Hacker News Reader

Comment by wazoox | Hacker News Reader

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".

View on HN

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.

> 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 :)

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."

The usage of the term 'dishonest', is, by very definition, a moral judgement. Saying a word means something else doesn't make it true.

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.

You can't sever a word from its connotations just by pointing out exceptions.

But if the author redefines a word within the context of an article or other piece of work, it seems a tad trite to continue to complain about how it's use doesn't agree with some standard definition.

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?

Yes, I disagree. Because what you are describing is what's known as 'informal logic'.

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.

I guess I'm not understanding your perspective.

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".

Not to nitpick, but bulls are color blind...

Hey guys, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2047175

We're talking edge cases though. Most of us don't live in Nazi Germany, and most of us don't need to go round lying or breaking the law in order to be good.

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.

Insubordinate is a much better term.

I agree that the title could use some work, notwithstanding the point about unjust laws. Maybe he needs to find a more neutral angle (eg The Disobedient Minority). Or maybe he could make his point more forcefully by playing up the moralistic aspect; The Wicked Minority would be provocative, but acknowledge both the issue of truly bad actors who present a genuine danger to their neighbors, and the equally worrisome problem of moral hazard that results from adopting a moralistic approach to a practical problem (ie the police state).

I admire Schneier and am interested to see where he goes with the book, but the thesis as presented seems a bit thin.

Who cares? Use fewer words or say something interesting.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com