The term tattling is so loaded with negative connotations. The
person who tells on another is commonly referred to as a rat. A rat is
not just considered an archetype of filth, it is also an archetype of
a disease carrier. Yet this name is applied to one who tells on another
for doing something that gets them in trouble with authority, that may
or may not be something that is "wrong". Just consider Judas in the
Bible. He was bribed to tattle on or betray someone that the
authorities considered criminal. Judas eventually
hanged himself for what he did. That is quite a statement regardless of
who he betrayed.
There is a lot of variation to this and certainly judgments about when
it is proper to tattle on another person, but the interesting point is that
there is any stigma attached at all. There is a stigma attached to
committing civil or moral crimes, but if anything, there can be more of
a stigma attached to reporting them. At the same time, there is no stigma
attached to a policeman or detective thoroughly investigating and
prosecuting a crime, quite the opposite in fact.
So why the stigma to someone tattling on another? Partly it is because
authority has not always been universally been recognized. As they say, one
man's criminal is another man's patriot, but that is not the basic reason.
The basic reason the teller is stigmatized is because it inhibits
the trust and subsequent cooperation of the group and community. This is
amazing. The stigma attached to tattling on another shows just how
overwhelmingly important the cooperative underpinnings of a community
are.
Note that the American Constitution bars a wife from testifying against
her husband in a court of law.
That should be the most important lesson learned from this discussion,
just as it is commonly judged that the trust within the family and
community is more important than minor and commonly major,
crimes.
At the same time, like all moral issues, it's not that simple. This is especially true in the ecology that is developing.
A parent is likely to teach their children not to tell on one another. It is just one of those ways that children find to fight so as to drive their parents too distraction. But, there tends to be exceptions. It may be taught that it is OK to tattle on your sibling if they are doing something that endangers themself or someone else. There are categories that are OK to tell on someone about, such as writing on walls or playing with fire. Actions with a major enough consequence to the community or family, that they must be prevented. In that case, the exception may be clearly described ahead of time as a rule and so, like the policeman, they person doing the tattling gets no stigma for it. The person told upon may try to attach a social stigma, but it may not work, especially if the person that did the telling defends themself. That is because there is so much moral judgment involved.
In any case, this is meant as a discussion of existing moral situations as well as of what moral systems and practices we may need to survive in the future.
There are going to be a number of factors that come into the judgment
of tattling.
Currently, there are institutions that demand the reporting of internal improper conduct by those who may witness it. These tend to be the institutions referred to as the Authorities. These groups include military officers, police agencies, clergy, the judiciary and various groups or communities that need or desire to have a high moral standard or who's functions include the teaching or enforcement of moral standards. <\p>
There is the institution of the news media that has often held its responsibility to be that of finding and reporting violations of the public trust as well as private injustices and crimes. They tend to accumulate no stigma for tattling, but they can if they are to zealous and are judged to have harmed the community by telling about crimes that are not perceived as harmful or if they did it to fulfill their own agenda. On the other hand, they may be judged immoral if they knowingly fail to report crimes for some reason. Not only may they be considered culpable for the crime in some way, but they may be judged to have violated the public trust. They are trying to use public censure to forward their goals, rather than protect the community. The media is supposed to take a neutral position in their reporting, otherwise they are just another tool in someone's employ. Privacy may come into play here. If someone violates another person's privacy to expose their mis-deed, they may well be judged as having acted worse than the person they are exposing.
An important factor to consider in this examination is a change in ecology that is
the size of the communities that an individual lives in. In some ways, we still
live in families and the small community that is our immediate social group,
but crimes are often committed in the context of a very broad and impersonal
society. This is a change. There is far more anonymity now than there has been
in the past.
Consider that as part of the cooperative habits that human society requires,
trust must be very widespread, so the determination of when to tattle on a
person is not always determined by their degree of separation of the people
in the community. Trust must be pretty broad and every time a person is
betrayed to the authorities, it reduces that general level of trust. So the
frequency of betrayal must be
kept to a minimum, no matter how unrelated the person is. Still, the more
close is the community that two people exist in, the more the need for trust
and the more they need to refrain from tattling.
The consequence of being told on, tends to harm the family and community that
the person is part of. That is another inhibition against tattling on a
member of ones family or community.
Also factored into this is the effect on the individual being told on. It may
cause minor censure or destroy their life. It may be judged that perhaps a
parent is guilty of a crime, but reporting it would badly harm their family.
If the crime will not be repeated, perhaps it was an accident, there is no
benefit to the society to report it and inevitably damage. If a crime is
ongoing, the threat of exposure may be enough to stop it. Still, sometimes
a crime must be exposed to discourage its re-occurrence else where in the
society.
More than the degree of separation, the moral decision of whether to "tattle"
on another person must be determined by the consequence of their improper
actions. If a family member litters, it may be considered proper that they be
reprimanded, but only in private so that collateral harm is minimized. On the
other hand if they are doing something
that will cause physical harm to someone, it is usually considered morally
proper to report them before they can do significant harm.
Unfortunately, this modern world is so an impersonal and corruptive that it
seems that it is frequently morally appropriate to report a person who
is breaking the rules. It is quite possible that what is at stake is the
society. Over and over again, we see societies destroyed or co-opted by
criminal behavior. Regardless of the reason, that is a common fact. Perhaps it
will change due to individual moral behavior or more effective police methods,
but likely it is largely a result of living in a larger society and so it will
continue to be a problem.
Morality and moral judgment must be adaptive in the complex relationship between the benefits and costs of tattling, but the decision must be based on the consequence to the larger society. Tattling is about law and so there is no perfect law to describe when it should occur. Like all laws, it requires a judge to make it work properly.