances. While it is entirely within proper manners to wear a short-sleeved shirt or dress in public, to don a miniskirt or flimsy see-through quasi-garment is irrelevant both to comfort and coverture (so is, by the way, a large portion of the swimsuits, especially of the female variety, encountered during the present day; the Victorian era should have served as sufficient proof that unimpeded swimming can be accomplished in far ampler attire). It is intended to reveal unwanted information about the possessor's bodily state and is thus a breach of etiquette, to be called by an adjective that reveals precisely the wearer's motive and the perceivers' reactions, scandalous.

Likely, to shield himself from public knowledge of physical imperfections and occasional infestations with dirt or wear, the tactful man will practice proper hygiene without discussing it; he will adhere to standards of cleanliness and order both in his body and clothing; he will not deliberately brandish wounds, stains, shreds, or haphazard hairdos. This norm should apply to his solitary time as well, as it is preventive of the disease and disrepair that his organism will otherwise encounter. As concerns objective self-interest, it is hypocrisy for a man to appear in an immaculate suit on a crowded street or at a prestigious banquet, while strutting around in his undergarments at home.

(on the issue of Edit-I surmised as much-no problem, I just hate to cloud up your threads with my constant self editing. I do not wish to alter the content, and as long as you do not mind the amended clarification posts, I have no problem with the lack of edit button. I will however try my best to not be obnoxious-I am a perpetual editor unfortunately)

[DavidOdden 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.

Especially if you lead a relatively open life where people know details of your personal affairs (e.g. Mom has cancer, brother Billy is a drunk, your son Bob is fiscally irresponsible, you're a adulterer), there is only one reasonable conclusion you can draw from the fact that a person ansers "None of your business" or "I'd rather not discuss it" in answer to the question "So, how's X?". If you put it out there, it's out there. Whether or not it's a good idea to advertise the details of your life, the fact that you have acted as though your life is an open book does have consequences -- such as, that your silence can be self-incriminating. Revealing personal information to a person has a meaning, which can't suddenly be denied.

In the special case of a parent interrogating the child about their sexual reference (drug usage, or various other unininvited parental inferences), supposing the answer is a clear "yes", what value is there in not recognising and admitting to that fact? You don't want to suffer the consequences of saying "Yes, mom, I'm gay and I snort cocaine" or "Yes, mom, I am an Objectivist and I abjure the despicable Kantian perversions that you've tried to shove down my throat for 30 years", so lying will avoid facing reality in this case. But only today: the question is probably going to come up next week or next month.

The best case for lying is the deathbed lie, where you lie to a person who is dying in order to spare then some pain. I'm not saying that that's a good case, but uit's the best case. Apart from the obvious, lying at gunpoint.

[Betsy Speicher 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?

If that is really the case, then the secret is out already and there is no point lying about it.

Instead of answering or lying, I would ask them what led them to raise the question. It would really help to know if somebody saw me in a gay bar, whether they were concerned that I was 30 and had never brought a girl home for them to meet, or if they feared for my immortal soul. That might also give me a clue about where they were coming from and how I might deal with the situation.

Lying about it would not provide that information, wouldn't convince them, and would undermine whatever trust there might have been between us.

[ADS 0]

First off, I want to thank everyone who has responded to me in this thread; I appreciate that (and understand why) my conclusion has sparked widespread disagreement, so I definitely take all your criticisms in stride.

Nevertheless, I must confess that my viewpoint remains unchanged; and what’s more, I’m in the not-so-pleasant position of having read everyone’s criticisms multiple times, and I still do not know how to answer them without repeating myself over again. However, I will do my best to address some things that have been said.

I should first say that some (notably Betsy and DavidOdden) seem to have taken my homosexuality example as implying that I think the son should lie. Hence, I should underscore the fact that when I first raised this example, I said that I was not saying that the son should lie (for I don't think he should), and that my only purpose in bringing it up was to illustrate the fact that “pleading the fifth” can in some contexts be quite revealing.

Stephen has, of course, objected to this premise; I provide some comments on his post below, not because I think they add a lot to what I’ve already said, but mostly to further clarify what my position is. (I'll comment on others' posts tomorrow if the situation warrants it, but from a time standpoint I honestly don't know how much longer it's worth it for me to debate everyone like this.)

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.

I don’t follow why his being 30 years-old casts doubt on my example (you can make him 20 years-old if that helps, although I don’t see why it would). Either way, if your position is that the parents in this scenario are not at all tipped off by their son’s complete avoidance of their questions about his sexuality -- even if he is otherwise fairly open with them, which I intended to be part of the example, by the way -- then I must spread my hands out and say that I’m honestly at a loss for words here. Sorry.

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.

She could think that –- but why that would be the assumption of the coworker in the scenario I created, I cannot see. From the coworker’s point of view, and given the context I provided, it would be mysterious why Jane would avoid the question about abortion if in fact she had never had one and had nothing to conceal. Saying that Jane has a right to not answer private questions doesn’t give her coworker any alternative reason why she would invoke that prerogative in this case. Any imagined reason is much less likely than the simple idea that Jane just has something to conceal. This is why silence can sometimes speak for itself.

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.

Would you agree that if in fact lying was the only way to protect your privacy, you would be justified in lying (since you would be trying to protect a value rather than gain one)?

…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.

No, I really don’t think so. I grant that right; I am only saying that I don't think that the exercising of that right necessarily protects your privacy in all cases. As I just tried to explain above, just because you have a right to decline to answer the question doesn’t mean that such declining won’t give away the answer. In fact, I know it does do this at times, since I’ve seen with my own eyes many things be exposed by people trying to “plead the fifth.” Is it your position that you’ve never seen this before? Saying you don’t mind giving away what the answer most likely is by eluding the question is one thing, but to claim that the very idea of giving away the answer by such means is an unreal scenario is something that I cannot comprehend. Again, sorry.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I agree with Alex that it serves no purpose here to be repetitive, so I will greatly pare this down to just a couple of (to me) essential points.

My contention has been that I have never heard a concrete example that justifies the assertion that a person may necessarily reveal a personal fact should they, in one form or another, make it clear that a question in regard to that issue not be a proper one for discussion. Since I asked for such a concrete example, I do not think it fair to be criticized if I take the example quite literally.

I don’t follow why his being 30 years-old casts doubt on my example (you can make him 20 years-old if that helps, although I don’t see why it would). Either way, if your position is that the parents in this scenario are not at all tipped off by their son’s complete avoidance of their questions about his sexuality -- even if he is otherwise fairly open with them, which I intended to be part of the example, by the way -- then I must spread my hands out and say that I’m honestly at a loss for words here. Sorry.

In both of the examples I addressed, I indicated, and I honestly and firmly believe, that the same response could be given to the same probing question by a son who was a homosexual as well as one who was not, and by a woman who had an abortion as well as one who had not. That being the case, how can I possibly accept the notion that such a repsonse will be "necessarily revealing?" So we do seem to be at an impasse.

Would you agree that if in fact lying was the only way to protect your privacy, you would be justified in lying (since you would be trying to protect a value rather than gain one)?

If you were to ask: "Would you agree that if in fact stealing was the only way to protect your life, you would be justified in stealing?" to that I would answer with a resounding "yes." The reason being that I can consider a type of somewhat bizarre and unusal emergency circumstance where such an act would be justified, like breaking into a drug store to get an antidote to a poision I swallowed from which I would have otherwise died within minutes. But I cannot conceive of and have never been given any analogous "emergency" situation in regard to protecting my privacy, so I cannot agree with the premise of the question.

As I just tried to explain above, just because you have a right to decline to answer the question doesn’t mean that such declining won’t give away the answer. In fact, I know it does do this at times, since I’ve seen with my own eyes many things be exposed by people trying to “plead the fifth.” Is it your position that you’ve never seen this before?

If a person's response is such that he breaks out into a sweat, nervously starts wringing his hands, and develops a twitch in one eye, then, yes, I have seen and I would agree that such an act would be "revealing." But that is not the sort of person, not the character of the individual, who would and should deal with this kind of situation as I outlined.

I guess the bottom line is that I cannot conceive of a situation (other than force-related) where there is any practical value to lying.

[DavidOdden 0]

I should first say that some (notably Betsy and DavidOdden) seem to have taken my homosexuality example as implying that I think the son should lie.

I didn't actually understand your claim to be that the son should lie, just that it would be morally acceptable for him to lie (and I disagee), rather than tell the truth directly, or imply the truth by refusing to answer. I fully accept that in this context, silence may have the same effect as confession, especially if a child is generally in the habit of communicating details of his life to his parents. Whether it involves parents, friends or coworkers, other people are free to make whatever inferences they want to, no matter what you say. Your actions contribute to their ability to accurately infer things about your like -- if you've never said anything like "There are certain personal things I do not think proper to discuss," then a sudden refusal to speak on a topic leaves the other person in a good position to guess correctly. On the other hand, if you are characteristically a private person, your refusal to answer a particular nosey question gives others no grounds for inferring anything. What has Jane done to make it clear that there are topics that are absolutely out of bounds for discussion? Why did she give people the impression that they have the right to know the intimate details of her life?

[Inspector 0]

ADS, might I suggest that you play some poker? Stephen and Betsy are right that one need not lie to conceal a fact: I have often given people non-answers that are NOT dishonest, but would not lead them to think one way or another. It's a matter of being in control of your physical and emotional reactions.

Now, I don't know if it counts as dishonesty, so I'll ask: is it a lie to give an ambiguous answer with a contrary emotional reaction such that a person will assume the OPPOSITE of the truth, rather than just being unsure?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Now, I don't know if it counts as dishonesty, so I'll ask: is it a lie to give an ambiguous answer with a contrary emotional reaction such that a person will assume the OPPOSITE of the truth, rather than just being unsure?

←

If that is the intended purpose as stated, I see no essential difference between that and a direct lie.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Permit me to add to this thread a statement that may not be needed, but I do want to make explicit anyway. Alex brought up Leonard Peikoff's comment ("lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers") for discussion, and Alex made clear that he was not certain in his thinking about this issue. Since LP is not here to explain his own comment, it seems as if Alex has become the sole defender of the idea, against an onslaught of others who disagree, myself included. I hope it is perfectly clear to all that none of this discussion is meant to be a reflection on Alex's ethical status (or LP, for that matter), but rather an interesting ethical discussion for which, evidently, there is room for debate. I say this so that this one-against-the-many is cast as an intellectual issue, not as a personal judgment. This was probably unneeded to say, but I'd rather err on the side of clarity.

[Ed from OC 0]

I agree with Alex on this issue.

The relevant context is:

1. You have some personal information you don't want to reveal to a particular person.

2. You have established a precedent of providing other personal information to this person, such that the refusal to divulge this new information would be unexpected.

3. The question has an either/or answer, with one option being the truth (which you don't want to reveal) and the other being a lie.

In such a case, refusing to answer would immediately tell the other person what the truth is, so the choice is: reveal the personal information or lie. There's no third option in this situation. (See Alex's abortion example.)

Does the principle of honesty, then, compel us to never lie in such a case? I think not. Are you, in a sense, being forced to choose between lying and keeping something to yourself that this other person has no right to? Are you acting to prevent something from being taken from you without your consent or moral / legal authorization of the other person?

I'd have to think more on this for a complete answer, but I wonder if there isn't a valid sense in which force is being used here. (And, let me hasten to add, I'm not eager to engage in equivocation about the meaning of "force.")

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I agree with Alex on this issue.

Well, that's really good. Now Alex is no longer the lone soldier.

In such a case, refusing to answer would immediately tell the other person what the truth is, so the choice is: reveal the personal information or lie.  There's no third option in this situation.  (See Alex's abortion example.)

But I answered the abortion example, and the broadest point was that the same response could be given by someone who actually did have an abortion, as well as one who did not. What is your response to that?

[Ed from OC 0]

But I answered the abortion example, and the broadest point was that the same response could be given by someone who actually did have an abortion, as well as one who did not. What is your response to that?

←

My response is that if that third option does exist (i.e., a refusal to answer DOES NOT imply an answer) then lying is not justified. That's a different context from the one I specified.

I assumed something different for the abortion example, which I specified in my post: there had already been established the expectation of candor in personal matters. To suddenly clam up on this one issue would, to me, imply an answer to the question.

If the context is such that the interrogator expects some personal information to be off limits, then by all means refusing to answer wouldn't necessarily imply an answer.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But I answered the abortion example, and the broadest point was that the same response could be given by someone who actually did have an abortion, as well as one who did not. What is your response to that?

My response is that if that third option does exist (i.e., a refusal to answer DOES NOT imply an answer) then lying is not justified. That's a different context from the one I specified.

I assumed something different for the abortion example, which I specified in my post: there had already been established the expectation of candor in personal matters. To suddenly clam up on this one issue would, to me, imply an answer to the question.

←

But it is precisely this latter assumption that I have been challenging all along. Regardless of what intimacies have been previously shared -- and this could hold true for a love relationship, much less a friendship -- there is no cart blanche demand when it comes to personal issues. And what people choose to include in that private realm, can vary as greatly as one can imagine. That a woman was willing to discuss certain intimacies with her friend, does not imply that other intimacies cannot be off limits. So I challenge the assumption that an unwillingness to discuss a certain issue, presented properly, is "necesarily revealing" of a personal fact.

[Rational_One 0]

I just wanted to state that I also agree with Alex, but never chimed in because I think he covered his case well and I would therefore have a hard time adding to it. I can maybe just add this one thing though, this type of lieing would only be proper in "extreme" cases like Alex outlined and you should be very careful of the situations you use it in, or you could easily create a very slippery slope for yourself.

[ADS 0]

I’m essentially going to give Stephen the last word, and only offer my opposing viewpoints next to a couple points that he made, so that my position will be more fully and clearly articulated.

If a person's response is such that he breaks out into a sweat, nervously starts wringing his hands, and develops a twitch in one eye, then, yes, I have seen and I would agree that such an act would be "revealing." But that is not the sort of person, not the character of the individual, who would and should deal with this kind of situation as I outlined.

I hadn’t stated this explicitly before, and it is a good thing to bring up: I do not believe that such telltale signs of nervousness are at all necessary for a non-answer to be revealing. But Stephen and I have indeed probably reached an impasse on the existence of “necessarily revealing” questions, so I will let others who are in essential agreement with me (of which I see there finally are some! ) take over on this point if they so choose.

I guess the bottom line is that I cannot conceive of a situation (other than force-related) where there is any practical value to lying.

←

Yes, I think this is the bottom line being debated here. My view is that there are conceivable cases where a non-force-related lie is both practical and morally proper, and that as such, one cannot make it a matter of principle that it is always improper to lie if force is not involved. Provocative, but it is my firm view nonetheless.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I guess the bottom line is that I cannot conceive of a situation (other than force-related) where there is any practical value to lying.

Yes, I think this is the bottom line being debated here. My view is that there are conceivable cases where a non-force-related lie is both practical and morally proper, and that as such, one cannot make it a matter of principle that it is always improper to lie if force is not involved. Provocative, but it is my firm view nonetheless.

Well, you are certainly in good company in advocating your position, if LP's comment in OPAR ("lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers." p. 276) can be construed to fall in line with your examples. Of course, what is meant by "snoopers," and how it relates to the examples we have been discussing, is a somewhat unknown quantity. And, as LP states in OPAR, an analysis of this belongs in a treatise on ethics. Anyway, I think we fleshed out quite a bit from both sides of this debate, so thanks for bringing up this interesting question. Not that I mean to cut off any further discussion from other members; I would welcome any fresh perspectives on this issue.

[ADS 0]

...if you've never said anything like "There are certain personal things I do not think proper to discuss," then a sudden refusal to speak on a topic leaves the other person in a good position to guess correctly.

Yes, I definitely agree.

What has Jane done to make it clear that there are topics that are absolutely out of bounds for discussion? Why did she give people the impression that they have the right to know the intimate details of her life?

←

I think this is where I'm still being misunderstood. Jane and the coworker had a perfectly commonplace relationship, in which neither had ever laid down any explicit ground rules for what is or is not off-limits in discussion, and yet nor did either of them believe (and nor was either given the impression) that they had any right to know the other's private thoughts. They just had normal discussions, without implying any blank check on each other's privacy.

The issue is not: Did Jane give others the impression that they have a right to her private thoughts?, but instead: When Jane does actually for the first time explicitly invoke her right to privacy -- and if it is going to be invoked at all, there must always be a first time -- does Jane's coworker have quite good grounds for guessing why it is being invoked in that case? In the coworker's context -- or in any context -- does a straightforward refusal to answer a question give one substantial evidence either way as to what the answer is? I say "Yes."

P.S. - I know Stephen and I essentially decided that he and I were at an impasse on this point, but I want to stress that he (or anyone else) is more than welcome to challenge me further if they want to.

[ADS 0]

ADS, might I suggest that you play some poker? Stephen and Betsy are right that one need not lie to conceal a fact: I have often given people non-answers that are NOT dishonest, but would not lead them to think one way or another. It's a matter of being in control of your physical and emotional reactions.

To be clear, my position is not that non-answers always give away the correct answer, but only that they do so in certain contexts. So any successful "poker face" is not relevant to refuting what I'm saying, especially since poker -- which takes as its premise the idea that everyone is going to try to prevent everyone from knowing what their cards are -- is fundamentally different from the kind of context I've been creating for my own examples.

[B. Royce 0]

I’m essentially going to give Stephen the last word, and only offer my opposing viewpoints next to a couple points that he made, so that my position will be more fully and clearly articulated.

I hadn’t stated this explicitly before, and it is a good thing to bring up: I do not believe that such telltale signs of nervousness are at all necessary for a non-answer to be revealing.  But Stephen and I have indeed probably reached an impasse on the existence of “necessarily revealing” questions, so I will let others who are in essential agreement with me (of which I see there finally are some! ) take over on this point if they so choose.

Yes, I think this is the bottom line being debated here.  My view is that there are conceivable cases where a non-force-related lie is both practical and morally proper, and that as such, one cannot make it a matter of principle that it is always improper to lie if force is not involved.  Provocative, but it is my firm view nonetheless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realize that I am coming in on this rather late, but I would say that in most cases there is no need to lie. When someone overhears a person trying to get out of answering a straightforward question and says, "Well, I guess we all know what his answer to the question is", in fact, they don't know; they only guess. The fact that someone might assume knowledge on the basis of a guess should not be the standard by which one decides to not give a direct answer. For then you are in the position of "It's my guess that he, or they, are guessing". Obviously, where there is force involved, a lie can be a morally selfish duty.

[ADS 0]

I realized that I have done a very poor job indicating what my intentions are for continuing to debate this issue, so allow me to clarify. I of course welcome anyone to object to (or agree with) anything that I have said, and to make whatever arguments you may find relevant; but I feel that I have explained my position as well as I can, and that as such I should let my arguments speak for themselves as given (unless anyone provides what Stephen called a "fresh perspective," in which I case I’m ready to retract or re-argue my position as necessary). Either way, I'm quite content let everyone decide for themselves what they think about this most-fascinating issue.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Here is a question about a point that has not been directly addressed by those of you who think that lying is required in the abortion example. Do you think it impossible that the same response I suggested, something along the lines of "There are certain personal things that I do not think proper to discuss," could be said by a woman who, in fact, did not have an abortion?

If you think it impossible, then that closes this issue because then we have no chance of reaching any understanding. But, if you think it possible, then how can you justify your position that lying is required because otherwise is "necessarily revealing?"

[The General 0]

Here is a question about a point that has not been directly addressed by those of you who think that lying is required in the abortion example. Do you think it impossible that the same response I suggested, something along the lines of "There are certain personal things that I do not think proper to discuss," could be said by a woman who, in fact, did not have an abortion?

If you think it impossible, then that closes this issue because then we have no chance of reaching any understanding. But, if you think it possible, then how can you justify your position that lying is required because otherwise is "necessarily revealing?"

←

I'll chime in, in Alex's defense. First off, I have seen the Contender, which I agree is an excellent dramatization of this discussion.

Continuing with the abortion example, I do think a woman who didn't have an abortion could give the response you suggest Stephen. But I don't see how this proves your point - rather, I think it supports my own.

The main bone of contention here appears to be over the nature of the options one has in the face of a nosy question. Alex says that in some contexts, your choice is either "yes", or "no" as the answer. Anything other than "no", is an implicit "yes". Stephen appears to be disagreeing, saying that you have the option of a third response, "There are certain personal things that I do not think proper to discuss."

I think Alex's point (it's certainly mine) is that this third response, in certain contexts, is an implicit "yes". The question I would ask is, why would anyone who had not had an abortion go to the trouble of saying, "there's certain personal things that I do not think proper to discuss." Why not simply say, "no"? Or why not say, "No I haven't had one, and I think those type of questions are improper"? Not giving a definitive yes or no in some form, leaves the implication that the answer is yes.

If I happened to be a third party, overhearing the conversation in question, I would probably draw the conclusion that the woman had an abortion, especially if no definitive answer was given to the question, and the response was delivered in an angry tone.

I'd be interested to hear your response to the following especially Stephen. You wrote, "So I challenge the assumption that an unwillingness to discuss a certain issue, presented properly, is "necesarily revealing" of a personal fact."

I would say that "presented properly", necessarily requires a definitive answer to the issue in question - otherwise you are implying that the answer to the question is "yes".

Let the flogging begin!

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'll chime in, in Alex's defense.  First off, I have seen the Contender, which I agree is an excellent dramatization of this discussion. 

Continuing with the abortion example, I do think a woman who didn't have an abortion could give the response you suggest Stephen.  But I don't see how this proves your point - rather, I think it supports my own.

The main bone of contention here appears to be over the nature of the options one has in the face of a nosy question.  Alex says that in some contexts, your choice is either "yes", or "no" as the answer.  Anything other than "no", is an implicit "yes".  Stephen appears to be disagreeing, saying that you have the option of a third response, "There are certain personal things that I do not think proper to discuss."

But right at the beginning of your post you agreed that a woman who did not have an abortion could give the same response, yet here you assert that such a response is an implicit "yes." I take this either as a contradiction, or I conclude that you think such a response would be an implicit "yes" even for a woman for whom the answer to the question is "no." And further, if that indeed is what you conclude, then I submit that you have simply dismissed out of hand that a person can legitimately claim that certain subjects are too personal for them to discuss. The point being, if such a response is legitimate, then the other person who concludes the implicit "yes" to that claim, is doing so without proper justification. But the assumption in this whole issue is proper dealings among people, so why should we lie to someone else who forms an improper conclusion? A person like that might even take the false "no" to mean a concealed "yes," so you gain nothing of value but lose something in the act of lying.

[ADS 0]

But right at the beginning of your post you agreed that a woman who did not have an abortion could give the same response, yet here you assert that such a response is an implicit "yes." I take this either as a contradiction, or I conclude that  you think such a response would be an implicit "yes" even for a woman for whom the answer to the question is "no."

←

I had no idea that debate still existed at this deep a level, so since this issue is so fundamental to my case I really should jump in here.

To say that a non-answer is an “implicit yes” is not to rule out the possibility that, perhaps, someone would if in Jane’s shoes simply (and validly) decline to answer the question even if they didn't have an abortion. An “implicit yes” merely means that, given the context, a non-answer implies that the actual answer is most likely “yes.” “Most likely” leaves open the possibility that the actual answer is no, and how real this possibility is depends upon the specific context. I would not even rule out the idea that, in some contexts (although not the Jane/abortion example), one can be given certainty that a straight non-answer implies one answer or the other. But this is not required for what The General called an “implicit yes" (although I don't mean to speak for The General; this is my view).

Remember, the context of this debate involves the violation of privacy, and I do not believe that other people have to be given certainty about your personal affairs in order for your privacy to be violated. A simple situation in which someone is given the idea that you most likely had an abortion is enough, and is all that the idea of an “implicit yes” was ever intended or required to show. Otherwise, the doctor that performed Jane’s abortion could circulate evidence on the internet that Jane had an abortion, and he would not be violating her privacy because he’s not giving any nosy web-surfer certainty that Jane did in fact have an abortion. In the web-surfer’s context, the evidence could possibly be faked or mistaken, but Jane's privacy is still shot.

Think of it this way: Stephen, didn’t you accept the idea that if someone starts acting nervously in response to a question, and then refuses to answer the question, that this can give one quite a good idea what the answer is? If so, do you also accept that it is possible that someone can become decidedly nervous in declining to answer the question -- and yet the answer is not actually what you thought it would be on the basis of this nervousness? After all, maybe the nervous individual is, e.g., so offended by abortion that the mere thought of it causes them to become noticeably flustered and sick to their stomach. But this possibility does not change the fact that nervous silence –- or, in my view, non-nervous silence -– can and does at times tell other people what one is under no obligation to tell.

[The General 0]

I had no idea that debate still existed at this deep a level, so since this issue is so fundamental to my case I really should jump in here.

To say that a non-answer is an “implicit yes” is not to rule out the possibility that, perhaps, someone would if in Jane’s shoes simply (and validly) decline to answer the question even if they didn't have an abortion.  An “implicit yes” merely means that, given the context, a non-answer implies that the actual answer is most likely “yes.”  “Most likely” leaves open the possibility that the actual answer is no, and how real this possibility is depends upon the specific context.  I would not even rule out the idea that, in some contexts (although not the Jane/abortion example), one can be given certainty that a straight non-answer implies one answer or the other.  But this is not required for what The General called an “implicit yes" (although I don't mean to speak for The General; this is my view).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry Alex, you got what I was saying exactly!