8 ms·

It's interesting that so many commenters take issue with the term "dishonest minority." I agree that honesty is usually the best policy, but I would lie to the

It's interesting that so many commenters take issue with the term "dishonest minority." I agree that honesty is usually the best policy, but I would lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the addic. This is the value in the dishonest minority and the conflict that the term implies to people who equate dishonesty with evil is central to the point.

wazoox 15y ago
Schneier is Kantian, here. He probably has read the "Critique of practical reason." Let me tell you of the debate between Benjamin Constant and Immanuel Kant in 1797 IIRC, after the Critique's publication. Kant affirmed therein that lying, as a general rule, is always wrong. Constant contradicted this idea, asking : how should you manage the case when someone comes to you and ask for protection from some bandits about to kill him, then? Shouldn't you tell the truth to the violent mob, that the guy they're looking for is indeed hidden in your closet? Kant replies that the right thing to do is to lie to protect the innocent, but knowing that it's as a constrained exception to the absolute rule : "you should not lie". The fact that you commit a wrong for a greater good doesn't entirely excuse the wrong or alter the rule. Most people, however, fail to adhere to this subtle analysis. Hence their displeasure with the word "dishonest".
- silverbax88 15y ago
  The issue that I have with the term 'dishonest minority' is that it isn't accurate in the groups that he is attempting to describe. I love his underlying concepts, but inclusion of all rule-breakers as 'dishonest' is problematic. The issue isn't whether lying is wrong or right. The issue is whether breaking a man-made rule is always wrong or right. "Dishonest" is not as accurate as "insubordinate" when including all murderers who break the law in with someone who blocks traffic to protest civil rights injustice. They are both breaking the rules, but is the second person actually 'dishonest' or rather, non-compliant? The overall issue is that it's pretty clear the term 'dishonest minority' was chosen for the shock value, not accuracy. In a technical book that seems so promising, using a carnival barker tactic to raise interest seems to belittle the underlying content.
  - wazoox 15y ago
    > The overall issue is that it's pretty clear the term 'dishonest minority' was chosen for the shock value, not accuracy. Yes, indeed. Either Schneier displays his old, astute, successful writer wit at work; or maybe it's his evil editor's influence :)
  - rst 15y ago
    Schneier himself makes the same point even more forcefully. Quoting: "The term 'dishonest minority' is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don't follow the rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as well as common crime."
    - silverbax88 15y ago
      The usage of the term 'dishonest', is, by very definition, a moral judgement. Saying a word means something else doesn't make it true.
      - timwiseman 15y ago
        Except its not, at least not as the term honest is strictly defined. To quote mirriam webste, honesty is being free of deception. While it is often immoral to decieve, there are definitely exceptions to this, which is precisely the point. You can be deceptive, and thus dishonest, while being highly moral, at least in cirtain circumstances.
        obfuscate 15y ago
        You can't sever a word from its connotations just by pointing out exceptions.
      - Goronmon 15y ago
- stretchwithme 15y ago
  Morality's purpose is to further human life, not result in the sacrifice of it. Its quite ok to lie to a thief or to protect someone that you care about. Or even a random stranger. These are exceptions but it is in the interest of those choosing to be honest with those who are honest with them to make such exceptions. Giving the benefits of honesty to those who refuse to practice it is simply enabling the parasitism.
gyom 15y ago
The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose. To give an example : as much as I think that "The Selfish Gene" is an awesome title, I feel like I have to defend the choice of words whenever I recommend the book. It doesn't really convey the meaning correctly. It means the right thing if you've read the book; otherwise it's misleading. That's what I think will happen with the term "dishonest minority".
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  The problem with the Dawkins title is that there are two ways to parse it. The correct (imho) way is to read it as a declaration that genes as a class are selfish. It is easily (indeed, I'd say more easily) parsed as an introduction to a gene that codes for the trait of selfishness. Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.
  - gyom 15y ago
    I agree that these are two ways to parse "The Selfish Gene" and the first one that you listed is more accurate, but what I don't like about the title is that is sounds a bit like an excuse that someone would use. "Hey, that's just the way my genes made me : I'm selfish, okay, but that's, like, genetics, survival of the fittest so it's all fine and I don't have to feel bad about it ..." The bad thing about the "Dishonest Minority" title is that is sounds like he's referring to a bunch of freeloaders who are abusing the system and ruining it for every honest tax-payer. From reading his excerpt, we know that it's not what he's saying at all. I like the shock value of using "Dishonest Minority", but sometimes book with titles like that nuance it by having a subtitle that goes like "How we all benefit from them" or something like that.

wazoox 15y ago

Schneier is Kantian, here. He probably has read the "Critique of practical reason." Let me tell you of the debate between Benjamin Constant and Immanuel Kant in 1797 IIRC, after the Critique's publication. Kant affirmed therein that lying, as a general rule, is always wrong. Constant contradicted this idea, asking : how should you manage the case when someone comes to you and ask for protection from some bandits about to kill him, then? Shouldn't you tell the truth to the violent mob, that the guy they're looking for is indeed hidden in your closet? Kant replies that the right thing to do is to lie to protect the innocent, but knowing that it's as a constrained exception to the absolute rule : "you should not lie". The fact that you commit a wrong for a greater good doesn't entirely excuse the wrong or alter the rule. Most people, however, fail to adhere to this subtle analysis. Hence their displeasure with the word "dishonest".

silverbax88 15y ago
The issue that I have with the term 'dishonest minority' is that it isn't accurate in the groups that he is attempting to describe. I love his underlying concepts, but inclusion of all rule-breakers as 'dishonest' is problematic. The issue isn't whether lying is wrong or right. The issue is whether breaking a man-made rule is always wrong or right. "Dishonest" is not as accurate as "insubordinate" when including all murderers who break the law in with someone who blocks traffic to protest civil rights injustice. They are both breaking the rules, but is the second person actually 'dishonest' or rather, non-compliant? The overall issue is that it's pretty clear the term 'dishonest minority' was chosen for the shock value, not accuracy. In a technical book that seems so promising, using a carnival barker tactic to raise interest seems to belittle the underlying content.
- wazoox 15y ago
  > The overall issue is that it's pretty clear the term 'dishonest minority' was chosen for the shock value, not accuracy. Yes, indeed. Either Schneier displays his old, astute, successful writer wit at work; or maybe it's his evil editor's influence :)
- rst 15y ago
  Schneier himself makes the same point even more forcefully. Quoting: "The term 'dishonest minority' is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don't follow the rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as well as common crime."
  - silverbax88 15y ago
    The usage of the term 'dishonest', is, by very definition, a moral judgement. Saying a word means something else doesn't make it true.
    - timwiseman 15y ago
      Except its not, at least not as the term honest is strictly defined. To quote mirriam webste, honesty is being free of deception. While it is often immoral to decieve, there are definitely exceptions to this, which is precisely the point. You can be deceptive, and thus dishonest, while being highly moral, at least in cirtain circumstances.
      - obfuscate 15y ago
        You can't sever a word from its connotations just by pointing out exceptions.
    - Goronmon 15y ago
stretchwithme 15y ago
Morality's purpose is to further human life, not result in the sacrifice of it. Its quite ok to lie to a thief or to protect someone that you care about. Or even a random stranger. These are exceptions but it is in the interest of those choosing to be honest with those who are honest with them to make such exceptions. Giving the benefits of honesty to those who refuse to practice it is simply enabling the parasitism.

gyom 15y ago

The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose. To give an example : as much as I think that "The Selfish Gene" is an awesome title, I feel like I have to defend the choice of words whenever I recommend the book. It doesn't really convey the meaning correctly. It means the right thing if you've read the book; otherwise it's misleading. That's what I think will happen with the term "dishonest minority".

CWuestefeld 15y ago
The problem with the Dawkins title is that there are two ways to parse it. The correct (imho) way is to read it as a declaration that genes as a class are selfish. It is easily (indeed, I'd say more easily) parsed as an introduction to a gene that codes for the trait of selfishness. Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.
- gyom 15y ago
  I agree that these are two ways to parse "The Selfish Gene" and the first one that you listed is more accurate, but what I don't like about the title is that is sounds a bit like an excuse that someone would use. "Hey, that's just the way my genes made me : I'm selfish, okay, but that's, like, genetics, survival of the fittest so it's all fine and I don't have to feel bad about it ..." The bad thing about the "Dishonest Minority" title is that is sounds like he's referring to a bunch of freeloaders who are abusing the system and ruining it for every honest tax-payer. From reading his excerpt, we know that it's not what he's saying at all. I like the shock value of using "Dishonest Minority", but sometimes book with titles like that nuance it by having a subtitle that goes like "How we all benefit from them" or something like that.