There is one glaring fact about the allegations against Bill
Cosby that few, if any of the increasingly voluble commentators either defending the
comedian (a small but diminishing number) or nodding sagely that they knew all
along there was something fishy about the guy, a crowd seemingly as large as
the vast majority who never voted for Richard Nixon.
What is this glaring fact?
Not one single person has advanced anything resembling proof. Cosby has already been tried and convicted
without ever having been indicted.
Admittedly, this saves a lot of time, and gives a lot of
people with nothing better to do a great deal to occupy their time. The problem is that it isn’t right or even
rational in any degree.
Does this mean we think Cosby is innocent? Or do we think Cosby is guilty, guilty,
guilty? Let’s answer that question: in
our opinion, is Cosby guilty or innocent?
Answer: our opinion in this has nothing to do with the
case. Period. It’s an opinion, and in matters regarding
someone’s guilt or innocence, is a matter for the courts and a jury to decide
based on facts, not on personal opinion.
The only thing that matters with respect to Cosby’s guilt is
proof. Absent proof, he must be regarded
as innocent. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal requirement as well
as a fundamental principle of moral philosophy.
Why?
Because the burden of proof is on the accuser, a concept
that has all but disappeared in today’s world as people decide based on
anything other than established fact.
Otherwise, someone charged with a crime is put into the position of
having to prove him- or herself not guilty.
Do you see the catch there?
It is logically impossible to prove yourself — or anyone or anything
else — not guilty. You cannot prove the
existence of non-existence. It doesn’t
make sense. Exactly how, for instance,
do you prove that something you claim does not exist (e.g., guilt), has existence?
Without proof, allegations are mere detraction of
another. Detraction can be what
Catholics call a venial sin, i.e.,
something shoddy that dims your friendship with God, but doesn’t cut you off
from Him entirely, or a “mortal sin,” i.e.,
one that damns you to hell for all eternity.
Detraction comes in two despicable varieties. There’s backbiting. That’s when something is true, but you have
no right to reveal it; it’s not your business.
You’re only revealing it to gain some personal advantage, or even just
for the sheer pleasure of causing pain and suffering.
For example, suppose you know of someone who spent ten years
in prison for something he didn’t do. He
was totally exonerated, absolutely no question, and managed to get a job with
someone who knew nothing about the prison term.
The subject never came up, and naturally the guy didn't want to talk about it. You want his job, or maybe you just plain don’t like the guy, so you go
to his employer and reveal the whole story.
The employer, outraged that he hired an ex-con (he must really have been
guilty, despite your assurances, wink, wink, because innocent people don’t go
to prison), fires the guy immediately for concealing the fact he spent time in
prison (even though he was never asked if he had), and hires you.
You didn’t say one untrue word, but you caused harm to the
reputation of another when you had no business doing so.
Now for calumny.
That’s when you spread a story without knowing it to be true, or even
knowing full well it is false. Even if you are legally judge, jury, and executioner and have the right to carry out sentence of someone who is proven guilty, you don't have the right to execute innocent people. That actually makes things worse, being
an abuse of authority, like the German judiciary that kowtowed to Hitler and
condemned innocent people they knew were innocent. When the matter is sufficiently serious — and
Cosby’s reputation has clearly been irreparably harmed — calumny is a sin “that
cries to heaven for vengeance.” It’s
really, really, really bad.
Morally, you are the guilty one, not the person about whom
you’re spreading a story without proof.
Nor do you get off the hook because you’re just repeating what someone
else told you, regardless of the reputation of the talebearer — just how much
integrity does someone have, by the way, who spreads stories about others
without proof? Your responsibility when
someone relates a story to you that harms another’s reputation or anything else
is to demand proof.
If the tattletale (let’s not mince words) refuses to prove
his case, or cannot prove his case with actual logical argument or empirical
evidence, you might consider demanding proof, and letting the little weasel
know what you think of such cheap tactics.
Worst case scenario, if the fink continues his merry way, go to the
accused and ask if it’s true.
Yes, you’ll get a denial in any case, but you at least alerted
an innocent person — innocent until proven guilty . . . remember? — what is
going on, instead of leaving him or her completely baffled as to what is going
on.
So, what do we think about the allegations made about
Cosby? None of your business — or ours,
for that matter, if by that you mean are we judging someone in advance of the evidence (prudence is another thing, but should not dictate public statements . . . or objective judgments based on subjective opinion), which we have no business doing. What we know is another matter altogether: that
there is no proof and he is therefore presumed innocent.
#30#
