Honesty as a "Virtue"

[LS121]

Objectivism claims to be a philosophy built upon man's rational pursuit of life. Unfortunately, objectivism fails to be rational when it tells man he should uphold the "virtue" of honesty in any context that isn't an "emergency."

I wish to argue that there are contexts in which it is not in one's rational self-interest to maintain honesty even in non-emergency situations. Now, it seems fairly plausible that it is always in one's rational interest to be honest with oneself. That is, lying to oneself can never lead to one's long-term self-interest. Objectivism is right when it tells us that we have to deal with reality as it is, and self-deception is obviously one step short of suicide. My qualm, however, is with the notion that it is in one's rational, long-term self-interest to be honest with others. Such a fallacious notion has been argued by such authors as Leonard Peikoff and Tara Smith. I do not question their motives, but it seems that what they are doing is nothing but rationalizing some of the vestiges of altruistic morality (i.e., there is no reason why honesty should be upheld if it in fact doesn’t lead to one's long-term self-interest, other than an irrational allegiance to conventional morality conventions).

In order to explain myself, I wish to now list every argument that I have seen offered in defense of the virtue of "honesty." One by one, I will offer a response which I think better upholds the tenets of rational egoism properly understood.

1) "When you lie, you jeopardize being caught. Therefore you should not lie."

While no serious objectivist holds this to be a good argument in defense of honesty, it has still been offered as a basic reason to stay honest by people who at least call themselves objectivist and so I should deal with it first.

The way that it falls short is by its failure to acknowledge that there are many real-world situations in which one could reasonably be assured they won't get caught after lying. In these situations, it seems they might be rationally justified in lying so long as they a net long-term value out of it.

2) "Even if you're successful at evading being caught, you have to spend a great deal of energy covering your tracks."

This argument attempts to show that the consequences of one's lies span beyond the short-term. Indeed, the cost of trying to cover one's tracks can be quite high, at least in many circumstances. Still, it is easy to conceive of real-world situations in which the long-term cost of one's having to cover his tracks is far outweighed by the high amount of value he might obtain in virtue his dishonesty.

In other words, if the value of my lie is devoted by V and the cost of my lie is denoted by C, it is rational to lie if V > C. As an example of a case where V > C, we might imagine something like the following.

Suppose my grandmother (who has been isolated in a nursing home for the last 15 years) decides at the last second to change her legal will to donate her estate to a charity foundation. Suppose she changes her will verbally, in my face, the second before she dies. Now, I could easily deceive my estate lawyer by refusing to tell them of my grandmother's last minute change. This would result in my eventual inheritance of her entire estate (let's say worth 5 million dollars). Would any objectivist deny that there is value to be had from this inheritance? To be clear, objectivists might still deny that there is a net long-term value here, but they shouldn't deny that there is any value at all.

Objectivists might (as was originally alluded to) point to the high cost © which is incurred by one's having to maintain the lie against future discovery. Still, it seems a far stretch to say that this cost © could possibly outweigh the value one receives from the inheritance.

Of course, it's true there is some cost: this lie could come back to bite me in the ass. But I would be incurring no more risk than I reasonably would were I to, for example, invest in a reasonably safe bond.

3) "In lying, one relies on the irrationality and ignorance of those whom one has deceived. This makes one a 'second-hander' and living as a 'second-hander' makes it harder for the accomplishment of one's long-term, self-interested goals."

This seems to be nothing but rhetoric. Why? The answer is that it is very obvious that I can GET VALUE out of taking my grandmother's estate. The property allows me to better operate my business, be more productive, raise my family, etc. The insistence that I must be honest because otherwise I will be a "second-hander" doesn't seem to get around the fact that, at the end of the day, I am getting value out of my lie.

Now it is certainly true were I to lie I would be dependent on the few that I had to deceive to receive my estate. But this seems to be no different than the way I am also "dependent" on my local grocery store to provide me with food (i.e., to a certain extent it's out of my hands as to whether or not I will actually get food).

It might be argued that the type of dependence gotten by deception is somehow different (in a non-trivial way) from the type of dependence gotten by the specialization of labor. Here is a way in which this might be argued: "well, when you depend on your grocery store to provide you with food you are dependent on other's rationality whereas when you are dependent on your lawyer not finding out the truth about your inherited estate you are dependent upon other people's irrationality."

In response, it doesn't seem to matter from the standpoint of rational self-interest. Yes, in most circumstances you want to be relying on people's rationality (i.e., makes it easier for you to trade with them in the future), but there are cases where you would be most irrational yourself not to rely on others irrationality. These are the cases where honesty is NOT the best policy (where you would stand to lose more long-term value by refusing to be dishonest).

4) "Lying hurts you psychologically. Living 'two lives,' the life of what is real inside your head and the life of what is not real outside is mentally taxing. Furthermore, you will know your wealth was not the product of your own efforts. This sort of self-knowledge will hurt your self-esteem."

This argument falls short in two ways. First of all, even if it were the case that lying gave somebody psychological damage, this is not a reason for it be morally forbidden. Indeed, one of objectivism's great strengths is that it forbids the idea that just because somebody "feels" a certain way that this feeling has anything to do with what sort of person they are from a moral standpoint. How does this translate to the example? Well, if lying to your estate lawyer and receiving your grandmother's inheritance does indeed cause you psychological harm, then this is nothing more than another cost © which can be added to the original cost of managing your lie for the long-haul. Even if there were such a cost ©, this wouldn't prove that (V) still outweighs it.

Furthermore (and this is the important point), it is not clear at all that lying does cause psychological/self-esteem damage. In fact, the very claim that psychological/self-esteem damage would be present begs the question since such damage would only be present for one who held values contrary to the lying to begin with. For example, if I believe that lying is wrong and I lie, I will inevitably face psychological damage as a result of my failure to live up to my values. But if my values fully embrace occasional lying as a necessary part of my moral life, then I will face no such psychological pain..

5) "Just because one lies and happens to get away with it, even in the course of his lifetime, does not prove the principle that lying is actually good for him. In principle, one should still never lie."

This reply, worst of all them, begs the question. Honesty is no virtue and those who embrace it as one are acting irrationally. Rational egoists know that honesty is, at best, only a derivative virtue from selfishness. While often honesty might be the best policy, this will not always be the case. In principle, "craftiness" (or something like it) is a much better virtue for the rational man to possess. When the rational man senses that there are situations in which lying is in his self-interest, he will revert to lying. When the situation does not deem it to be so, he will stay honest. This is no different then when the rational man must sense that he is in the context of an "emergency," only instead of an "emergency" we might say we are faced with an "opportunity."

Thus, perhaps now the objectivists could prove that honesty is the best policy, always and everywhere (excluding emergencies). Remember, just because you prove that in one case honesty is the best policy does not prove that in principle something like "craftiness" is the true principle one should live his life by.

In conclusion, rational egoists should not let conventional morality dictate the logical outcomes of its own ethical conclusions. Honesty is merely the vestige of an altruist code. Since I am no altruist, I refuse to serve any such god as "honesty" when it fails to actually serve my interests, properly understood.

Edited April 28, 2009 by LS121

[DavidOdden]

Debates work two ways: classical style (orderly, turn-taking), and new style (free for all). If you're interested in the former, I accept the implicit challenge. Others may weigh in, so you decide.

[LS121]

David,

I appreciate the interest. I'd love for someone to respond to these objections (it doesn't matter by whom). This is definitely a free for all.

LS121

[spelwel]

I'll make one point that could perhaps be helpful to anyone trying to think these issues through: none of the arguments given name Objectivism's validation of honesty. That's not to say they aren't true, relevant, or important, but that they do not name the essence of the issue.

Ayn Rand offers a philosophical defense of honesty. Her argument, which presupposes a rich context (particularly reason as man's means of survival, the need for principles, and the Objectivist metaphysics), runs in essence as follows: pretending the facts are other than they are doesn't change the facts, and so dishonesty cannot lead to values. Or, as she puts it in Galt's speech, "the unreal is unreal and can have no value."

Of course, to validate that so that it stands as an inductive, first-handed truth in one's own mind takes a lot of work and raises a lot of tough questions. Indeed, some of the questions raised by this thread are worth discussing in more detail. But for the discussion to go anywhere, you need to be clear on what Rand's actual argument was.

[agrippa1]

Would you care to use the same rationalization to justify fraud (which, of course, you committed with respect to your grandmother's property), and murder? (after all, who would ever know if you just slipped this lil' ole satin pillow over the old girl's face?)

Lying, if it gains you profit from others, is fraud, and is therefore equivalent to the use of force. Did you tell your grandmother you would carry out her last wishes? If so, and by doing so you kept her from finding an honest witness, then you committed fraud when you falsely laid claim to her estate. Whether or not someone finds out about your act has no bearing on its morality.

Unless, of course, you measure morality only by the consequences you will face if you get caught. In which case, I suggest you trade your copy of Atlas Shrugged for a pointy stick, an animal skin and a bone through your nose.

[LS121]

pretending the facts are other than they are doesn't change the facts, and so dishonesty cannot lead to values.

Of course I recognize this! Remember that I'm not deceiving myself, only others. In principle, anything which leads to my own self-deception is immoral. I am of course not talking about such cases, only those which lead to the deception of others.

Agrippa: enough with the rhetoric. I've read Rand's fictional novels several times over and I understand how emotional/impacting they can be.

The point is that as a rational egoist I am only interested in one thing: the furtherance of my life. I don't give a damn what consequences I have on others except insofar as they impact me. What is in my long-term, rational self-interest is what I pursue. Fraud, murder, etc. are for another debate. For now let's talk about honesty (unless you think they're so related we can't help but talk about them).

Again I restate my challenge: show me that the long-term consequences of my choosing to lie can, in principle, fail to lead me to what is in fact in my long-term self-interest.

Edited April 28, 2009 by LS121

[JJJJ]

You seem to be one of the people(and there are Objectivists that do this as well) who completely discards psychology and self-esteem. And you commit a very common fallacy in the grandmother example:

Suppose my grandmother (who has been isolated in a nursing home for the last 15 years) decides at the last second to change her legal will to donate her estate to a charity foundation. Suppose she changes her will verbally, in my face, the second before she dies. Now, I could easily deceive my estate lawyer by refusing to tell them of my grandmother's last minute change. This would result in my eventual inheritance of her entire estate (let's say worth 5 million dollars). Would any objectivist deny that there is value to be had from this inheritance? To be clear, objectivists might still deny that there is a net long-term value here, but they shouldn't deny that there is any value at all.

When deciding what to do to you shouldnt consider what the situation was before the situation changed(when your grandmother told you of her change of heart) when you thought you were getting the 5 mil honestly, and somehow rationalize that nothing has really changed, because that situation isnt available anyomre. What you should do, is consider what decision will be of most value, from here on. Your options being: a ) telling your estate lawyer the truth, or b ) lying/witholding information from your estate lawyer. The value lost in "a" is obviously the 5mil, and the value lost in "b" is your self-esteem and vice versa. It doesnt matter that you had the option of "take the 5 mil and keep your self-esteem" just a few minutes earlier.

And how one could get value of unearned money is beyond me, when he for that exact same reason destroys his own self esteem. Living off an inheritance is psychologically tricky even when its earned fairly, and how one could completely discard the psychological effect of being a thief is beyond me. Because a thief you are, if you dont tell the lawyer. You have commited theft against the charity that your grandmother gave her money to. It doesnt matter that it wasnt yet in written form. By taking something that belonged to the charity, you are a thief, and thus a second hander, and no matter how "wisely" you spend your loot makes no difference. You seem to have the view that many "Objectivists" also have, that the reason not to steal is because you may get caught, and the reason not to murder is because you may get caught and others may feel free to murder you as well. These are not the reasons, while the psychological effect being a second hander is.

It doesnt even matter whether you hate the charity the money would have gone to. It is not your money. And it doesnt matter one bit that she was about to give the money to you just a few minutes earlier. That situation doesnt exist anymore, and your actions shouldnt be compared against "that reality". Just like in the case of a hiker that cut his arm off after a boulder fell on it, the option of "keeping his arm and living" wasnt available anymore, and he correctly made the decision to give up the arm to gain a higher value, his life. In your grandmother example, the arm represents the 5mil, the hikers life represents your integrity and self-esteem, and the boulder represents the crippling effect on your self-esteem by stealing the 5mil. If we want to get all metaphorical: if you steal the 5mil, you will have a metaphorical boulder on your self-esteem for the rest of your life.

Now, you can feel disgusted, disappointed, angry, betrayed etc. all you want about your grandmothers decision, if she just arbitrarily changes the will with no fault of your own, but that doesnt change the situation at all. It is still theft, no matter whether you admit it to yourself or not.

[Jake_Ellison]

3) "In lying, one relies on the irrationality and ignorance of those whom one has deceived. This makes one a 'second-hander' and living as a 'second-hander' makes it harder for the accomplishment of one's long-term, self-interested goals."

This seems to be nothing but rhetoric. Why? The answer is that it is very obvious that I can GET VALUE out of taking my grandmother's estate. The property allows me to better operate my business, be more productive, raise my family, etc.

What about pride, integrity (self-esteem)? In your example (if you are honest with yourself, and a rational person), the fraud you're commiting should shatter your self-esteem.

There's a lot more to your example than just a lack of honesty. Commiting such an act of theft would be a denial of morality as a whole. If the only choices you are willing to assign the tag "moral" to are those which can immediately be seen as "in your self interest", then what possible need could you have for morality, as a whole?

Why use abstract notions such as morality, if staying concrete bound (Lexicon link) is all you need to live a rationally self-interested life? You aren't denying the need for honesty with this example, you're denying the need for philosophy.

[Grames]

A last minute verbal change of will with no witnesses that was in your favor would not have been believed by any probate court, nor would this example. The contrived hypothetical fails because whether you tell the truth or not will have no effect on what happens.

[Grames]

For now let's talk about honesty (unless you think they're so related we can't help but talk about them).

And this is also wrong-headed. Nothing can be understood in isolation.

[JJJJ]

A last minute verbal change of will with no witnesses that was in your favor would not have been believed by any probate court, nor would this example. The contrived hypothetical fails because whether you tell the truth or not will have no effect on what happens.

That doesnt change the fact that you should inform the estate lawyer. And if you happened to know the charity your grandmother wanted the money to go to, you should give them the money after it was given to you.

[DavidOdden]

I do not understand why your argument starts specifically with honesty towards others. It seems to me that your real disagreement has to be with something more basic, such as the nature of morality, or something about man's nature. You don't say anything about how you think man's existence relates to his cognitive nature, or even if you think he has a cognitive nature. Have you thought about which more foundational aspects of Objectivist morality you question or reject? For example, there are apparently people who believe that man has something like a "moral intuition organ" that they can rely on -- it would be useful to know if that's your position; or whatever else you question about the nature of morality and its relationship to man.

[spelwel]

Of course I recognize this! Remember that I'm not deceiving myself, only others. In principle, anything which leads to my own self-deception is immoral. I am of course not talking about such cases, only those which lead to the deception of others.

But Rand's point is not that only self-deception is immoral. Her point is that any form of pretense involves hitching your ride to unreality, so to speak. Now I also don't think you can lie to others without engaging in self-deception, but set that aside for now. According to Objectivism, you gain from dealing with others, not by plunder, but by trade. You trade value for value. Thus, you benefit the more rational, productive, and successful others are. Do you agree with that? If so, then how could deluding them be to your interests? And, in that case, what makes you think they're not deluding you?

[Grames]

That doesnt change the fact that you should inform the estate lawyer. And if you happened to know the charity your grandmother wanted the money to go to, you should give them the money after it was given to you.

Who says? Where does this "should" come from? I'd only give the money away if I respected her wish, that is if I thought she was still of sound mind. Since she died the next instant, it is quite plausible she was not.

[MichaelH]

First of all, even if it were the case that lying gave somebody psychological damage, this is not a reason for it be morally forbidden.

Actually, it is. If life is the standard of value, and reason is your means to support your life, then anything that damages your ability to reason is immoral. Because of the loss of self-esteem, integrity, and the requirement to track multiple claims simultaneously, lying as an isolated instance is difficult enough to deal with properly. Lying as a habit makes it impossible to be a rational being who exchanges values with others.

Please note that "damages your mind" is not the same as "offends your sensibilities"; the above does not permit claiming damage for trivial slights.

[Craig24]

Of course I recognize this! Remember that I'm not deceiving myself, only others. In principle, anything which leads to my own self-deception is immoral. I am of course not talking about such cases, only those which lead to the deception of others.

Very interesting but totally unconvincing. Now imagine yourself the victim of theft or fraud. You discover that someone has deceived you and by doing so, gained a material value that was yours. Do you congratulate the perpetrator for his success and let him keep what was yours or do you call the police in order to recover your losses and bring him to justice?

[themadkat]

I really feel like the initial poster misses the point entirely about where Oist ethics comes from. First of all, you take a very mercenary view of "value". A rational man seeks to earn values or, better still, create new ones, not simply "acquire" values floating out there in the ether. Your moral stance sounds more like that of a bureaucrat who seeks to control and "delegate" values generated by others without giving anything of yourself. You can't get something for nothing. When you fail to respect the individual rights of others, you fail to recognize that many of the values you seek are generated by those others, and that it requires them acting in their rational self interest for them to be able to create those values. When you harm others you destroy traders and indicate that you, yourself, do not seek to act as a trader.

More fundamentally you are not attacking the idea of honesty at all. You are attacking the idea of living on principle. Instead you are advocating a sort of utilitarian calculation of what is in your "interest" (and how do you know this?) for any given situation, which requires you to do a great deal of mental gymnastics for every given situation. Living on principle is not only much more practical but is the only way to achieve what is truly in your long-term self-interest. You seem to think it is in your interest to obtain the unearned...it is not. Your ability to earn values is continuous and depends on fundamental traits about you. Your ability to stumble upon the unearned has nearly everything to do with luck, unless you make a habit of it in which case you are waging a war on reality.

[JJJJ]

I'd only give the money away if I respected her wish, that is if I thought she was still of sound mind. Since she died the next instant, it is quite plausible she was not.

I thought that was pretty much assumed in this discussion, as the fact that she would have been out of her mind would have made this whole discussion pointless in the first place. Obviously, if we wanted to answer this question, we had to assume that she was, and you thought she was, in her right mind when she said it.