Showing posts with label Conceding the truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conceding the truth. Show all posts

Tuesday 10 October 2023

Dealing with conspiracy theorists

Most problems I have with my fellow humans these days can easily be dealt with by a clear and direct application of one or more maxims drawn from Pirkei Avot. But this is not a magic formula and there are times when my normally successful policy of using Avot as my moral compass is clouded with uncertainty. Here is a case in point.

I have among my friends a very sweet gentleman of relatively advanced years. He is an honest and upright citizen. He makes charitable donations, attends synagogue regularly, greets others with a warm smile and likes to help people when he can. But—and for me this is a major but—he is an ardent believer in a number of so-called conspiracy theories. Even harder for me, even though he does not say so in as many words, he assumes that his friends and acquaintances share his beliefs and seems a little hurt when he discovers that they don’t.

 I’m reluctant to argue with my friend about the validity or veracity of the theories to which he subscribes. This is not just because I don’t like to upset him but also because a key feature of every good conspiracy is that it is impossible to disprove. Avot charges us to accept the truth when we encounter it (Avot 5:9); it is, after all, one of the three means through which the world endures (Avot 1:18). It is also one of means through which one acquires mastery of the Torah (Avot 6:6). But how does one establish the truth in the first place, when every fact that one offers up as a challenge to a fanciful theory is dismissed as being part of a cover-up by the conspiratorial authorities in order to bar us from access to the ‘real’ truth.

Elsewhere Avot tells us to learn how we should answer an apostate (Avot 2:19), but my friend is not a heretic. We are also charged with distancing ourselves from a bad neighbour and with taking care not to link up with someone who is wicked (Avot 1:7) —but my friend is neither of these things.  On the other hand I don’t want to leave him with the last word in any conversation with me because, if I do not contradict him, he will assume that I agree with him.

My problem appears to be echoed by the words of the wise king Solomon (Proverbs 26:4-5). He first says אַל-תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן-תִּשְׁוֶה-לּוֹ גַם-אָתָּה (“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, in case you act like him”) but then offers the opposite advice too: עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן-יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו (“Do answer a fool according to his folly, in case he becomes a wise man in his own eyes”). 

So how should I respond when my friend buys into his conspiracy theories and expects me to agree with him? Suggestions, anyone?

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Friday 15 July 2022

Be careful what you believe -- and how you believe it

We Jews enjoy conversation as much as anyone—and many of us virtually treat it as an art form. However, everything comes at a price. The laws of lashon hara (impermissible speech about other people) are many and wide-ranging; if you transgress them, you may fall foul of a possible maximum of 4 biblical curses, 17 prohibitions and 14 positive commandments, which the Chafetz Chaim lists with convenient references and explanations.

Many of these laws affect the person who listens to lashon hara, whether intentionally or quite by chance. This is because one is not supposed to give credence to it. This poses some obvious problems for the listener who is a keen student of Pirkei Avot and who is sensitive to its own issues. Thus we should always concede the truth of a statement that is true (Avot 5:9); however, the principle that we should judge other people favourably (Avot 1:6) governs information heard from a friend just as much as it governs things we can see for ourselves. Since we can’t unhear the things a friend tells us, what should we do when we are told things about someone we know, things that may well be true?

The Chafetz Chaim explains that, in practical terms, we must create a sort of halfway house between believing a statement and disbelieving it. For example, if we are considering going into business with Reuven we may hear by chance from Shimon, a former business associate of Reuven, that Reuven is dishonest and can’t be trusted. This statement may be true, in which case we should want to believe it and act upon it. It is however lashon hara and was not spoken in the context of a legitimate response to a request for a business reference.

In a situation such as this, the listener should neither believe nor disbelieve the information about Reuven. Rather, he should merely bear it in mind as one of a number of possible factors to balance when deciding whether to advance his proposed partnership with Reuven. How might we do this? One way forward for us would be to do an internet search for Reuven: Is there evidence of public knowledge that he has been convicted of a crime of dishonesty? Does he have a presence on Facebook, LinkedIn or elsewhere that may give rise to concern? It may also be worth doing the same for Shimon, who may be bad-mouthing Reuven to distract us from his own wrongdoings. We might also proceed to do business with Reuven but be more circumspect about matters such as record-keeping and transparency of accounts. Ultimately it is a question of how accurately we can predict the outcome of the proposed business relationship, in accordance of the advice we receive from Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel at Avot 2:13.

The interface between Pirkei Avot and the laws of lashon hara is vast and complex. This short piece can hardly do more than to scrape the surface of this topic and, in doing so, invite further thoughts, comments and suggestions from its readers.

Friday 27 May 2022

Partygate, or When Lies Won't Work, Try Telling the Truth

What is Partygate? The word is now firmly embedded in the English psyche, but I suspect that people who live outside the UK may be less intimately familiar with the Partygate saga.

In short, during a period in which the coronavirus was causing panic among the general populace and playing havoc with the economy, the British government took steps -- as did the governments of many other countries -- to retard the spread of Covid. These steps were portrayed as being vital for the preservation of health and it was emphasised that the restrictions that were imposed were to be binding on everybody, without exception.

It subsequently emerged that the British prime minister Boris Johnson appeared to have exempted himself, his staff and his nearest and dearest from these restrictions. Thus, while the law-abiding citizens of the UK were sitting at home, often celebrating solitary Christmases or fretting indoors while loved ones died unvisited in their hospital beds, a good deal of partying was going on at the prime minister's official residence at 10 Downing Street, with the prime minister very much in evidence.

News of the illicit partying started at level of mere rumours. These rumours generated in turn a sequence of suspicions, denials and accusations that ended with a number of criminal convictions.

Revelations that Boris Johnson was partying while others suffered were scarcely likely to pass unremarked, and even many of his friends and supporters have been highly critical of his perceived hypocrisy in flouting rules that he earnestly urged others to respect.

If I may parody the response of the Prime Minister's Office to the allegations of partying, they seem to have travelled along the following lines:

  • There were no parties.
  • Even if there were parties, the Prime Minister did not know of them.
  • If he knew of them, he did not attend them.
  • If he did attend them, he did so involuntarily and did not know that they were parties.
  • If he did attend them, he was there in his official capacity and not as an ordinary human.
  • And anyway, he didn't drink a lot and wasn't really there to enjoy himself.

This line of defence is a traditionally British approach, one which will be familiar to viewers of the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister television series.

What has any of this to do with Pirkei Avot?

In the fifth perek (Avot 5:9) we learn that there are seven features that distinguish the wise man from the golem -- an immature clod. The last of those seven is the ability to admit the truth.

If, rather than prevaricating and issuing vague, uninformative statements, the prime minister had been brave enough to follow this advice from the outset, he could have responded to the initial rumours like this:

"Yes, I did it. I went partying when the rest of the country was in lockdown. What I did was wrong and I knew it at the time. I hold up my hands and say, yes, I'm guilty. I am thoroughly ashamed of what I've done and apologise from the bottom of my heart and in all sincerity for this lapse of judgement on my part.

Having said that, I can only say in my defence that we are all human, and everyone makes mistakes from time to time. I responded to a human impulse that I found impossible to resist. I seek your understanding and your forgiveness, In doing so, I ask you to reflect in your hearts and ask yourselves, in all honesty, whether -- if you were prime minister and were struggling under the strain of running a country during an unprecedented pandemic -- you would not have done the same thing".

By admitting the truth, confessing his wrongdoing at the earliest opportunity and earnestly seeking the forgiveness of the nation, Boris Johnson could in a single stroke have ended the did-he-didn't-he speculation that occupied so many columns of news for so long and put the ball in the court of his accusers and detractors by forcing them to decide how to respond, depending on their moral stance and their political allegiance.

Illustration: Boris Johnson having a drink with Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak

Thursday 6 January 2022

Conceding the truth

Earlier today, on my personal Facebook page, I posted a short note on the temptation to justify mistakes I had found in the final proofs of my book, rather than correct them. In posting that piece I managed to make a different sort of mistake -- I failed to make any mention of the fact that this issue is also connected to Pirkei Avot.

In the fifth perek (Avot 5:9) we learn that one of seven signs that distinguishes a chacham -- a wise person -- from a golem is that he or she does not deny the truth but concedes it. In other words, once you are shown to be wrong, don't cling on to your error but relinquish it and accept the truth.

That's not all. the process of setting oneself up on the basis of truth is listed (Avot 6:6) as one of the 48 items through which one acquires the Torah, and the mishnah even goes so far as to say (Avot 1:17) that truth, along with justice and peace, is one of the three foundational qualities that keeps the world going.

The truth can be elusive, frustrating and annoyingly inconvenient. Pirkei Avot pulls no punches when it comes to advocating the need to live by it -- even truth has its limitations when it comes into conflict with peace. But's a subject for another post.

Sunday 25 April 2021

Truth and putting people right

Truth is one of the three things that keeps the world going (Avot 1:18). It should surprise no-one then that one of the seven signs of the chacham, the wise person) that distinguishes him from the golem (an uncultured, ignorant or immature person) is the ability to acknowledge the truth (Avot 5:9). In other words, when you are in the wrong you should concede that you are in the wrong. But this is not the only situation in which error occurs. For example, if someone else says something that is palpably wrong, are you either allowed or obliged to put that person right?

Putting others right would appear to be the right and proper thing to do when learning or teaching Torah. This is because Avot 6:6 lists "setting others on the course of truth" as one of the 48 things through which Torah wisdom is acquired. When you put someone else right you have the comfort of knowing that only a person who learns from everyone can truly be called "wise" (Avot 4:1). However, one must be careful how one does this, because it can be embarrassing to be corrected in public and embarrassing another publicly can have the most serious of consequences (Avot 3:15).