Sorry, I felt the need to create a new post too.
I feel like I’ve been playing the same card for weeks now. Deontologists come up with a constraint, and I think it really isn’t the constraint itself that does the moral work, but the effects such a constraint has on character that really matters. So this time I tried to do something else...I tried to come up with a good challenge for the constraint against lying (besides the fact that it doesn’t do any moral work). I ended up appealing to character anyway, but I still had an interesting thought experiment of it.
Although outside of class, I raised the case of the Dad from Big Fish. For those that haven’t seen the movie, all you need to know is that he is a man who builds his life by telling stretched fictions about himself. All his life he tells these lies, but they don’t hurt anyone...they’re only really about himself, and many of them actually have inspiring morals to them. Basically, he makes himself larger than life. The lies actually serve (as the movie implies) to build a strong character in the father; filling out traits like charm, sense of humor, endearment, the ability to inspire etc.
The only one of Hill’s arguments that I think applies is the fourth one of a "realistic picture of life." The father certainly had a strong mental capacity for autonomy, and a very sophisticated sense of humor about himself (as well as a gift for story weaving). The important life choices aren’t hindered by these lies, in fact his life choices are what feed them and make them more interesting to tell. The morals he attaches to these stretched versions of his life could also inspire others around him to make better life choices than they have. (But I do not want to take focus away from the Father at this point, for it is his case in which I am most interested not necessarily his effect on people around him.) The Father knows himself better than anyone else, so making lies about his life is by no means a mistaken appeal to comfort. The realistic picture of his life argument however, is what the Father is criticized for most in the film. His son thinks these lies are ludicrous, and his father should tell/know the truth of things. However, and this may be as Kelly said: "just a movie trick to get us to think exactly what Tim Burton wants us to think–and not something that would be akin to reality". . .it appears that the Father’s fabricated stories of his past are worth much more than the bare facts. Because of this it is actually more respectful of the Father’s rational dignity to share with him one last fantasy. The son concludes that the most realistic way to look at his father’s life, is through the way he lived it: he lived it larger than life through the stories he told.
Wether or not this is a realistic scenario is probably the first thing a Kantian would question. Could there really be some sort of past the father is ignoring? (Which is slightly implied by the film, although it does not seem anywhere dire enough to make a significant change to his rational life picture if he were to admit it.) Are there people in the movie that we just don’t see who are actually damaged by these lies? Although the type of lies the father told rarely damaged as much as inspired and fantasized, Hollywood could have just overlooked the fact that there must be some significant damage. There is one character in the movie who the Father has apparently neglected in his past, but it is not because of his lies and fantasies that she is hurt. In fact, she is more honored by these tales than anything else. Again, it may just be the Tim Burton bend, but the lies seem to be an odd "admirable" sort of lies.
It seems to me, that IF someone like the Hollywood version of the Big Fish dad existed it would be a hard case for the Kantian to crack. For, it appears to me that the lies in this case actually improve the persons character. But it might not be all that plausible in actuality. This may or may not be a problem for my case.
One major objection might be that "surely lying in this manner cannot be the only way to achieve the kind of admirable character traits that the Big Fish dad had. Therefore his life of lies is not the best it could morally be. He might have "got the right stuff" but he didn’t "do it in the right way". Lying is still wrong. (A man who has all the Big Fish Dad’s qualities etc. is better off morally if he does not lie to get them.) However, this is when I want to pull out my classic "lying is not what’s really doing the work" card. Because, what I believe to be the proper moral evaluative thing here is the type of character it takes to do one thing or another. And it appears to me that if one can have an admirable character arising out of their lying, (as opposed to a rotten one) it is not impinging on anything morally significant.
That might be begging the question...I've been thinking about this too long to tell.
I'm really interested, even if you already posted or even if you're Kelly Sorensen...what other objections can the Kantian have that I might have missed? I forget all what we might have covered in our brief discussions. (I by no means think this to be the most effective challenge to a constraint against lying, I mostly value it for its thought provoking-ness.)
Although outside of class, I raised the case of the Dad from Big Fish. For those that haven’t seen the movie, all you need to know is that he is a man who builds his life by telling stretched fictions about himself. All his life he tells these lies, but they don’t hurt anyone...they’re only really about himself, and many of them actually have inspiring morals to them. Basically, he makes himself larger than life. The lies actually serve (as the movie implies) to build a strong character in the father; filling out traits like charm, sense of humor, endearment, the ability to inspire etc.
The only one of Hill’s arguments that I think applies is the fourth one of a "realistic picture of life." The father certainly had a strong mental capacity for autonomy, and a very sophisticated sense of humor about himself (as well as a gift for story weaving). The important life choices aren’t hindered by these lies, in fact his life choices are what feed them and make them more interesting to tell. The morals he attaches to these stretched versions of his life could also inspire others around him to make better life choices than they have. (But I do not want to take focus away from the Father at this point, for it is his case in which I am most interested not necessarily his effect on people around him.) The Father knows himself better than anyone else, so making lies about his life is by no means a mistaken appeal to comfort. The realistic picture of his life argument however, is what the Father is criticized for most in the film. His son thinks these lies are ludicrous, and his father should tell/know the truth of things. However, and this may be as Kelly said: "just a movie trick to get us to think exactly what Tim Burton wants us to think–and not something that would be akin to reality". . .it appears that the Father’s fabricated stories of his past are worth much more than the bare facts. Because of this it is actually more respectful of the Father’s rational dignity to share with him one last fantasy. The son concludes that the most realistic way to look at his father’s life, is through the way he lived it: he lived it larger than life through the stories he told.
Wether or not this is a realistic scenario is probably the first thing a Kantian would question. Could there really be some sort of past the father is ignoring? (Which is slightly implied by the film, although it does not seem anywhere dire enough to make a significant change to his rational life picture if he were to admit it.) Are there people in the movie that we just don’t see who are actually damaged by these lies? Although the type of lies the father told rarely damaged as much as inspired and fantasized, Hollywood could have just overlooked the fact that there must be some significant damage. There is one character in the movie who the Father has apparently neglected in his past, but it is not because of his lies and fantasies that she is hurt. In fact, she is more honored by these tales than anything else. Again, it may just be the Tim Burton bend, but the lies seem to be an odd "admirable" sort of lies.
It seems to me, that IF someone like the Hollywood version of the Big Fish dad existed it would be a hard case for the Kantian to crack. For, it appears to me that the lies in this case actually improve the persons character. But it might not be all that plausible in actuality. This may or may not be a problem for my case.
One major objection might be that "surely lying in this manner cannot be the only way to achieve the kind of admirable character traits that the Big Fish dad had. Therefore his life of lies is not the best it could morally be. He might have "got the right stuff" but he didn’t "do it in the right way". Lying is still wrong. (A man who has all the Big Fish Dad’s qualities etc. is better off morally if he does not lie to get them.) However, this is when I want to pull out my classic "lying is not what’s really doing the work" card. Because, what I believe to be the proper moral evaluative thing here is the type of character it takes to do one thing or another. And it appears to me that if one can have an admirable character arising out of their lying, (as opposed to a rotten one) it is not impinging on anything morally significant.
That might be begging the question...I've been thinking about this too long to tell.
I'm really interested, even if you already posted or even if you're Kelly Sorensen...what other objections can the Kantian have that I might have missed? I forget all what we might have covered in our brief discussions. (I by no means think this to be the most effective challenge to a constraint against lying, I mostly value it for its thought provoking-ness.)
posted by Tommy G! at
11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home