“We are, as I’ve argued before, entitled to a life informed by the fundamental facts about our existence. Even the painful ones? Perhaps especially those. This truth belongs to her.”
—New York Times advice columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah, aka. “The Ethicist” concluding his advice to the inquirer who asked, “My Adopted Cousin’s Biological Parents Were Siblings. Do I Tell Her?”
Kwame is pretty clearly the best of the various “experts” who have manned the long-time feature in the New York Times Magazine; at least he’s a real ethicist, a philosophy prof at NYU. (I say “manned” because the Times has never given the post of “The Ethicist” to a woman. Go figure…) Lately, however, I’ve been a bit worried about the guy, and wondering if “The Great Stupid” is getting to him. More answers like this one, and I’ll be tempted to dub him the “Un-Ethicist,” in honor of the old 7-Up campaign branding the soft-drink as the “Un-cola.”
I’m just going to focus on the quote above and not the whole column, because The Ethicist is stating an absolute principle that is absolute hooey. The inspiration for the edict “The truth belongs to her” was the usual participant in the column, “Name Withheld,” asking whether he or she, as the only living relative who knows the actual family origins of a cousin, (or as Kwame puts it, is “the sole custodian of an intimate truth concealed from the very person it concerns) should spill the rotten beans now, when they both are seniors.
Because the dark family secret can be nothing but disturbing or worse, I see no possible benefit to anyone by revealing it to the cousin now. She knows she was adopted, but she does not know that her biological parents were brother and sister—at least that’s what the inquirer’s now-deceased mother told her “in absolute confidence.” All records are sealed: there is no way for the “truth,” if it is the truth, to come out, as all involved except the adopted cousin are dead. The clueless cousin has a husband, children or grandchildren.
Even in his (as usual) prolix answer, The Ethicist struggles to find any real benefit to the inquirer revealing the secret. Any genetic abnormalities, from which the Clueless Cousin has apparently been spared, would now be detected with modern medical screening and are increasingly unlikely with succeeding generations. So he defaults to the “rule,” encomium, or whatever he thinks it is, that the cousin must have this depressing, disturbing and useless information because “this truth belongs to her.”
What does that even mean? The secret “belongs” to her, but she almost certainly will be sorry she has it, and if she could, she would get rid of it. The Golden Rule, assuming the user is responsible and fair, takes care of this issue in a second: would YOU want to find out that you were the offspring of incest long after there was anything you could do about it or in reaction to the news other than revise your regard for your parents and everyone who knew about it and kept it from you? Similarly, I don’t want to be informed that my father was the Zodiac killer, my mother was a part-time call girl, or that John Wayne was a cannibal. Utilitarianism also frames this problem correctly. The benefits of revealing the secret are close to nil, and the potential damage is massive.
We construct our lives on foundations of convenient untruths sometimes, and if there is nothing to be gained by pulling out one of that foundation’s cornerstones, it is unethical to do it.
Ethics Alarms 
I cannot resist.
The Ethicist missed his chance.
I agree, I would not share this.
I’d like to believe my decision to keep such info to myself is rooted in compassion and a desire to avoid unnecessary harm. A form of protection. Sometimes, the well-being of the person involved should take precedence, and not all truths are necessary to share, especially if they might cause more harm than good.
Funny story:
When Mrs. OB’s and my daughter Sarah (Mrs. OB’s biological daughter, my adoptive daughter) was informed by Mrs. OB (with some understandable trepidation, that she, then age seven, was not my biological daughter but Mrs. OB’s first/former husband’s biological daughter, she ran directly into the living room to her two years younger stepbrother Dawson and blared, full Nelson, “Ha! Ha! Dawson, I have TWO fathers, and you only have ONE!” Distraught, Dawson ran to Mrs. OB wailing, “Why does Sarah get everything!?”
I have to say I do have a different perspective. I really REALLY hate the notion that I might be “blissfully ignorant” about anything in life, and I further dislike the notion that someone else decides what I “should” or “shouldn’t” know, removing my own agency in the matter.
The Golden Rule, then, suggests to me that I should indeed tell people uncomfortable truths unless they’ve indicated to me that they wouldn’t want to know.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but seriously, in my mind “blissfully ignorant” is no way to go through life, son. It puts me in a position where I might make decisions based on false or incomplete knowledge which is more likely to harm me than help me.
Could some things be difficult and/or painful to learn? Yes, of course. But I’m an adult and I can take it. Hiding things from me “for my own good” just signals that you don’t actually see me as an adult, which is its own problem.
I’ve had arguments with my now-elderly mother over this. She’s been in the hospital at least 3-4 times and then only told me about it in retrospect, after the issue was over. “I don’t want to worry you.” she says. “I WANT you to worry me.” I reply.
I understand where it comes from. Near the end of her father’s life, she lived a significant distance from the rest of the family, and making the trip to visit was a bit of a hardship in terms of time and money. Her siblings, as I’m told, contacted her several times during his last couple of years saying “He doesn’t look good, and we don’t think he’s has much longer. You’d better come home.” She’d make the trip to see him but he’d pull through.
So now, she doesn’t want to cause that same “crying wolf” problem for me or my siblings. “I don’t want you to feel obligated to come see me.” she’ll say and then tell me the story about her father . . . again.
It doesn’t matter to her that I specifically, explicitly tell her that I would rather know than not know and that I can make my own decisions.
I’m truly worried about the having the opposite problem with her: she’ll have some sort of medical issue, go in for surgery, NOT make it for whatever reason, and I’ll be suddenly hit upside the head that she’s passed away with no warning or time to process it.
This is just one example.
But seriously, am I in the minority here?
–Dwayne
Mrs. OB is firmly in your camp, Wayne. I tend to not bother her with potentially, or even actually, worrying things if I’m able to do so. Which angers her. She says she wants to be worried and scolds me for “hiding” things from her.
Mrs. OB and her sister recently found out they have a half-sister by their bounder and cad father. They’ve taken it in stride. The stepsister was hesitant to reach out to them. Ironically, they initially thought their half-sister was the product of another of their dad’s affairs, of which they had been advised by their mother shortly before she died.
Myself? I’m pretty neutral on this particular situation. I don’t feel strongly either way. It’s just not a slam dunk to me.
I have an aunt whom my grandparents adopted during the second world war. My aunt’s biological mother had become pregnant while her husband was on the other side of the world fighting in North Africa so my grandparents, being friends of the mother, adopted her. My grandparents didn’t tell my aunt that she was adopted.
Then when a teenager, my aunt got friendly with her biological half-brother and my uncle had to tell my grandparents what was going on, so they finally told my aunt that she was adopted. If my uncle hadn’t been with them, my aunt and her half-brother could easily have gone too far.
So I believe it is generally better to tell the truth than hide it unless you really think that the person can’t handle it.
But being adopted carries no stigma, and the only people likely to be hurt by the revelation are those who have been lying to the adopted child. This is a common situation: I’ve known at two people raised by their sister as their mother and told that their real mother was their sister.
Incest is something entirely different, don’t you think? Telling someone who their real parents were—information anyone would want to have unless the real parents were Dracula and Vampira–is always something they would want to know. Telling them that their parents were brother and sister epitomizes “too much information!” and crosses the line waaay past “your mother was artificially inseminated from a sperm donor”; your mother was raped and your father accepted you as his own anyway and your mother had an affair and got pregnant and your real father is President of the United States.
People have a fundamental right to know the truth about themselves, even if painful.
i think “ignorance is bliss” should be added to the list of rationalizations. The truth in and of itself is always worth knowing. Same logic can apply if my spouse dies and someone tells me afterwards that they were cheating on me while we were married. I’d absolutely want to know that.
I don’t want to live in a fantasy.
Truth, even painful truth, allows for agency, while concealment forces a person into an unwittingly false reality. That’s what they mean when they say the truth belongs to her.
Also, not everyone would react with devastation, she might appreciate the truth despite its difficulty. Just because you would not want this information, doesn’t mean no one else should receive it. I would want to know.
I think this is a projection of personal discomfort rather than an objective ethical principle.
I’d also push back against your consequentialist argument, If the cousin learns the truth through DNA testing, or an accidental revelation, the consequences could be much worse than if she were told intentionally and with care.
Sure, any decision can backfire, and worst case scenarios should always be factored into any decision. But very often ignorance IS bliss: it’s only a rationalization when the person using that excuse is deliberately ignoring what’s at stake. In Pulp Fiction, John Travolta and Uma Thurmond agree that her near death from a coke overdose while Travolta was charges with taking care of her is something her hyper-protective, famously jealous, murderous crime boss husband never needs to learn about. And they are 100% correct. No good can come of it. Similarly, if you’re going to argue some good can come of telling the cousin that her parents were siblings this late in the game, you’ll have to do better than, “She had a right to know.”
i think I did do better than “she has a right to know” and all you did is use a Pulp Fiction reference. I think YOU have to do better. Marcellus Wallace would want to know the truth so I think You’re argument defeats itself.
He would want to know the truth so he could hurt somebody. It’s an easy utilitrarian call: ignorance is bliss for all involved. Again, if you’re going to ague telling the woman she’s the product of incest, you have to identify a tangible benefit, a social or personal good, arising from the revelation. And it is…..??
Another movie example: The Firm. What was the benefit of Tom Cruise permanently wounding his marriage by telling his beloved wife about his beach boink with a stranger? (Assuming he had a choice, which he didn’t because he was being extorted by the photos.)
He would want to know the truth so he could hurt somebody. It’s an easy utilitrarian call: ignorance is bliss for all involved.
Maybe Marcellus would get his wife help so she doesn’t OD in the future. Maybe he wouldn’t have hurt anyone. Maybe if he finds out later, more people would get hurt. Vincent is only not telling him the truth because he wants to protect himself. That’s unethical.
And again, Marcellus would WANT to know the truth, so your argument falls apart here.
Again, if you’re going to ague telling the woman she’s the product of incest, you have to identify a tangible benefit, a social or personal good, arising from the revelation. And it is…..??
The benefit is that knowing the truth about one’s self allows for personal autonomy and agency. That’s a personal good. Being told the truth in a loving way is also less harmful than accidentally finding out and learning your family kept the truth from you.
Also, a person’s understanding of their identity is foundational to their psychological well-being. Even if the truth is painful, it allows people to live authentically rather than unknowingly basing their self-perception on a lie.
That’s a tangible benefit.
Another movie example: The Firm. What was the benefit of Tom Cruise permanently wounding his marriage by telling his beloved wife about his beach boink with a stranger?
This is a weird example, Cruise permanently wounded his marriage when he cheated on his wife. And if utilitarianism is about maximizing overall well-being, you’re only thinking short term, the wife deserves to be with someone who wouldn’t cheat on her and maybe she would be happier in the long run getting divorced.
Obscuring the truth is never an ethical goal to strive for. Dignity about knowing the truth also matters.
Everyone “wants” to know the truth once they know there’s a secret being withheld from them—that’s a false standard. Would they want the consequences of their knowing the truth if the consequences were before them and the secret were not? Marcellus would be asked: Ok , would you want me to tell you something that you know would lead you to exact revenge on an employee (remember, the episode was framed by the mystery of Marcellus throwing another employee out a window), making your wife feel guilty, perhaps causing her to conclude that your are cruel and dangerous, and that you would feel such an extreme reaction would be crucial to maintain your reputation as a man not to cross, or would you rather not have to face such a situation?
It’s an easy choice. And only one choice is ethical under both reciprocity and utilitarianism.
Everyone “wants” to know the truth once they know there’s a secret being withheld from them—that’s a false standard.
I mean, no. People just want to know the truth in general. I don’t know what “false standard” means
Would they want the consequences of their knowing the truth if the consequences were before them and the secret were not?
Yes?
Marcellus would be asked: Ok , would you want me to tell you something that you know would lead you to exact revenge on an employee (remember, the episode was framed by the mystery of Marcellus throwing another employee out a window), making your wife feel guilty, perhaps causing her to conclude that your are cruel and dangerous, and that you would feel such an extreme reaction would be crucial to maintain your reputation as a man not to cross, or would you rather not have to face such a situation?
It’s an easy choice. And only one choice is ethical under both reciprocity and utilitarianism.
I’d say this is gish gallop because you’re not addressing any of my points, you’re begging the question, it’s irrelevant to what we’re talking about, and I’d still argue he would want to know.
I’m addressing the ethical analysis of the question. I don’t know what “gish gallop” is, but you’re just repeating that people want to know secrets that will disrupt their lives, harm their self esteem, lead to shattered relationships and cause chaos without any substantive benefits because…they just do, that all. And that’s essentially what The Ethicist said. To be fair, your reasoning isn’t any worse than his is, and he’s got a column in the Times.