Is confidentiality implied in a conversation? A few days back I read a news piece online. A famous cricketer had sent a woman unsolicited messages over a popular social media platform. The woman posted the screenshots of the messages online, wondering why a celebrity would message her out of the blue. The messages were neither vulgar in content nor offensive. It seems as if the woman has dismissed the man’s advances and I hope he takes it in stride and bows out with grace. My intention is not to comment on this event per se but I am interested in abstracting the deeper problem that this episode raises: is confidentiality implied in a conversation?
It's beyond the scope of a blog post to discuss at length the philosophical implications of the question. Therefore, I will discuss only a section of it. Is a person in the wrong if he/she makes public the details of a private conversation? If I conclude that a person has committed a moral wrong by making public the contents of a private conversation, it means that there is an implicit agreement of confidentiality in all conversations. On the other hand, if I conclude that a person hasn't committed a moral wrong by making public the contents of a private conversation, then it means that there isn't an implicit agreement of confidentiality in conversations.
The standard definition of conversation is 'it's an informal talk between two or more people'. The online chat and group messages come under the rubric of conversation. As an informal talk, a conversation happens between either friends or acquaintances. The friendliness, or the familiarity between the participants, provide the conversation its informality. Since it's defined as an informal talk, it's marked by a lack of rules. However, to think that conversations are devoid of any rules is unrealistic. Even though rules aren't explicitly stated, context and circumstances provide us with norms of behavior. The question is whether or not confidentiality one of the norms of behavior in conversations. Let me remind you, unlike other norms, the norm of confidentiality is invoked after the conversation has ended. If confidentiality is a norm of conversation, then the participants in a conversation are bound by it even after the conversation has ended.
Is confidentiality a norm of conversation? As an informal talk between friends or relatives, confidentiality isn't a norm of conversation, unless stated otherwise. As social beings, we converse with each other as a part of our social life. One of the hallmarks of social life is the act of sharing. It's the aspect of sharing that builds the bond of society between a group of people. The aspect of sharing isn't restricted to the sharing of material alone. Humans share emotions and ideas too with each other. Through the sharing of our emotions and ideas with our friends and family, we share a part of our lives with them, figuratively speaking. The social sharing of 'life' with our friends and family involves disclosing, in parts or full, the facts and details of conversations we had with other people. As communicative beings, the greater part of our lives is carried out through talks. If confidentiality was the norm of every conversation, then we wouldn't be able to socially share our lives with others because the 'sharing' would be insensible without the context. An example that supports my argument is the 'confidentiality clause' found in the agreements signed by employees to their employers. These clauses make it mandatory for employees not to disclose certain types of information they encounter during the course of their work. Here, confidentiality isn't a norm but a rule of conversation, and the breaking of the clause after agreeing to it will invite legal actions against the erring employee. If confidentiality was a norm of conversation, these separate clauses would be superficial and unnecessary.
Therefore, the tentative conclusion is that confidentiality isn't a norm of conversation and a person isn't in the wrong if he/she makes public the details of a conversation. However, if the persons involved in the conversation has asked each other not to disclose the details of the conversation, then it would be morally wrong for anyone to break the agreement (in the absence of rules, the norms rule but in the presence of rules, the norms must concede).
No comments:
Post a Comment