Moral Health

Few things are more irresponsible than using the wrongs of the past as an excuse for being irresponsible.  Painfully, this has become commonplace in the United States and France.  And it pains me enormously that President Barack Obama mightily invokes this line of thought.  To hear him speak, the only reason why people are suffering is that others are to blame for not doing their share to help those in need.  There is very little if any irresponsibility at on the part of those suffering.  We have here an instance of Creative Blame on Obama’s part.

So if President Obama is right, then black-on-black crime in the Hood is to be blamed on none other than the fact that others are not doing their part to help those in need in the Hood.  Needless to say, this line of thought is utterly preposterous; and while it may to blacks as addressing the wrongs of racism, what Obama’s reasoning also does is mightily diminish the conception of blacks as responsible human beings.  One does not need a Ph.D. in psychology (or some other field) in order to grasp this very simple point.  Again, what we have here is Creative Blame.

Most profoundly, it is not impossible to help an individual by entirely denying that her or his role to be a responsible person.  And this point applies equally and with prejudice to all individuals regardless of their skin color, ethnic identity, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

Some people are gifted at taking themselves in a morally responsible manner.  They are likely to take act in a responsible manner even if no one else expects them to do so.  I know a few people like that. 

Unfortunately, most individuals are fundamentally social creatures in that precisely what motivates them to act responsibly is that this person and that person and the other person expect them to act responsibly.  

Without a doubt wrongdoings should be acknowledged.  But the acknowledgement of wrongdoings should not be aligned with the idea that people are thus justified in being irresponsible.  There is little doubt that Obama is making precisely such an alignment.  His silence on black-on-black crime suffices to underscore my point.  For if blacks do not take responsibility for themselves and making a decision to act in a morally responsible manner, then the Hood will in effect go to hell in a hand basket.  And since Obama lived in the city of Chicago for a substantial period of his life, there can be no doubt whatsoever that he is well aware of the problem of black-on-black crime.

One of the defining of features of a human being is the capacity for foresight.  What is foresight?  It is none other than the capacity to make reasonable extrapolations regarding what will happen with future interaction and behavior based upon the facts that one has at one’s disposal.  

Quite simply, then, Creative Blame is effectively undermining the exercise of foresight.  If I can blame you for my ordering two Big Macs each day at McDonald’s, then why bother exercising the basic degree of foresight that consists in recognizing the obvious truth that consuming two Big Macs a day will result in a substantial weight gain.  

If I am on a limited income, then I most certainly cannot afford designer jeans.  But why should I let my limited income get in the way of my going into debt to by designer jeans, if I can blame others for the fact that I am not well off.  

One of the defining features of being a human being is the wherewithal of an individual to take stock of her or his life and to make the reinforcements or revisions that are appropriate.  Not surprisingly, Creative Blame radically undermines the wherewithal or, at any rate, the motivations of a person to take stock of her or his life.  

In Living Morally, I begin with the observation that human beings are quintessentially social creatures.  This means that in one way or the other we are quite influenced by the behavior of others that take place around us.  Alas, if most of that behavior is negative and irresponsible, than most individuals will in fact drift in that direction and there will be a few who will mightily reinforce their commitment to do what is right.  

In the end, Creative Blame will destroy the good of human society as we know it.  For it is a defining feature of human beings that unless an excellence is routinely reinforce it will be lost.  Taking responsibility for our actions is an excellence.  Increasingly, that is what people simply fail to do in a manner that is akin to a deer staring in the headlights.  Given the present trajectory of Creative Blame, it is just a matter of time before the very idea of individuals being responsible for their very own lives will have no purchase at all upon our lives.  “Ridiculous”, you say.  Well, just look at how irresponsible human beings have become in the last 10 years owing to the ridiculous use of technology.  Any reasonable extrapolation from that reality portends an outcome for the social embodiment of Creative Blame that simply cannot bode well for the future of humanity.

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

Creative Blame has become tremendously à la mode these days.  The basic idea is that no matter how irresponsible one has been it is always possible and even appropriate to blame someone else for the ways in which one now suffers.  From overeating to child care to utterly despicable behavior towards others, Creative Blame has increasingly become the norm.  

Given how much human beings in the United States are given to Creative Blame it is becoming difficult to see how anyone supposes that she or he has free will.  Why?  Because free will invariably entails that one is at fault when one fails to do that what is manifestly reasonable and, as a result, one suffers or causes others to suffer.  

Here is an unusual example in this regard.  Everyone knows that the word “nigger” is a common occurrence in rap music.  And most rap artist count on white people to buy their music.  So please to tell me how a white person can be racist in saying the word “nigger” while singing along with a rap song?  Indeed, quite often the song is not about a white person calling a black person “nigger” but a black person calling a black person “nigger”.  Yet, many black people insist that the white person is morally to blame for saying the word “nigger” while singing along.  If it is all right for a white person to enjoy the song, then I cannot begin to fathom why it is wrong to say the word “nigger” while singing along.

Here is a quite different example.  It is increasingly the case that parents less and less time with their children.  So I do not think that it is all unusual for children nowadays to “act out”.  After all, there is not a piece of technology on the face of this earth that can take the place of parental love: the touches of affirmation; the smile of admiration; and the looks of appreciation.  But rather than parents blaming themselves for the fact that their children now act-out because they receive so little direct parent-to-child contact, it is now the case that just about every child born these days has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  

People walk down the street texting and blame others for not seeing them texting and giving them the right away.  

People regularly eat at McDonald’s and order the super-size menu and then blame McDonald’s for the fact that they are now fat.  

In college, people do not read the syllabus and then blame the professor for not informing them of their responsibilities for the course.  

People spend way more money than they have; and it is the fault of companies for advertising their products in enticing ways.  

I could go on but, of course, you get the point.  The mantra of contemporary American society is quite simple: Someone else is always at fault for something undesirable that happens to me, no matter how irresponsibly I behave.  That is none other than Creative Blame.

At the very heart of the idea of Creative Blame is none other than a deep, deep form of self-deception.  For we cannot both value free will and, the very same time, so readily embrace the idea of Creative Blame.  That is rather like wanting to be both short and tall or hot and cold at the very same time.  Not an option. 

There is no better indication of the demise of a society than the extent to which self-deception prevails in an increasing global manner in that society.  The practice of being irresponsible and blaming others has increasingly become the norm in American society.  And make no mistake about it: That is a most ominous sign.

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

Accents do not bother me.  If a person speaks well, it simply does not matter to me that she or he has an accent.  What does bother me enormously is the complete abuse and misuse of English.  And seems to me that one of the most unfortunate consequences of Political Correctness is that view that there is no need to correct a person’s English just so long we have understood what the person has meant.  Indeed, no doubt the thought is that it is downright mean and arrogant to correct the person.  Well, I disagree.  

Of course, there is a time and place for everything.  So I am not at all advocating correcting people where this turns out to be none other than a form of tremendous humiliation.  But I find it stupefying that people whose job it is to deal with the public cannot speak basic English.  Here is perhaps my favorite example: “May I know your name, please?”  For just about every company that I call, I get someone whose first language was other than English who handles the call and that is what they ask in order get started: “May I know your name, please”.  

Of course, I understand what the sale representative really means to say, namely “What is your name, please?”  However, what I absolutely do not understand at all is why in the course of being trained, sale representatives are not instructed as to what the proper expression is.  It is entirely irrelevant that callers can be counted upon to grasp what the proper question is.  The answer, I suspect, as to why training does include the proper formation of the question is none other than the stance of politically correctness, which has that it is in some way racist to correct people for their mistakes with the English language, given that one has managed to understand them, anyhow.  

Well, I hold a very simple view, namely that respect is a two-way street.  To be sure, there is nothing at all to be said for brutally criticizing a person for her or his poor English.  There is nothing to be said for humiliating the person.  In either case, that constitutes a lack of basic respect for that individual.  However, we also have a lack of basic respect in the other direction, when people are so busy being proud of their ethnic identity that they feel entitled not to learn to speak English properly.  And I resent that. 

Political Correctness does not help the matter because it is too busy invoking the charge of racism for even giving any thought to correcting those whose command of the language is so impoverished.

What intrigues me, though, is how often non-native English speakers will mock Americans for not being able to speak a language other than English or for speaking that other language so very poorly that it would almost be better if they did not try to speak it.  And this shows me just how disingenuous so many are.  

Furthermore, it is as clear as anything is to me that learning to speak properly the language of the country to which is moving is none other than a simple measure of basic respect.  I have no clue why anyone would suppose that doing so is in some way incompatible with a person being proud of her or his ethnic identity.  Similarly, I have no idea why correcting a person’s English in the right way and at the right time is racist.  

I correct the English of my white well-off students.  Does that help to diffuse the charge of racism when I correct the English of a Latino student or an Asian student?

The problem of which I am speaking is beginning to manifest itself in a major way at American universities.  Diversity is valued more than competence with the language, where diversity often makes reference to students from overseas.  Needless to say, to value diversity to that extent is to make a horrendous mistake; for when diversity is valued more than competence with the language, then standards of intellectual excellence invariably slip.  After all, there is a limit to what one can teach people whose command of the language is seriously limited and who think that there is nothing to be said for improving their ability to speak the language and, moreover, it is deemed racist even to entertain the thought.

When I think of racism, I do not think of an effort to improve the person’s standing by, for instance, significantly enhancing his command of the language, be it English or whatever.  Rather, I think of having the aim to make the person worse off.  But clearly the view of racism that I have stands in need of being seriously updated!  I need a therapist who will help me to see that I am racist in thinking that it is a good thing for people to enhance their command of the English language, especially those who are students or who are dealing with the public.  

© 2012 Laurence Thomas

Plato was not a fan of democracy.  Thus Plato was at odds with John Stuart Mill.  The irony here is that nothing may prove Plato to be more right than parenting.  In comparison to other species, it is arguable that human beings are generally worse than any other species when it comes to parenting.  

From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, good parents should give their children the resources that the children need whereby the children can take their place in the world as fully competent adults who can in turn have children. 

Well, insofar as caring and parenting is involved, the members of every other species on the plant routinely do precisely that to the extent that is appropriate.  Or so it is barring the intrusion of some force that prevents this from happening.  Human beings are the only species on the planet whose caring for their offspring is so entirely up in the air.  There are, to be sure, some truly wonderful parents.  But, alas, there are some truly horrendous parents.  

If the percentage of animals that were sloppy in caring for their offspring equaled the percentage of human beings who failed to care for their children properly, then it is arguable that a great many species would already be extinct.  Far too many human beings bring children into the world and then find just about any and every excuse not to take care of the children properly.

Alas, one of the most untoward consequences of liberty is that in point of fact parents can be mightily irresponsible in caring for their children.  This parents can do to their children without ever causing any physical harm to their children.  Arguably, Plato grasped this truth in a way that Mill did not.  

As a matter of biological instinct, it is rare for female animals to abandon their children.  True, there are instances where a male animal A will kill the infant offspring of male animal B if male animal A is now mating with the female animal with whom male B mated.  But then some male adults human beings will have sex with their step-children.

While the difference here is in one very clear sense one of apples and oranges, there is a very straightforward respect in which the human adult who has sex with his innocent step-children is light years more horrendous than the male animal who kills off the competing offspring from of the female with whom the male is now mating.  At least the animal has the excuse of being driven by sheer instinct.  Adult male human beings who sexually abuse their step children have no such excuse.  They have no excuse at all.

There are many adult human beings who often fail to provide their children with the basic training that the children need to at least be minimally competent in society.  Not so with animals who train their offspring.  For instance, a mother wild cat will unequivocally teach her offspring how to hunt for food.  However, the world is full of parents who fail to train their children adequately or who fail to see to it that their children receive adequate training.  

By and large, human beings have made far more of a mess of freedom than they put freedom to good use.  And that was precisely the view that Plato held about democracy, namely that without the adequate moral training at the outset democracy will be none other than a disaster for human beings.  

My favorite example in this regard is the extent to which hostilities exist over ethnic differences although we now know in a way that has no equal that we are all equally human beings.  If you have A-blood type and I have A-blood type, then no matter how differently we look from one another, the healthy person can share some blood with the other if the person needs it.  Yet, human beings continue elevate ethnic identity as if it constituted some significant biological difference.

A final and most disconcerting observation is as follows.  There is simply no correlation whatsoever between being free and being responsible.  And democracy has no way whatsoever in which to address the simple reality that democracy is compatible with enormous and utterly damning levels of irresponsibility.  Never on the face of the earth have so many been so free and, at the very same time, so irresponsible.  Never have so many been so free and at the same inclined to blame others for their own mistakes and foolhardiness.  

If we are veering towards a better world, that is far from obvious.  And the best way to see this is by noting that we are far from where we should be given all the information that we have at our disposal.  What Plato grasped as well as anyone, if not more fully than anyone, is that freedom without the proper moral training will mutate into none other than a form of living hell.  

© 2012 Laurence Thomas

By now, you have come across Gene Marks’s article “If I were a poor black smart kid”, that was published in Forbes Magazine 12 December 2011.  Let begin by saying that in terms of the actual strategies recommended by Marks to poor black smart kids, there is little, if any, disagreement between me and him.  Marks is right to point out that thanks to technology, there is much that a person can do nowadays to advance herself or himself that was simply not an option a mere two decades ago.  Likewise, he is right to draw attention to forging personal connections.

So what bothers me about Marks’s article?  My answer comes in the form of a question: “What, pray tell, did the article have to with being poor and black as opposed to merely being poor?”  And the answer to that question is very simple: Absolutely nothing.  The advice that Marks proffered holds equally for any smart kid who is poor: white, black, Asian, Latino, Arabic, and so on.  

Now, it is precisely because Marks’s advice so obviously applies to all poor children who are smart, and equally so, that his singling out poor black smart kids draws enormous attention to itself.  There is not a single recommendation that does not apply to a poor Asian or Latino or white or Arab, and so on, provided that they are smart.  

But I imagine that Forbes would never have published an article entitled “If I were a Poor Kid”.  And that consideration brings me to my sense of outrage with Forbes Magazine.  It looks for all the world as if what we have is none other than a form of misguided liberalism.  Forbes by way of Marks or, conversely, Marks by way of Forbes, has used blacks in order to promote the image that they have marvelous racial sensibilities with respect to blacks.  Thus, what we have is none other than a rather self-serving article.  After all, it is not as if poor black folks all over the United States are likely to read Marks article and thus profit from his having published it.  Indeed, poor people generally, whatever their ethnicity, are not likely to read the article.  However, blacks are singled out.  And my point is that they are singled out in a way that can only be construed as self-serving.  And perhaps there is no better evidence of this than that Marks proffered ideas are merely based upon his untried self-reflections—and not an ounce of personal experience.  His being white is utterly irrelevant; his complete lack of experience is not.  Imagine a male offering advice to women regarding how to deal with rape, where that advice is based solely upon his reflections regarding the matter.  We would all take him to be a fool—not because he is a male, but because he has no experience in that regard.  A male who has worked with female victims of rape could obviously have much to say to female rape victims.  Likewise, a white who has worked with poor black kids or poor kids in general could have much to say about how they should proceed in order to succeed. 

To see just how pugnacious Marks’s essay is, I ask the following question: Should I boast and beat my chest when I help Asians or Latinos or Arabs, or whites, and so on, who are very talented but also extremely poor and thus are entirely lacking in a sense of direction in terms of academic success?  To me the answer to this question should rightly be a resounding “No!”  This is because in so behaving I am merely doing my job.  

A wonderful essay to poor students generally about how to succeed would have been a marvelous moral gift.  Alas, that kind of essay would have gotten in the way of Marks being able to pat himself on the back for being ever so mindful of the plight of poor blacks, and thus a non-racist white.  And that I suggest is really what Marks’s essay was all about.  Otherwise, to paraphrase one of Tina Turner’s well-known songs: “What ‘s race got to do, got to do with it?”.  

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

I learnt this week that I have “relatives” that I did now that I have.  I learnt this from American Express when I called to make an inquiry about the use of my card and needed to verify who I am.  I had momentarily forgotten my pin number and was thus asked to name some relatives.  That is when I learnt that American Express has the unscrupulous policy of deciding who is or who is not one’s relative based solely upon information they find as a result of a search for one’s public records.  

Most surprisingly, what American Express does is simply go primarily by location and last name.  And that is woefully irresponsible on the part of American Express.  Why?  Because many people who are entirely unrelated have the same last name.  There are numerous people whose last name is Williams or Cohen or Smith or Cho or Thomas or Davis or Jones or Goldman or Brown.  And so on.  Yet, these individuals are not related in any way whatsoever. They are not related even though they live in the very same town.

Because the above names mentioned are sufficiently common, that makes it particularly irresponsible and legally problematic that American Express should assume that two people are related merely because they have the same last name and live in the same town.  The day after I learnt that there “relatives” of mine in the area, I used one of the available services for searching public records and found out that there are six people with the last name “Thomas” in the Syracuse area.  I have never met a single one of them.  But American Express has determined that I am related to some of them.  It is no more plausible to suppose that two people with the last name “Thomas” are related than it is to suppose that two people with the last name “Cohen” are related or two people with the last name “Cho” are related.  So it is even if they belong to the same ethnic group.

Since I am quite scrupulous about how I do things and I am not financially burdened in any way, then it seems very clear to me that if American Express has engaged in such unscrupulous behavior with respect to me, then there is good reason to believe that it has done so with respect to others. 

Finally, since public records can be mistaken, it behooves any company to be extremely careful in supposing that two people are related merely on the basis of public records.  Every cardholder should be treated with a modicum of decency.  American Express blatantly violates that basic precept by the use to which it puts public records with respect to (some of) its cardholders.

I am so very glad that I had momentarily forgotten my pin number.  For it was my forgetting that number resulted in the agent to seek verification of my identity naming family members.

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

What is the profile of a child sexual abuser?  I hardly have a complete answer to this question.  However, I do have an insight that was brought to my attention by a very dear friend; and that insight is that a child sexual abuser is much more like to be married than not.  Upon reflection it is easy to see why this is so.  This is because being marriage provides the child sexual abuser with a considerable “cover” for his despicable behavior.  Below, I shall say something about priests.

Of course, I am hardly suggesting that people who are not married do not at all sexually abuse children, as that would be an obviously false claim.  Alas, the wrongs that people do is not entirely independent of the opportunities that initally present themselves to do that wrong; and there are several reasons why married men typically have a greater opportunity to abuse children than non-married men. 

For one, married men understandably often have far greater access to children than unmarried men have; and in the case of stepfathers, married men have access to children who are not biologically theirs.  For another, one naturally supposes that a married man is satisfying his sexual desires with his wife and thus not with children.  Third, if a married man has children or is a stepfather, then his displaying a measure of affection towards a child strikes us as entirely natural. 

Of course, an unmarried man may have nieces and nephews.  However, from a social perspective that role simply pales in comparison to the role of being father.  An uncle is not a father ! 

In the child sexual abuse scenarios of Pennsylvania State University and Syracuse University all the men accused of sexual abuse are married men.  Notice that no unmarried male was even under consideration for having done anything inappropriate in this regard. 

Are there single males (with no children, let us assume) who are child sexual abusers?  Of course, that question has to be answered affirmatively.  And the child sexual abuse of priests makes that manifestly clear.  But notice that with priests precisely what we (or at least used to) have is a considerable social “cover” for priests to spend lots of time alone with young boys.  Why, in the past the very idea of supposing that a priest would be having sex with a young altar boy, say, seemed blasphemous in and of itself. 

Generally speaking, if an unmarried male has an ounce of prudence, then he has every reason in the world to be ever so circumspect in his interacting with young children.  And part of the irony here is that the unmarried man has reason to be ever so circumspect precisely because, with regard to the sexual abuse of children, it takes so very little for people to be suspicious of him. 

To conclude, what is so profoundly significant and alarming here is that mere social images do far more work in terms of the judgments that people make regarding who might be a child sexual abuser than the very reality of things.  It has never been the case that the typical profile of a child sexual abuser was rightly taken to be that of either a single male or a single male who is not a priest.  Yet, to this very day one would never know that.  Alas, that is very much a pity. 

In the matter of child sexual abuse, vigilance is always warranted.  However, if it is true that the child sexual abuser is likely to have the “cover” of either marriage or religious office than to be a single male with no such “cover”, then our vigilance is terribly misguided if we do not revise it.  And if we do not make the appropriate revisions, then what unequivocally follows is that in the matter of child sexual abuse a measure of culpability applies to us.  Obviously, my point is not that we should straightaway suspect married men or priests of being child sexual abusers.   Obviously, most married men are not child sexual abusers. 

In general, we are rightly suspicious of any man who goes out of his way to spend an inordinate amount of time with children alone.  Alas, our mistake has been to think that such behavior is acceptable if the man is married or a priest because no such man would have the sexual desires of pedophile.  And my simple point here is that we continue to reason in that very erroneous way.  Alas, at this point in time, such erroneous reasoning on our part is downright inexcusable.  A 40-somethng unmarried male grasps from the very outset that it simply does not look good for him to have bunch of young boys constantly having out at his home.  The odds are, then, that he does not so behave.  By contrast, a married man or a priest has reasoned that he has a “cover” for having young boys around.  And we as a society have been way too easily pacified by that “cover”.  And that makes us part of the problem.

As I have already stated: Obviously, most married men are not child sexual abusers.  The point of this essay, though, is that in most cases the child sexual abuser is likely to be a married man (or a priest).

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

Public Displays of Affection has become commonplace.  Public displays of affection have become so commonplace that in some instances appears that the parties have just stopped short of having sex.  Of course, we all know how the argument goes: If the two individuals are not causing anyone else any harm, then in a word: Get it over it!  Look the other way, or whatever. 

Needless to say, there is much to be said for having a sense of modesty; and nothing brings this point more than the utter inappropriateness of adult people having sex in front of their parents.  This is utterly inappropriate although ne’er a parent is harmed.  It is inappropriate for parents to watch the sexual behavior of their children and it is equally inappropriate for the children to want engage in such behavior before their parents.  So it is although no harm is done.  At least no more harm is done than is done when two people engage in intense public displays of affection public.

Alas, what I want to talk about is not public displays of affection, but public displays of faith.  Tim Tebow is a rather devout Christian and after achieving a touchdown, for instance, he will often engage in a minute public display of faith.  The adjacent image is an instance of such a display of faith on Tebow’s part: Head raised, eyes closed, and a finger pointing in the sky.

As one can see, the gesture is tremendously simple and is not in any way bombastic.  Indeed, it is no more bombastic than “throwing” a hug at mom, say.  It is certainly less bombastic than guys doing a chest-bump.  Yet, there are those who find Tebow’s PDF (public display of faith) inappropriate.  And I have asked myself over and over and over again why would anyone be remotely bothered by Tebow’s simple public display of faith (PDF). 

We live in a society in which winning is an excuse to riot and engage in all sorts of destructive behavior in the name of celebrating the victory.  By comparison to the utterly inexcusable behavior often comes winning, Tebow’s ever so simple and modest instance of PDF after a touchdown is majestic in its simplicity and bespeaks a human being of considerable character. 

That anyone should be bothered by that simple PDF on Tebow’s part is an indication of just how low the moral climate of the United States has sunk.  Let’s see: chest-bump or an ever so simple public display of affection.  Admittedly, the chest bump is far more macho than closing one’s eyes and point a finger to the sky.  But Tebow’s football playing abilities that when it comes to being macho on playing field at least he measures up as well as just about anyone could hope to measure up.  And there is the example that Tebow sets for those who observe him, especially the young people who do so. 

What makes for a better society?  Is it the wild and careless celebration of a sport’s victory?  Or, is it an ever so simple gesture of religious gratitude for the excellence in sports that one has just displayed?  The answer should be what they call a no-brainer. 

I suggest that Tebow’s simple public display of faith reveals a most admirable level of self-knowledge on this part.  To be sure, there are other ways of exhibiting that one has self-knowledge.  But such a simple gesture in full public view, given the significant sports accomplishment of a touchdown, is one that has a place in the moral firmament of humanity.

Most significantly, nothing I have said requires being a Christian. 

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

Self-Deception is a common aspect of human the existence.  We can all think of astonishing instances of self-deception on the part of an individual.  There is the older person who looks utterly ridiculous wearing attire that is fit for a teenager.  There is the comb-over on the part of bald men which fools absolutely no one into thinking that the men with the comb-over have anything close to a full set of hair.  And so on.

One question that ever so forcefully presents itself is why is it that human beings have the capacity for self-deception?  That is, why has not this capacity been eliminated through natural selection?  To be sure, there are certainly occasions when a person is better off on account of not knowing the truth.  And so we have the expression “ignorance is bliss”.  However, it would seem that self-deception is generally not a good thing.  Yet, the prevalence of self-deception would seem to be all out of proportion to its ever so occasional benefits. 

For instance, the older person who foolishly dresses like a teenager surely does not accrue any benefits.  Similarly, no benefits accrue to the bald guy who does the comb-over.  After all, no is one fooled in either case. 

By and large, then, self-deception does succeed all that well.  So if ever there is a psychological trait that should have been eliminated the capacity for self-deception is one such trait.  That is, it is the rare instance in which a person’s success turns out to be owed to self-deception on that person’s part.  

So why do we have this capacity?  My explanation is a very simple one, namely that self-deception significantly facilitates group survival—a point which has tremendous significance many hundreds or even thousands of years ago. 

It is a given that human beings are social animals.  This can be understood in many ways, namely that on many fronts social interaction is crucial to the survival of human beings.  This starts first with learning a language.  No one can learn a language all by herself or himself.  Then there is the issue of surviving the elements.  Here, too, it is typically easier for a group to survive than it is for a single individual to survive.  Finally, there is the issue of having sufficient food.  Clearly, groups are individual procuring food is apt to be far more effective in the vast majority of cases than a single individual procuring food on her or his own. 

Now, group survival is at its best when there is deep, deep measure of unquestionably loyalty on the part of the group.  And there, I suggest, lies the key to why the capacity for self-deception continues to exist.  On the one hand, it is clear that people will go considerable extremes to fit in.  On the other hand, it turns out that for most people the benefits of fitting in are well worth the sacrifice that they must make to fit-in.  My thesis is that the capacity for self-deception plays a pivotal role in this regard.  We this as much with the KKK of the Old South as we do with black Americans in the United States making a fuss about being called African-Americans.

The KKK of the Old South took it to be obvious that all whites are superior to all blacks, although had not purchase upon reality at all.  How the very poor whites could have supposed that they were superior to all blacks is total mystery to me.  Self-deception was masterfully at play in terms of whites maintaining the utterly implausible view just described.

With all the insistence upon the use of the word African American”, one would have thought that this new self-referential term for blacks actually made a positive difference in some aspect of being black.  Yet, no one can point to a scintilla of evidence that the usage of the term “African American” has made a positive difference.  There is not more cooperation among blacks.  The self-esteem of blacks has not shown a sharp increase.  Nor are blacks more positively motivated on account of the usage of the term.  Here, too, self-deception is masterfully at play in terms of insisting upon the propriety of the self-appellation “African American”. 

Finally, in this vein, the fraternity/sorority system on college campuses is a remarkable instance of self-deception.  To hear students tell it, one would think that joining a fraternity/sorority house dramatically increases one’s chances of getting into a good graduate school or obtaining a good job.  Yet, nothing of the sort is true.  No doubt there is an exception here and there.  But the exceptions prove the rule. 

For most people throughout the world, it matters considerably to people that they belong to this or that group or subgroup.  So it is for all the talk on the part of people about being individuals.                  

© 2011 Laurence Thomas

Imagine a Jew Reporting a Nazi for raping another Nazi.  The odds are that the Jew would have absolutely no credibility at all.  Indeed, the Jew might very well be harmed in some significant way for even having the gall to report on a Nazi.  If that is indeed the case, then one can actually make sense of a Jew not reporting a Nazi for raping another Nazi.  If ever a person could have an excuse for not reporting a rape, an interesting truth is that a Jew in Nazi Germany could very much have such an excuse.  A Jew in Nazi Germany had essentially zero credibility.  Worse, a Jew could be egregiously harmed for reporting a Nazi.  Together, these considerations provide a Jew in Nazi Germany with a rather potent moral excuse not to report the wrong of rape that was committed by Nazi against a Nazi.

I do not think for a moment that the case of Mike McQueary is exactly parallel to that of a Jew reporting a Nazi raping a Nazi in Nazi Germany.  Yet, the parallel is rather instructive.  Many people think—and understandably so—that McQueary should simply have gone to the police.  Alas, the very problem here would seem to be that vis-à-vis Joe Paterno the simple truth of the matter is that McQueary essentially had no credibility at all.  Given the way that things were in the Penn State area at the time, there is virtually no reason at all to believe that the police would have taken McQueary’s word without first consulting with Paterno.  None reason at all to believe that. 

We have an analogous issue with McQueary using force to stop Jerry Sanduski from raping the child in the shower.  At the police office: Would it be that McQueary was stopping Sanduski from rapping a child?  Or, would it be that McQueary attacked Sanduski and a child happened to be in the background? 

If, as it seems so reason to suppose, McQueary had zero credibility at the time vis-à-vis Paterno (and Sanduski), then we have a more plausible explanation than many might have supposed as to why McQueary did not go to the police immediately or right after it became clear that Paterno was not going to do so.

In both cases all that we need to add is that in addition McQueary, his family might have been harmed in some major way.

A situation in which we have zero credibility and, in moreover, one in which we also run the risk of being harmed or having a family member harmed for reporting someone is one which most of us have never known and will never know. 

The simple justification that one has done one’s part simply does not have the force that it would typically have in a context in which there is no chance that one will be believed.  And no moral theory requires that one puts oneself or a family member at serious risk in order to report a moral wrong. 

Sometimes it seems that people are too clever for their own good.  My aim has not been to be clever.  Rather, precisely what has caught my attention is that McQueary seems to be a rather decent individual who was genuinely repulsed by what he saw Sanduski doing in the shower.  And our initial instincts are very simple: He should have stopped the bastard.  And since McQueary was obviously stronger than Sanduski, precisely what cries out for an explanation is: Why did not McQueary just put an end right-then-and-there to the sexual abuse that was occurring in the shower?  My speculation is that McQueary knew that the Paternao machine would close ranks against him and that he would in fact be charged with assaulting Sanduski rather than saving a child from sexual assault by Sanduski.  What is more, that charge would have enormous credibility.  McQueary’s father also understood this and that is why McQueary’s father recommended that McQueary go to Paterno for credibility.

If my speculation has the plausibility that I think it has, then McQueary is not the moral accomplice to the evil of child sexual abuse that many take him to be.  To see this: Imagine that Jack witnesses child sexual abuse on the porch next door and goes over to stop it, with the result being that Jack ends up being accused of attempted rape.   Now, let us add that Jack somehow knows that he will be accused of attempted rape should he try to stop the child sexual abuse on the porch next door.  What should Jack do in this second instance, given what he actually knows?  I wish I knew the answer to that question.  But I do not see how in the second instance Jack would be open to the same level of severe moral criticism for not going over there that he would be open to for not going over there in the first instance.

Most of us have never been in the kind of situation that I speculate that McQueary was in.  And perhaps we are too busy being self-righteous to see that.

© 2011 Laurence Thomas