My Home Page with Links to My Other Book
Reviews
Self-Deception and Morality
by Mike W. Martin
Despite the best efforts of
philosophers, self-deception is a murky subject. Taking the broad approach,
Mike W. Martin packs a large number of moral thinking errors into the category
of self-deception. He has done a fine job organizing Self-Deception and
Morality into five sections.
Martin first explores evasion
tactics such as ignoring, detaching, rationalizing, using distractions and
engaging in doublethink.
Then he covers the “inner hypocrisy
tradition,” the theory that self-deception is a powerful destroyer of character.
This chapter is well done.
The authenticity tradition promoted
by existentialists, who saw avoidance of self-deception as the primary human
value, comes next. Existentialists emphasized choice, passion, freedom,
integrity, autonomy, integration, commitment and individuality. These are often
splendid things, but they are overemphasized at the expense of character.
The “moral ambiguity tradition”
could be described as the too-ambiguous-not-responsible tradition. It holds
that humans are not at fault for what they do, because fault is too difficult
to determine because we are mentally ill or deterministic creatures or both.
The ambiguity tradition has little to recommend it. John Staddon, among others
would excoriate this view.
The “vital lies tradition” offers
instances where deception is sufficiently beneficial, for example, ignoring
minor flaws while courting. It is, however, easy to believe harmful
self-deceptions are beneficial. The weakest part of this chapter is a paragraph
hinting that value claims, in particular ends, can not be facts or arrived at
from other facts.
It is difficult for me to determine
how beneficial the study of self-deception is. The world of self-deception is
complicated. Calling an error a fallacy and leaving it at that is much easier.
Getting into the inner workings of motives for a faulty reason or action is
problematic.
I do not want to go around
constantly trying to figure out whether someone who calls the earth flat is
engaging in rationalization, willful ignorance or whatever.
Even if one ignores the technical
language of self-deception, the study of self-deception appears to have some
benefits. One does not have to make ressentiment a part of everyday vocabulary
to appreciate thinking about how bad hierarchies of values can be constructed.
The ideas here are an aid in self-examination, but the land of self-deception
can quickly become a land of over-analysis.
This is not an argument for
deciding which theory of self-deception is best, if any. Instead, it explores
the theories using literary and real-life examples.
There is a surprising emphasis on “singling
out” one person for moral blame here. Frequently more than one person is at fault.
Individuals have varying amounts of responsibility and are guilty for a variety
of failings. The burglar is 100 percent guilty of burglary, but the victim may
be guilty of indiscretion for leaving his car unlocked and a box full of CDs on
his seat. This does not lesson the fault of the burglar in any way. Cases where
only one person deserves all the blame are rare.
Martin tries to avoid false dichotomies between social and personal morality. Martin concludes by voicing frustration over the way individuals close their minds to whole areas of major moral concern. Minor issues such as cloning and the death penalty get the attention. Weapons of mass destruction and basic human rights get ignored. Recommended. Book review article by J.T. Fournier.