My Re-definition of Scandal
What is a scandal? As a non-native English speaker, this question has been wandering in my head as I tried to make sense of both the Chinese and English definitions of this rather abstract term. Despite reading the English dictionary definition of “scandal”, fully grasping the connotations behind it has been challenging. What makes an event a “scandal” or an object “scandalous”? Are scandals formed when people fail to reach others’ expectations? Or does an event come to finally be defined as a scandal when a behavior violates the law? I read further into events that have been described as scandals in order to investigate further. At closer inspection, I found scandals to not only be “deep, dark secrets” hidden away, but rather creations defined by others.
Let me provide an example. Confucius is one of the greatest philosophers in Chinese history, and his thought greatly impacts Chinese culture to this day. I still remember when in high school I had to read and memorize his quotes, trying to interpret his every word. In the most memorable story of Confucius I had read, he executed his colleague after he was granted the Minister position. This was deemed scandalous by my classmates upon reading the story, because of Confucius’ ambition and jealousy. Regardless of the credibility of the story, his actions still fell under criticism because they considered Confucius a saint and thus his actions tolerable.
Does this kind of situation sound familiar? Well, it seems that this scenario occurs every day. With freedom of speech and advancements in communication technology, information is passed far and wide in a matter of seconds: people can more easily share opinions and make judgments about others. In fact, we define actions as scandals. This brings up my question, according to what ethics should we judge others?
In 1977, John Mackie proposed the error theory, in which he claimed that ethics do not exist. He first pointed out that if ethics do exist, they should meet two criteria: objectiveness and prescriptiveness. Objectiveness means ethics should have characteristics that are mind-independent, while prescriptiveness means that ethics should have the power of conditioning. However, by observing history, we see that ethics vary over time, fundamentally contradicting both those assumptions. Thereby, Mackie revealed the contradiction by argument from reality and successfully proposed that there is no absolute ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behavior.
With the error theory in mind, should we still regard Confucius’ actions as scandalous? I would argue that it was Conficius' followers who defined him and his personality. Scandals are made to satisfy people’s imagination and the use of ethics. But ethics are not absolute, and neither are our lives. Living in a flawless way is impossible. So, what is a scandal? Forcing people to live as we expect them to. That is the scandal.
References:
Zhang, Hongzhen, and Baogui Wu. Xun Zi. Tainan Shi: Da qian wen hua, 2003.
Mackie, J. L. (John Leslie). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth ; New York: Penguin, 1977.
Taylor. “既然道德對錯本質上不存在，那為何還要遵守呢？.”Philosophy Medium, November 22, 2017. https://philomedium.com/blog/80133.