The Doctrine of Relative Filth 633.2
In the early ’90s I was asked to spend a full day talking about ethics with the entire California Senate. I was their punishment. Three senators had been convicted the previous year, and voters had passed an ethics initiative requiring legislators to receive education on ethical principles.
This was a high-profile, high-prestige program, and I didn’t want to be naïve about Sacramento’s political realities and rationalizations. I spent days interviewing senators and staffers.
During one interview, a senior staffer confided, “We need this program. People lie a lot up here.”
I wondered if I should act surprised. “Lying in politics? I’m shocked!” I thought. But before I could respond, the staffer added, “I hardly ever lie.”
“Gee,” I thought, “do you hardly ever take bribes?”
Although his statement sounded like a confession, he wasn’t embarrassed at all. In fact, he was proud. Hardly ever lying made him feel morally superior. In a culture where lying is common, the occasional liar feels like a saint. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I’ve heard variations of this justification (“I’m not so bad as long as others are worse”) so many times that I’ve given it a name: The Doctrine of Relative Filth.
It’s a rationalization used by cheating athletes and coaches, dishonest businessmen, and others to minimize their moral shortcomings by comparing themselves to others who have even lower standards.
What a pathetic defense! People of character aren’t satisfied being better than someone else. They strive to be the best they can be.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
What do you think of this commentary?
Subscribe
Comments
I love the idea of relative filth. If it's not true, then it's a lie plain and simple. Just what is a white lie? It's a lie. It's not truth. If you say nothing but know something is wrong, do you lie by being quiet? Like taking the 5th amendment defense.
Posted by: larry grable | August 28, 2009 8:14 AM
I am appalled at how many people justify the use of steroids in athletics. They will defend Barry Bonds saying that everyone else is using steroids, why should he be singled out. It seems that if other famous athletes do it, then it isn't such a bad thing. Why do people have that mentality? Where does this come from? If a person cheats on his spouse, the justification made is that many people do this from time to time, so I guess they are making it not such a bad thing. What happened to integrity? Where have we gone wrong in society, because so many of these people are role models. Don't they have an even greater responsiblity to do the moral and ethically right thing? I worry about where we are headed as a society.
Posted by: Maria Romero | August 28, 2009 8:25 AM
I love comments such as, "If it's not true, it's a lie plain and simple." I don't think telling an elderly lady that she looks very nice in her Sunday best outfit that has seen better days is the same as telling that same elderly lady that if universal health care comes into being, she will have to go before a death panel that will decide if she lives or dies. I'm sure she would be appalled to discover she has been misled into opposing something that would enable her younger, out-of-work relatives to visit the doctor and get medical treatment even if no one in the household is currently employed.
Posted by: Stephanie | August 28, 2009 6:41 PM
I believe you should go to Congress again with the continual lying that they are doing now. Look at Blogovich, Madoff, Geithner, the list goes on.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2009 5:13 AM
At first I thought this commentary was a little arrogant because it implies that the author doesn't lie as he passes judgment on a staffer who was trying to convey the necessity of honesty in politics. Then I understood that the staffer was trying to convey a sense of relative moral superiority to someone he considered to be a moral superior (the author of this commentary). Afterward I gleaned that the moral of this commentary is that there is no such thing as moral superiority. Am I wrong in this? Your consideration of yourself as "their punishment" that politicians had to endure, I find disconcerting. Personally, I find most of your commentaries inspiring. It is, however, peculiar to me that you put the onus of lying on an un-elected staffer and not a primary political decision-maker. Staffers seem to be the ones who take the blame often when a politician is exposed to an ethical dilemma. But plausible deniability is what keeps the corruption in our political machine rolling, now isn't it?
Posted by: C | August 31, 2009 11:03 PM