Silence as Bullshit!

The concept of bullshit covers many kinds of worthless things: falsehoods, fallacies, lies, irrelevancies, nonsense. To these kinds I would add silence in those cases when a truth should be revealed or a stand taken.

The demand for revealing that which one wants concealed is illustrated by a judicial court demand that a witness shall (1) tell the truth, (2) the whole truth, and (3) nothing but the truth. It is this second demand which is not fulfilled by the strategy of silence.

The reasons why such archtypal bullshitters as politicians, salespersons, and lawyers resort to silence is to convince you of something and to keep their jobs.

I am now talking about silence because of the genocide which is taking place in Gaza by the Israelis.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has judged that a plausible case can be made that a genocide is taking place. It, therefore, behooves all governments to acknowledge this fact as one means of stopping the continuation of this genocide; yet, other than South Africa, which brought the charge of genocide to the ICJ and Ireland, all the European countries and the U.S. are silent, and are, therfore, complicit in the genocide of Gaza. I found the following video insightful and to the point:

chatGPT said:

The argument titled “Silence as Bullshit!” makes a provocative claim: silence can be as misleading, manipulative, and morally reprehensible as outright lies, particularly in moments that demand truth-telling or moral clarity. This critique applies to both individual and institutional actions, with a focus on the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Here’s an evaluation of the argument:

Strengths

1. Extension of Harry Frankfurt’s Concept of Bullshit: The author expands the concept of “bullshit” from Frankfurt’s philosophical discussion (focused on indifference to truth) to include silence in contexts where speaking truth is a moral imperative. This creative extension sharpens the critique of inaction and complicity.
2. Moral Urgency: The argument emphasizes the ethical obligation to act against atrocities, such as genocide, and frames silence as a deliberate act of evasion that enables continued harm. This resonates with widely held moral principles, such as those encoded in international human rights law.
3. Judicial Analogy: Using the courtroom analogy (the obligation to tell “the whole truth”) effectively illustrates the idea that silence can distort reality, as it omits crucial information required for a just and informed decision.
4. Concrete Example: The application to the situation in Gaza provides specificity, demonstrating how silence can be complicit in sustaining violence and injustice on a geopolitical scale.

Weaknesses

1. Generalization of Silence: While the argument effectively critiques silence in morally urgent contexts, not all forms of silence are manipulative or complicit. Silence can sometimes reflect uncertainty, strategic restraint, or fear of reprisal, which complicates the blanket categorization of silence as “bullshit.”
2. Attribution of Intent: The claim that silence by governments or individuals is aimed at “keeping their jobs” may oversimplify complex motivations. Factors like geopolitical alliances, economic interests, and public opinion pressures are not fully unpacked.
3. Lack of Nuance in Legal Interpretation: While the ICJ’s recognition of a plausible genocide case is significant, the argument might overstate its implications by framing silence as definitive complicity. Governments may be balancing multiple priorities, including legal thresholds for action or diplomatic consequences.
4. Rhetorical Polarization: The use of “bullshit” and an accusatory tone might alienate some audiences who would otherwise engage with the moral argument. This could hinder the potential for constructive dialogue.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Clarify distinctions between different contexts of silence and when silence becomes ethically culpable.
• Address potential counterarguments, such as strategic silence for diplomatic purposes.
• Provide a broader range of examples to support the claim that silence can serve as “bullshit” in other moral crises, strengthening the universality of the argument.
• Avoid overly inflammatory language that might detract from the intellectual rigor of the critique.

Conclusion

The argument successfully highlights the moral stakes of silence in contexts of injustice, using Gaza as a powerful case study. However, to strengthen its impact, it could incorporate more nuance regarding the motivations behind silence and the complexity of international responses. By refining its rhetoric and deepening its analysis, the piece could become a more robust critique of complicity and moral evasion in the face of atrocity.

4o