tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post4717542751797047409..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: ModestyAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-10327581834853316192009-09-01T08:58:05.324-04:002009-09-01T08:58:05.324-04:00We don't speak ill of the dead for the sake of...We don't speak ill of the dead for the sake of the living. Whomever Kennedy was and is in the eyes of some people, his family shouldn't have to hear those who didn't like him rejoice in his death....especially before he's even in the ground.<br /><br />I think that principle holds true in most cases. <br /><br />People don't mind speaking ill of the dead, and there's nothing wrong with it if it's truthful, but it's appropriate to at least wait until the body is cold.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-4952159779166092332009-08-30T14:01:09.965-04:002009-08-30T14:01:09.965-04:00Donna B.'s comment points up a basic conflict ...Donna B.'s comment points up a basic conflict here between two norms:<br /><br />- Speak no ill of the dead.<br /><br />- Be honest and do not allow blatant dishonesty to go uncorrected.<br /><br />What do you do when the people around you are uttering fulsome nonsense about a recently deceased person who was in fact not that admirable? One doesn't wish to trash the dead. One also doesn't want the record to become distorted through reticence about the recently dead.<br /><br />Part of the reason for the rule about speaking ill of the dead, I think, is that at least the dead person can now do no more harm; it's over and done with and there's nothing to be gained by chewing it over. Let's say the deceased had a habit of beating his children; that's evil, but there is no point in going into it in detail. It will only cause pain to his loved ones, and it's too late to stop him from doing it anyway. Discussing it does not prevent harm and may cause it.<br /><br />However, what if some of the relatives start gushing about how much he loved his children, how he was always so good to them even though they were unaccountably ungrateful? Now there's actual harm being done - to the reputation of the children, to their feelings (one imagines), and also to the accuracy of the remembrance of this man. You don't have to foreground the bad things he did, but they shouldn't be wiped out of memory by falsehoods either.<br /><br />I suspect the norm ultimately comes from the feeling that rehearsing the shortcomings of the dead is nothing but spite. To some extent I agree with that. But "tell the truth and shame the devil" is also an old and honored norm.jaedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03328666344764784829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-50389402182160949952009-08-29T09:00:00.738-04:002009-08-29T09:00:00.738-04:00I agree with you, Donna B. I wonder what ever hap...I agree with you, Donna B. I wonder what ever happened to "having your house in order" before you could be responsible for decisions affecting other households. What good is it that you helped others with the power of your position when your family is in need of help as a direct consequence of your behaviors? How could Massachusetts continue to elect him over and over again?Boethiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00755968985821460943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-38805978287955788002009-08-29T03:32:54.925-04:002009-08-29T03:32:54.925-04:00Modesty would require not speaking dishonestly of ...Modesty would require not speaking dishonestly of the dead to make them appear to be more worthy than they perhaps were.Donna B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16771075314473811594noreply@blogger.com