A Stumbling Excuse

by Arnold De Villa
July 1, 2012
Reasoning is an exclusive property of humanity. Angels do not reason. And God does not need it. When we make excuses, we either justify our behavior, rationalize our thoughts or provide an alibi for whatever we are doing. When a small child starts giving us reasons for eating the prohibited hidden cookie or for not admitting that he just broke a piece of antique, despite not consenting to a wrong deed, we normally consider it as a bench mark for his cognitive growth. And when he starts simulating the same white lies that his parents use, we say that his innocence has ebbed away as if it were the starting point of an adult evolution.
Yet we are adamant in telling others to be truthful, not to make excuses, just to admit things, and then move one. We color the different degrees of veracity according to situational interpretations, oftentimes creating a defense from the perspectives of convenience or from the standpoint of self-beneficence. We have labeled lawyers as the gurus of this framework and then politicians as secondary leaders. But since most politicians are lawyers anyway, then there is probably no difference.
On the extreme side of this reality is perhaps an idealistic fantasy that could spell more havoc than order. Try telling the truth exactly as it is; reveal intentions without prudent excuses; paint reality without any embellishments and hang on tight for a guaranteed turmoil. They just cannot always apply.
“How do I look?” A middle aged wife with bulging curves and disproportionate thighs asks her husband, referring to her appearance in a tight mini-skirt. Granting that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the husband could always say “you look great, honey!” and things will just be dandy. But if the husband were a stickler to an absolute truth without any excuses, he might say: “the skirt looks good, but your curves are somewhat protruding and your thighs are symmetrical with the skirt”. As it is, there are no malicious intentions to offend. There are no lies in what he said. There are no excuses to his statement, yet war could erupt and kitchen items could be airborne towards the husband. Does this mean that some wives or females for that matter cannot accept an objective truth? Or does this mean that there are females who could only accept praises and nothing else? Or does this mean that husbands should never be bluntly objective when it comes to their wives.
A mother tells her kindergarten not to sleep while in Church. One Sunday, while in Mass, the child was indeed attentive and complied to his mother. But the mother was so tired for having worked long hours the day before. The sermon was starting to drag as delivered with a monotone voice. The mother’s eyelids were slowly yielding against the light. The child stared at his mom, waiting for her eyes to close. When her eyes finally shut and the child saw that she was dozing, he screamed, “Mommy, wake up. You told me we cannot sleep in Church. Wake up, mom!”
The mother did, after she heard chuckles from the pew in front of her and from behind. She wanted to cover her face while some people smiled at her. The little child still said, “Do not sleep mommy. I am not sleeping”. Apparently, the mother’s unintended nap is totally excusable, forgivable and even tolerable. But the child does not see that. He does not connect fatigue with sleeping in Church. Does this mean that his reasoning faculties are not yet intact? Or does this mean this his truths are based upon the authority that he believes in; what his mom told him to do?
The spectrum between excuses, lying and telling the truth is as immense and mysterious as a black hole. Their point of reference seems to be as buoyant as a land mark in space. Adding the poverty of language and the inaccuracy of expressions, confusion seems to be more abundant than clarity when it comes to the ethics of self-defense versus an objective truthfulness.
How do we guide ourselves then? I always believe that excuses are stumbling blocks when there is a malicious intent to deceive whilethe delivery of a totally objective truth could contain a malicious intent to offend. The person who demands to know everything from another could be a meddler who has no business to know. And the person who discloses everything does not necessarily mean being totally truthful. He might simply seek someone to share with his woes.
That which is honest does not require excuses because the intent is not to hurt but to shed light. When hurt takes place despite the gentle transmission of truth, it is because the receptor of that truth either refuses to accept truth or is not able to respond appropriately. White lies are white because white signifies innocence. They are lies primarily intended to avoid complications, to control further damage, or to prevent emotional injury. And although excuses can be truthful, the intent behind them may be defective and therefore also fall within the premises of white lies.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress regarding certain documents he declined to provide. This is in reference to the “Fast and Furious” federal gun operation meant to track down Mexican drug and firearm cartels but ended up with unaccounted weapons dissipating in illegal gun purchases. As far as this writer knows, Holder has not responded with any white lies or excuses pertinent to a government operation which apparently did not go right. He preferred the way of silence through other legal strategies such as “executive privilege”. Some Republican members of congress retorted with a old excuse that “the American people have a right to know”. Really?
How do they know and come up with such a blanket statement that the American people have a right to know? We come back to the full circle of convolutions between truth, excuses, lies, sincerity, honesty and integrity. So where do we stand? What do you think?