![]() |
About the Book |
Community Information |
Additional Resources |
The Morality of Silence: A Discussion
Original Discussion Post from Liz Loftus, Chair, CNY Reads:
"I wanted to share this very thoughtful response from Jerry Evensky at S.U., about the use of the phrase, 'morality of silence.'"
"I think of it this way: We have a legal right to remain silent, but is silence moral? As with most moral dilemmas, it's not simple. It depends on the circumstance. If I'm being tortured by some fascist/raciest/homophobic/anti-Semitic/(or whatever) agents for information about the whereabouts of someone I love that they want to eliminate, it may well be moral to maintain silence. On the other hand, if I know of their plans to eliminate someone and say nothing, well .... And what of the intermediate case? Suppose I know of their plans to eliminate someone and say nothing because I know they will kill my children if I speak. Moral?
I don't think it's helpful to frame it as the "immorality of silence" because that seems to assume the negative - silence is always immoral, end of discussion. The "morality of silence" opens the question as to whether it can ever be moral to be silent, and if so ... when."
DISCUSSION RESPONSES
Silence is always a choice, a response to a situation much as saying something or doing something is a choice. The key question is why we choose silence as a means to express our stance on an issue or take action. Morality itself is generally based on "group consensus" and that's why it's very difficult to have universal standards of "right" and "wrong" or norms (This is the reason why "superpowers" tend to use their power to enforce "global" morality). For me, the key question is why people remain silent or take action to deal with a particular situation. So, remaining silent or taking action is not the issue, but why.
Example, which of the following situations are you more likely to remain silent or take action?:
a. physical violence against another person (murder, rape, etc)
b. structural violence (oppression, poverty, low graduation rates, etc.)
Were those who took action against Slavery or Holocaust or the Bombing of Japan, etc., or those who are opposed to the war in Iraq or the war between Israel and Hezbolla more "moral" than those who have remained silent? Why are you silent or taking action about these situations?
Let's all remember, what is legal is not moral, and what is immoral is not always illegal.
Thanks.
Emmanuel
Well, I'm going to take issue with the statement that silence is always a choice ... it presumes that independent action is always possible and denies the overwhelming effectiveness of oppression. While I am far from excusing people on the basis of "victimhood" the middleclass often fails to recognize the debilitating effects of poverty, ignorance and social constraint. We can hope that the "human spirit" could rise above such conditions, but we also know that "human spirit" needs nurturing environments in order to recognize the options that allow choice to occur.
Joyce
Joyce:
Exceedingly well said! To "poverty, ignorance, and social constraint," I would add "youth." Children may opt for silence in the face of a cruelty that an adult might feel empowered to stand against.
Wendy
May I chime in? First let me say your discussion is wonderful and I thank you for your insights.
Excellent opinion, to which I totally agree. There are many times when "privilege" for some is suppression for others.
Last updated: June 5, 2007