I was on a criminal jury last week. On the second day, Rachel was able to attend and see a bit of American justice first-hand. On each day as we resumed the judge admonished the the jury not to talk about the case. On the second day he was told by a court officer that a family member of a juror was in the courtroom and, in the mostly friendly of tones, asked Rachel if she would comply with his request as well. She cheerfully nodded in agreement and said, "Yes." Naturally, as soon as we were out of the courtroom she and I started chatting about the experience. Is it ever moral to lie to a legally-constituted authority?
Paul used to tell me that masculines often tell "white lies" to tactfully navigate otherwise prickly situations. What he meant was that it's okay to tell a lie when it is for good reasons, harms no one, and advances the cause of right. Here are some examples, in order of increasing stress:
In a perfect, well-oiled, world we would never tell, or need to tell, lies. But this is an incredibly unpredictable world of and — everything people say and everything people do — only some of which is true or right. Different people attain quite different levels of integrity, different levels of honesty and courage. Some rise to their full stature as civilized human beings, and some stay in a childish state expecting the rest of us take care of them and move out of their way. Some respect our independence, and some feel free to meddle, micromanage, and admonish us endlessly about how we should live our lives.
Setting an example of superior honesty or courage, while a crucial way of contributing to civilization, isn't always effective. Children who can't recognize this kind of superiority are immune from such benefits. In other words, you don't need to tell the whole when that truth is nonsense to this potential student, or do what is completely when that right might seems crazy to this potential follower. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", says the good book. Then find somebody worthy of teaching or leading and put your whole heart and soul into it. And be pleasantly surprised when you find someone who can provide similar services to you.
Religious shepherds have for centuries laid down simple-minded rules for how their flock must think and act, even enjoying the effrontery of personifying their sky parent as a town bully who punishes those who fail to comply with his "commandments". Even modern democratic societies are full of smug and sanctimonious authority figures who try to engender cooperation by laying down the most simple-minded rules of what "good citizens" must think and do. Chief among these are homiles like "Don't take the law into your own hands." But if you look into this issue a bit, you'll learn that benevolent social forces in general, and government authories in particular, are only thinking about the lowest common denominator of citizen participation when they formulate such recommendations. The law regards all individuals as equal, interchangeable cogs. Has there ever been a more transparent lie than this perpetrated on human beings?
A teacher scolding rowdy children after an unacceptable outburst knows she is not addressing those who were well-behaved. When you deal with unruly mobs you yell at the forest, not the trees. But you know, or should know, that there will always be individuals who rise above the herd mentality and do not need admonishment, simply because their moral standards are higher than average — maybe even higher than your own.
This is what Arthur Conan Doyle taught us when he repeatedly showed Sherlock Holmes refusing to turn over to Scotland Yard someone who had broken the law. It is also what meant when he extolled his "Übermensch". Once I had dropped out of college and had read , my eyes were opened and I knew what I had to do. My sense of what was right had to come from within me and nowhere else. I no longer wanted to become better for society. I wanted society to become better for me. Years later I learned that 1911 book had made this crystal. Just men don't merely reach for the right, they become right.
This is why it sickens me when the Supremes judge laws by whether they conform to something some "founder" said hundreds of years ago in a memo. Smart guys to be sure, but do we really want to base the next release of Android on the doodles that little Billy Gates scribbled in the margins of his history textbook in 1965?
Engineers have always talked about "rules of thumb". In software development we talk about "heuristics" or, more simply, "best practices". These are principles discovered by experience — not theory — that have been shown to streamline the development process. But while legitimate, there are times when they cannot, and must not, be followed blindly. All rules, it seems, are made to be broken.
The dogma of equality may have been useful in stamping out the "divine right of kings", but eventually it too will seem archaic and bizarre. And although it's never been tried, other rules of thumb seem better to me. How about "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"? Has anybody ever tried that one??
In fields like medicine and law, we don't conduct polls or hold popularity contests to decide which treatments or which defense strategies are the best — we hire experts who have education, accreditation and reputations to stand on. Someday we'll have to think about setting up structures like this for politicians.
It's a good idea to ask jurors not to talk amongst themselves while testimony is being given. But Rachel and I lied to the judge because he was only expressing the right in very coarse terms that he could expect the average citizen to understand and comply with. He simply wanted a fair trial. Rachel and I want fair trials too, but unlike the average citizen we're able to discuss courtroom events without my forming predudicial forelorn conclusions about what the verdict should be. I know what the outcome looks like after three days of testimony, but I also know that should conflicting testimony also be presented I'll be happy to render a correct verdict at the appropriate time. The judge can't possibly know that about me, nor should he be expected to.
And, yes, it is our responsibility, and ours alone, to decide when it is appropriate, and perhaps even necessary, to rise above the herd mentality of "good citizenship". This world belongs to the trees. Not to the forests.
Overruled.
Sherlock Holmes: It's every man's business to see justice done. ( [1893])
Sherlock Holmes: I am not in an official position, and there is no reason, so long as the ends of justice are served, why I should disclose all that I know. ( [1904])
Sherlock Holmes: I think there are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge. ( [1904])
Dr. Watson: Not for the first time, Holmes, you've presumed to take the law into your own hands.
Sherlock Holmes: I have never loved. But if I did, and if the woman I had loved had met with such an end, I might act even as our lawless lion-hunter has done. Wouldn't you?
Dr. Watson: Yes, I suppose so. But that's not the point.
Sherlock Holmes: The point is: why should I do the work of the official police? And as you're very fond of telling me I'm on holiday! (The final lines from [1910], (1988 "Sherlock Holmes" BBC TV series version)