We have been talking about a religious concept of Takiyyah, according to
which the Shi'a Moslem considers it to be good, and appropriate, to lie to
a person of another faith so long as the lie benefits a Shi'a Moslem, or is
of benefit to Shi'a Islam in general. It seems to me that the problem here
needs to be more generally understood. What I would offer is that the
distinction to be made is between two very different truth cultures:
Truth Culture A: If I lie to you and get away with it, you are an innocent
victim and the fault is entirely mine -- because it is wrong to take
advantage of others. I should apologize and attempt to make amends.
Truth Culture B: If I lie to you and get away with it, the fault is
entirely yours -- it is foolish to allow oneself to be thus taken advantage
of by others. If you react badly to being lied to then you are attempting
to victimize me -- because you are blaming on me a problem that you
yourself created. You should apologize and attempt to make amends.
Now, one way to approach this difference between these two very different
truth cultures, is to allege that Truth Culture B entirely lacks any
concept of truthfulness. That anyone who would embrace that sort of
attitude simply has no idea what truthfulness is, or why it is important.
However, another way to approach this difference would be to acknowledge
that there are different definitions of the word "truth." Truth Culture A
would be embracing what one might term an "objective" attitude toward
truth, according to which a statement is true(1) if it "corresponds" to
what actually is the case. That is, it is true(1) to say that grass is
green if and only if grass actually is green. Truth Culture B would be
embracing what one might term a "subjective" attitude toward truth,
according to which one's statements are actions and one's acts are true(2)
only when they appropriately further one's interests or the interests of
one's group. That is, it is true(2) to tell some strangers that your father
is not at home if and only if in making such a statement you are protecting
and preserving your father, whereas it would be false(2), that is, false to
your father and false to your obligations to him, were you to admit to
those strangers that your father was at home (and then they took him out
into the street and shot him).
Now it would seem to me that it is not the most important thing, for us to
be deciding that one of these two truth cultures is righteous, and the
other iniquitous. What is the most important thing, it seems to me, is that
we make a careful distinction between these two very different truth
cultures, and know when we are dealing with an individual who is coming
from Truth Culture A and can be trusted to behave accordingly, and know
when we are dealing with an individual who is coming from Truth Culture B
and can be trusted to behave accordingly. For instance, when a Shi'a Moslem
tells you that he wants to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium for peaceful
purposes --so that his people can have abundant electricity in their
homes-- and that we are insulting him by suspecting that he wants to build
an atomic bomb so that he can throw his weight around, we ought to presume
that it is *up to us* to exercise *due diligence*, and make certain that
this fellow never is allowed to manufacture this weapons-grade plutonium.
It isn't going to be his fault if he succeeds in building an A-bomb, for
being wicked; rather, it is going to be our fault, for being dull.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
