|
The following article is from the SAVES newsletter, The
VE Bulletin, Vol 15 No 1, Mar 98
Pious Bullshit
The attendance (around 76) at the November 97 SAVES general meeting was
larger than usual, perhaps out of curiosity as to how Dr Brian Stoffell,
Director of the Medical Ethics Unit at Flinders Medical Centre, would handle
his chosen topic, Pious Bullshit. It turned out to be not so much a denigration
of religious belief, but more a comment on the human capacity to bluster
in the face of challenge. It seems established, though, that many religious
institutions find themselves unable to avoid using bullshit in opposing
needed social reform.
In explaining the meaning of the word "bullshit" as commonly used, he
described it as a special sort of evasiveness, where what is evaded is
both the truth and its counterfeit, the lie. His mentor on this subject,
Harry Frankfurt, suggests that bullshit is so prevalent that it stands
out as the most salient feature of our culture [See Harry's essay "On Bullshit"
in The Importance of What We Care About (Cambridge University Press,
1988)]. Its hard not to agree when we consider the ways in which we at
times try and influence others and, in turn, are influenced ourselves,
quite apart from our exposure to the "experts" - politicians, professional
advisers, salespersons, and so on.
Dr Stoffell gave examples of the many forms of bullshit in common use,
all of which we can immediately recognise and which include:
-
The endless use of inflated, florid, highsounding language to avoid relevant
questions;
-
The ritual incantation of the name of an argument, eg "slippery slope"
as though that settles the matter;
-
The use of pompous images or metaphors as substitutes for argument, eg
"fabric of society", "sanctity of life", to give the impression of greater
knowledge or insight than the recipient of the bullshit;
-
The claiming of a link between two scenarios to the disadvantage of the
one under attack, eg the attempt to label the push to legalise voluntary
euthanasia as part of a "culture of death" akin to the excesses of the
totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany.
Dr Stoffell's theme was that the multiple facets of bullshit were ploys
for evading the issue, giving a false impression of the truth, and blinding
the gullible with vacuous terms.
Bullshit is, of course, rampant in the voluntary euthanasia debate and
lest we feel too complacent we must acknowledge that its use is not always
confined to our opponents. The challenge is to know when we've been seduced
into using it ourselves because only then can we break free from that other
common human characteristic, self-deception.
The title of Dr Stoffell's talk comes from the Latin technical phrase,
pia fraus, meaning "pious fraud". It refers to an approach that is accepted
as basically dishonest, but justified as being in the interests of a higher
cause - in this case, religion. Dr Stoffell convincingly claimed that for
all the widespread use of bullshit in our culture, it paled into insignificance
compared with its single-minded use by the leaders of the religious right
to justify their claim that voluntary euthanasia is never morally permissible.
Dr Stoffell concluded with a comment on a recent argument put forward
by some on the religious right who have decided to target compassion: "Why
should compassion have so prominent a place in the public debate?"; "There
are other more profound things at stake here than mere compassion for the
dying, the sanctity of life, for example or the doctrine of the church!"
The truly astonishing thing here is that compassion and ministry to the
poor and suffering is the only moral notion that Christianity has any claim
to have championed. You can certainly reject the moral demands of compassion,
but in so doing the moral core of Christianity goes with it.
Dr Stoffell's talk, quite academic at times, was most stimulating. The
prevalence of bullshit in the community, and our susceptibility to it,
must surely be a crucial factor in the long time it takes to achieve worthwhile
social reform.
|
