Intuitively tact seems to be a virtue. I try to be
tactful but recently have questioned whether I should continue to do so. Corina
Stan argues that tact isn’t a social luxury and that it becomes imperative in
the age we live in, see aeon .
Let us agree with Stan that live in difficult times and that without too much
reflection tact appears to be a virtue. However if we reflect on the
nature of tact it doesn’t seem so obvious that it really is a virtue. Often
tact involves a lack of candour and candour is essential for respect. In this
posting. I will attempt to convince myself and others that tact isn’t a virtue.
Before attempting to question as to whether tact is a
virtue we should acknowledge that some people can't be tactful. Autistic people
are concerned with the truth and tact seems to involve concealing the truth.
What we mean by tact? Let us agree that acting tactfully requires paying close
attention to the situation and the feelings of others. If this is all that is
required for someone to act tactfully then a psychopath could be tactful. A
psychopath might pay close attention to the situation and the feelings of
others for his own purposes. Let us accept that if tact is to be regarded as a
virtue that a psychopath acting to serve his own ends cannot be said to be
acting tactfully. In the rest of this posting I will only be concerned with
tact when the reason a tactful person pays close attention to the situation and
the feelings of others is that he cares about them for their own sake.
Before proceeding I now want to introduce an example which
I will use in the rest of this posting. Any definition of tact must be able to
account for this example. Consider someone who is overweight and says to a
friend “do you think I’m fat”. Intuitively the tactful response would be to say
no. The tactful thing to do would be to lie. By saying no we are paying
attention to the feelings of the overweight person because we care about him,
but do we respect him?
The Cambridge dictionary defines tact as “the ability to
say or do the right thing without making anyone unhappy or angry”. Can this
definition account for our example of tact. I would suggest it can’t. Clearly
if we told the overweight person he wasn’t fat we wouldn’t be making him
unhappy or angry but would we be doing the right thing? Provided doing the
right thing only means not making someone unhappy or angry then we are. However
if we accept this then we have no need to include doing the right thing in our
definition. It follows doing the right thing involves more than simply not
making someone unhappy or angry. In the above example we tell a lie. Can lying
be doing the right thing? The answer to this question depends on what we mean
by doing the right thing. More generally if doing the right thing means doing
the right thing morally then we would severely restrict the domain in which we
can act tactfully. We would exclude many minor situations in which tact seems
appropriate such as saying nothing about parking infringements. Perhaps then
doing the right thing in the definition of tact means helping or allowing
someone to flourish. In most cases helping someone to flourish displays empathy
and is a good thing to do. Let us recall that the tact we are concerned with is
tact which requires ‘caring about’ the person we are treating tactfully.
Unfortunately the above raises two questions. First can we really help someone
to flourish by contravening moral norms? If we can’t then doing the right thing
requires doing the right thing morally. Secondly let us return to our example
if I tell the overweight person that he isn’t fat and I’m not annoying or
upsetting him but it might be questioned whether I’m really helping him to
flourish? Perhaps telling him that he is indeed overweight might encourage him
to diet and flourish better in the future. If we accept this definition then we
must be able to do the right thing whilst at the same time not make someone unhappy
or angry. This is a big ask and perhaps we should search for a slightly
different definition.
The Oxford dictionary defines tact as “the ability to deal
with difficult or embarrassing situations carefully and without doing or saying
anything that will annoy or upset other people.” This definition drops the need
to do the right thing. Can this second definition account for our example of
tact. Clearly if we tell an overweight person that he isn’t fat it would appear
we won’t upset or annoy him. In these circumstances this definition permits us
to lie. Let us adopt this definition and accept that it permits the telling of
white lies. It follows that accepting this definition means someone acting
tactfully must be prepared to act in a less than fully candid manner.
I now want to examine whether acting tactfully can be
virtuous when doing so involve a lack of candour. For the purposes of this
posting acting virtuously will be roughly defined as acting in a manner which
usually produces good consequences. I will now present four arguments which
attempt to show that because acting tactfully involves a loss of candour that
tact should not be regarded as a virtue. Firstly according to Amy Olberding any
well-mannered, polite, discourse must involve respect, consideration and
toleration. (1) Acting respectfully seems to be incompatible with a lack of
candour including the telling of white lies. It follows that if we value both
acting politely and acting tactfully we must decide which is the most valuable.
Which is the most valuable might depend on the situation involved. However we
are social animals and I would suggest we can decide in which situations it
would be best to act tactfully and in which to act politely. It follows that
tact might be regarded as a situationist virtue unlike justice which is always
a virtue. Tact might be a virtue in some situations and not in others. Secondly
let us consider our motives for acting tactfully. It might be argued that we
sometimes act tactfully from mixed motives. Sometimes we act tactfully partly
to benefit ourselves. For instance we might act tactfully simply because we are
lazy and just want to bring any discussion to an end. Or perhaps by acting
tactfully we are virtue signalling. If others are present we might be preening
ourselves in front of them or if others aren't present patting ourselves on the
back. However even if our motives aren’t all good ones this doesn’t mean our
behaviour can’t have good consequences for others. It follows even if our
motives for acting tactfully are mixed that tact might still be regarded as a
virtue. Thirdly I want to consider whether acting tactfully has good long term
consequences. Does telling an overweight person that he isn’t fat have good
consequences in the long term? Clearly telling him that he isn’t fat won’t
upset or annoy him has good short term consequences. However if we politely
told him that he was indeed fat this might be better in the long term. Perhaps
our white lie might assist in giving him a false impression of himself which is
damaging in the long term. Accepting the above means that whilst being tactful
isn’t always a virtue it can still be a situationst virtue.
I have presented three arguments to show tact isn’t a
virtue. None of these arguments should prevent us from regarding tact as acting
virtuously in some situations. Tact can be a situationist virtue. I will now
argue that if tact involves a lack of candour it isn’t a virtue in any
situation. My argument will again be based on a lack of respect. Of course
being less than candid with someone doesn’t automatically mean that we aren’t
concerned with and don’t care about him. Perhaps in some situations our lack of
candour might be seen as an act of kindness. But acting kindly towards someone
isn’t the same as respecting him. Colonialists can act kindly towards subject
peoples, patriarchs kindly towards women and pet owners towards their pets but
this kindness doesn’t involve respect. Even loving needn’t involve respect. I
have previously argued that most people don’t want to be treated like as
subjected people never mind as pets, they want to be recognised as the sort of
creatures who can make their own decisions, see Lying and autonomy .
Let us accept that respect matters to people. It might be objected that even if
we accept the above it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act tactfully. My objector
might argue we can respect someone for his physical strength but not for his
wisdom. He might then suggest that we can act tactfully towards someone some of
the time and still respect him the rest of the time. He might conclude that
acting tactfully is compatible with part time respect. In response I would
suggest that the idea of part time respect is nonsensical. In my objectors
example he respected someone’s strength but this respect isn’t part time, she
doesn’t believe that he is strong some of the time and is weak the rest of the
time. Let us accept that it is impossible to respect someone part time. In
spite of the above it might be suggested that acting tactfully can be more important
than acting respectfully. If we fail to be candid with people by telling them
white lies in order to prevent them becoming annoyed or unhappy. We are failing
to respect them as persons and are treating them as children. If people values
not being annoyed or unhappy more than being respected then acting tactfully
can be regarded as acting virtuously. However if people value not being treated
as children more than being annoyed or made unhappy then tact isn’t a virtue in
any situation.
In response to the above it might be suggested that not all
cases of acting tactfully involve a lack of candour. In might be further
suggested that acting tactfully in such a way should be regarded as acting
virtuously. However if we accept these suggestions is there any difference
between acting tactfully and acting politely? If there isn’t does tact remain a
useful concept? Perhaps instead of being tactful we should simply be polite and
candid. I have previously argued that politeness matters, see the
philosophy of rudeness.
What are the implications of the above? Should we stop trying to be tactful and accept that tact isn't a virtue? Tonight I complemented someone on the taste of her chutney which was unexceptional. In the light of the above ir might appear I was wrong to do so. It has been assumed in the above that the sole purpose of language is truthful communication. Robin Dunbar argues that another purpose of language is to bond ourselves with others. If Dunbar is correct then perhaps tact plays an essential part in this bonding and I was right to complement someone about her chutney. Perhaps Corina Stan is correct when she argues that tact isn’t a social luxury but an imperative in the age we live in. Maybe the above only means we should approach tact with caution and regard it as a situationist virtue as suggested above. I am somewhat reluctant to accept this conclusion. I have argued tact involves a lack of candour and this involves a lack of respect. Bonding requires solidarity but can we truly bond with someone we don’t fully respect? If we can’t then being tactful might actually damage bonding However not all cases of acting tactfully involve bonding. For instance doctors often act tactfully towards patients and should be careful because even if being tactful is a caring thing to do it still involves a lack of respect. Lastly we shouldn’t confuse tact with toleration. I have based my case against tact on respect, respect for someone’s autonomy. Respect for someone’s autonomy means we sometimes have to accept what we regard as bad choices. However respect for autonomy doesn’t mean we have to respect these actual choices or say we do so provided this is done politely. Perhaps then tact isn’t really a virtue in any situation and instead of trying to be tactful we should be polite but candid.
- Amy Olberding, 2019, The Wrongness of Rudeness, Oxford University Press, page 28
- Robin Dunbar, 2021, FRIENS, Little Bown, chapter 9
