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".
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.
Yes, indeed. Either Schneier displays his old, astute, successful writer wit at work; or maybe it's his evil editor's influence :)
"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."
So yes, I would argue saying a word means something can make it true with the context of the author's writing. It basically becomes variable declaration at that point.
Do you disagree?
If I can convince someone that something is true, such as "red is equal to blue", even when it isn't, then it allows an entire logical argument to be built on that falsehood. The argument may be perfectly sound as long as everyone agrees with the original falsehood.
If I say 'red is equal to blue' and you agree, then I can follow up and say, 'bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue'. This is a silly example but it's commonly used in politics and newspapers daily.
I might accept that an author could redefine a word temporarily, in some instances of fiction; however, never in a technical or nonfiction work could this be considered acceptable or even credible.
From my perspective it seems you are being overly rigid when you are complaining about the usage of the word 'dishonest'. And I don't find your example useful because I believe it's triviality ignores what makes arguing over the definition of a word difficult in the first place.
Plus, from my perspective, I'd have no problem with the statement "bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue" if "blue" was previously redefined as meaning "red".
Besides, it's clear that the "dishonesty" he's talking about here is less about "telling lies" and more about things like theft, fraud, and other ways of illegitimately enriching yourself at the expense of others. This is the form of dishonesty in which he's interested, because it's so central in human relations... much of human nature is designed to cope with this problem. This thread has got rather off-topic with too much talk about how we classify Rosa Parks, who is fairly irrelevant to the problem at hand.
I admire Schneier and am interested to see where he goes with the book, but the thesis as presented seems a bit thin.
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.
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".
Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.
"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.