Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it acceptable to lie to not hurt someone's feelings?

Rate this topic


Dying mother wishes son to marry  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the son do?

    • Tell the truth
      44
    • Lie
      5


Recommended Posts

So if your mother asked you to murder, rape, and torture, you'd do that?

We were discussing a white lie that hurts no one. I dont think that applies to murder, rape and torture. Do you?

If not, then all this talk about a "debt you can never repay" is just empty emotionalism.

Empty emotionalism? Hardly. If my mother had given birth to me then dropped me off at the firehouse door, then you might have something, but that is not what happened. If I cannot repay the years she spent raising me by comforting her in her final moments, then she didnt do a very good job raising me.

What respect and love does it show to act like your mother is an infant who can't handle the truth?
Its not that she cant handle the truth, its that there is no reason to force her to handle such an uncomfortable truth on her deathbed.

I see no virtue in being able to say that I made my mothers final moments of life miserable, but hey, I have lived a life of integrity. The grain of integrity I surrender is meaningless to me, but the value I gain is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Forgive me if this thought has been voiced before...

Assuming both the mother and the son believe that there is no afterlife after death, telling her a truth on her deathbed is no more immediately traumatic than telling her over a nice cup of tea. The only danger is that her physical pain, combined with an uncomfortable truth, will lead to a broken relationship, which is a horrible thing to look back on. On the other hand, being dishonest leads to a schism between a person’s belief of reality and reality itself. If she is dying, having a schism like that seems hardly important.

Edited by Persephone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this thought has been voiced before...

Assuming both the mother and the son believe that there is no afterlife after death, telling her a truth on her deathbed is no more immediately traumatic than telling her over a nice cup of tea.

I think that in normal circumstances, accepting an unpleasant truth can be much easier than when one is on their deathbed, living the last minutes of their life. If you ever held in your arms someone you cared about, who was in excruciating pain, feeling the terror of death in every fiber of their being, you'd understand. If you never did that, you can only imagine how it feels, which is (scientifically) not the same thing. (see Mirror neurons)

On the other hand, being dishonest leads to a schism between a person’s belief of reality and reality itself.

The person who is dishonest here is the son. However, the son's belief of reality does not change. The son knows very well that he hasn't found a suitable woman to marry. Hence, there is no schism. This also refutes an argument made earlier, that the son would be lying to himself.

If she is dying, having a schism like that seems hardly important.

So the son should spare Mother the truth, help her pass away happy, and move on with full rational knowledge of why he acted this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honesty and integrity are values, but not the highest values. I would gladly toss either one over the side if it meant giving my mom even a moment of peace, especially if that moment were to be her last. I owe her a debt I can never repay. And it is a debt she has never called due. If there is a decision between her mental well being in the final hours of life and my own view of integrity, then to hell with integrity. I see no virtue in patting myself on the back for my integrity knowing that it came at such a cost. Nothing could be more immoral than that.

-Fletch

Children are not automatically debtors to their parents, since they have no choice in the matter of their birth and (early) upbringing. If one's parents have been particularly competent, loving, or helpful, the proper payment is to respect them, and to be the best person one can be. The last is a selfish goal, but it can also be a rational way of repaying a beloved parent (obviously, the fundamental motivation must be selfish, this is just an added benefit). Slavish obedience to the emotions of one's parents at the expense of one's virtues is a self-sacrificial policy, and a very poor way of repaying those who have spent so much of their lives trying to make one into a good person. On this "to hell with integrity" premise, Rearden should have granted his mother's with to give Philip a job in Atlas Shrugged.

The fundamental tradeoff here is between one's integrity and the emotional state of another individual (one's mother in this case). In choosing to sacrifice one's integrity, one is placing the emotions of one's victim above reality. That is, one is choosing these emotions as a standard from which to determine one's actions (I believe Dr. Peikoff attributed this argument to Rand in one of his podcasts). This is the policy followed by Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Keating consistently held the emotions of others as his highest values, and chose his actions accordingly.

The person who is dishonest here is the son. However, the son's belief of reality does not change. The son knows very well that he hasn't found a suitable woman to marry. Hence, there is no schism. This also refutes an argument made earlier, that the son would be lying to himself.

-Live forever or die trying

I don't think one can assume that the son's grasp of reality is unaffected by the lie. Is this not the assumption that most liars (including Keating) make? Lying to others does not simply wipe out knowledge from one's mind and replace it with the lie-the effect is gradual and more insidious. Imagine a person like Keating who always puts emotions above the truth. However hard such a person tries to keep facts straight in his own mind, he will not be able to do this in the long run. My Mother was initially very unhappy when she learned that I was an egoist. Suppose that I had pretended to be an altruist in order to spare her feelings. Then every time I speak with her, I would have to mentally "switch gears" and begin to praise altruism. Over time, I would inevitably begin to lose track of what I believe is right. The degree to which I lied would be the degree to which my mind would be destroyed. This does not mean that I have to make a speech every time I hear something I disagree with. It does mean that I must tell the truth to the extent that I decide to say anything at all. To be honest, I think that the situation with the question from one's mother about the status of one's relationships is very clear-cut. Stating the opposite of the truth to someone one values highly, concerning such an important part of one's life can hardly be called a "white" lie.

Lying under the threat of force is moral because life is the standard of value. In this case, one could say "to hell with integrity", since life really is a higher value. More accurately, one could say that the principle of integrity loses it's value in such a context. A man who consistently lies to his would-be killers is a man who survives in emergencies. A man who consistently lies in order to make others hold false beliefs is a second-hander. The reason that the first man can retain his grasp of reality is that he holds rigorously to the principle of integrity in a normal context, and drops it completely when his life is in the balance. The second man cannot make such a distinction: as soon as he makes "an exception" to the principle in the context in which it is meant to apply, he will make more and more exceptions, until he changes his ways, or it ruins him. Where can this man draw the line? If he sacrifices his integrity for his terminally ill mother today, then why not for his best friend tomorrow, who needs "just a little" help on his final exam, or for his Father, who would be so proud of him if he had a 4.0 GPA in college, when in fact he is an average student?

To paraphrase Dagny Taggart (I don't have my copy of Atlas Shrugged with me), language should be an oath of allegiance to reality.

By the way, could someone tell me how to quote people so that it automatically fills in the name of the poster? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ever held in your arms someone you cared about, who was in excruciating pain, feeling the terror of death in every fiber of their being, you'd understand. If you never did that, you can only imagine how it feels, which is (scientifically) not the same thing. (see Mirror neurons)

This is why rational people understand the importance of living principled lives. They understand that in times of emotional distress, it can be difficult to act in a rational manner. Understanding how to live by principles means that you don't necessarily have to have experienced every possible situation in order to know how to act in any given situation one has not encountered before, particularly ones where strong emotions are involved.

However, it is entirely likely that the reason a person would remained so attached to falsehood is because those around that person continue to placate them with lies. A lie begats another lie as they say.

To me, being honest to someone is a sign of love and respect. Showing them that honesty and respect is not something dictated by what they want, especially if their want is irrational and demands a breach of one's character. Sacrificing integrity in such a way would be very altruistic.

I may be intrepreting this wrong, but it appears to me that your attachment to lying to her centers around the strong emotions involved. If that is the case, would a strong principled, logical argument sway you otherwise anyway? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know.

We were discussing a white lie that hurts no one. I dont think that applies to murder, rape and torture. Do you?

Well, we may actually be discussing what happens when one acts on really strong emotions. In this particular instance it may be a "white lie", but the underlying desire to act is primarily based on the strong emotional attachment. So next time it may be murder, rape or torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Empty emotionalism? Hardly. If my mother had given birth to me then dropped me off at the firehouse door, then you might have something, but that is not what happened. If I cannot repay the years she spent raising me by comforting her in her final moments, then she didn't do a very good job raising me.

Its not that she cant handle the truth, its that there is no reason to force her to handle such an uncomfortable truth on her deathbed.

I see no virtue in being able to say that I made my mothers final moments of life miserable, but hey, I have lived a life of integrity. The grain of integrity I surrender is meaningless to me, but the value I gain is not.

Would your mother be happy to now that you lie to people to make them feel good? If so then indeed she did not do a good job raising you. (And I am not talking about your mother, which I do not know, I am continuing the line of case-presentation you started).

A good mother teacher her son that integrity is more important than other people's emotions. That their positive emotions should be earned by adhering to reality, and not given as a sacrifice at the expense on someone else who needs to fake reality for them.

If I ever have a son, hearing a lie from him that is designed to make me feel better would be a moment of disgrace and sadness. I would not want my son to be that kind of man, and to sacrifice the value of his integrity.

If a mother can be happy with such a sacrifice, with a line of behavior that destroys her son's self-esteem, then she is not a good mom.

A good mom should teach her son the right principles, and tell him to always stick to them and be a man of honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are not automatically debtors to their parents, since they have no choice in the matter of their birth and (early) upbringing.

Agreed. It has always bothered me that I had no choice but to be raised, and hence owe my upbringing to my caretakers. Sadly, that is a fact of reality, and it is conceivable that a mother may at some point, directly or tacitly, appeal to the principle of trade and demand that her son repay her in some fashion. In this debate, that repayment would involve the son lying, once, just before the mother dies.

I don't think one can assume that the son's grasp of reality is unaffected by the lie. [...] Imagine a person like Keating who always puts emotions above the truth. However hard such a person tries to keep facts straight in his own mind, he will not be able to do this in the long run. [...] Then every time I speak with her, I would have to mentally "switch gears" and begin to praise altruism. Over time, I would inevitably begin to lose track of what I believe is right.

It has been agreed before in the thread that in the long run, truth is the best policy. I think that it is the best policy even in the medium, or short run. However, the scenario in this debate is of a one-off, immediate run kind. The son will never have to keep facts straight in his mind or switch gears. It's a one-time lie.

Stating the opposite of the truth to someone one values highly, concerning such an important part of one's life can hardly be called a "white" lie.

The American Heritage® Dictionary defines white lie as a "well-intentioned untruth", which is exactly what it is for the mother. As I explained in my previous post, and counter-refuted above, the son does not end up believing his own lie, he is not lying to himself, and therefore the truth about such an important part of his life (finding a wife) is still true to him. No lie at all here, white or not.

A man who consistently lies in order to make others hold false beliefs is a second-hander. The reason that the first man can retain his grasp of reality is that he holds rigorously to the principle of integrity in a normal context, and drops it completely when his life is in the balance. The second man cannot make such a distinction: as soon as he makes "an exception" to the principle in the context in which it is meant to apply, he will make more and more exceptions, until he changes his ways, or it ruins him. Where can this man draw the line?

This is a classic slippery-slope argument - where do we draw the line - and also exactly what I'm trying to refine as a principle by starting this debate, which I subtitled When would objectivists be justified to lie?.

If he sacrifices his integrity for his terminally ill mother today, then why not for his best friend tomorrow, who needs "just a little" help on his final exam, or for his Father, who would be so proud of him if he had a 4.0 GPA in college, when in fact he is an average student?

One of the important differences I see is that in case of the terminally ill mother, there are no ulterior consequences (I've addressed already why the son needs not live the rest of his life with the guilt of having lied at that moment; if others are present and hear the lie, the son would explain the rationality of his decision).

By the way, could someone tell me how to quote people so that it automatically fills in the name of the poster? Thanks!

Click the "+Quote" button under each post you want to quote, then the "Post reply" button at the bottom of the thread (not any other "Reply" button).

To me, being honest to someone is a sign of love and respect. Showing them that honesty and respect is not something dictated by what they want, especially if their want is irrational and demands a breach of one's character.

Being comforting to someone dying is also a sign of love and respect. That honesty should not be dictated by what they want, I agree. The sound *would be* dishonest should he choose to lie.

Sacrificing integrity in such a way would be very altruistic.

Let's say the terminally ill mother asks the son to tell her what the weather is like outside. If the son, for some reason, refuses, then he has breaches his integrity, as long as he claims to love his mother. ("If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral." - “The Ethics of Emergencies”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 46).

Refusing to comfort the dying mother, an action clearly damaging to her, is a breach of integrity, regardless of the nature of such comfort. However, if the mother asked the son to kill someone, there would be no debate. Why? Because the breach of integrity associated with comforting her would be much higher than the breach associated with NOT comforting her.

Therefore, the primary issue upon which we may disagree here is "What breaches integrity most?". I'm curious how we could rationally determine that in a manner independent of the emotions of the persons involved.

I may be intrepreting this wrong, but it appears to me that your attachment to lying to her centers around the strong emotions involved. If that is the case, would a strong principled, logical argument sway you otherwise anyway? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know.

Yes. I've been confronted with emotional appeal before and want to learn to be able to make a rational argument to myself again the emotional appeal. In this case, the best arguments I've collected for telling the truth are:

  • an irrational demand from a less-than-rational person disqualifies that person from deserving good treatment. Therefore the son can say the hurtful truth and the mother deserves the consequences.
  • (post #31)"A good mother teacher her son that integrity is more important than other people's emotions. [...] If a mother can be happy with such a sacrifice, with a line of behavior that destroys her son's self-esteem, then she is not a good mom." and hence deserves to suffer the consequences of being told a hurtful truth.
  • (cop-out) (post #17) if the mother has been constantly nagging the son about getting married and the son tolerated that, he now has to face the consequences, tell the truth, and witness her painful reaction. Rebuttal: 1) the mom might make the "got married?" demand for the first time on her deathbed; 2) the son has learned the lesson already at that moment, and can lie and never tolerate such behavior again

In this particular instance it may be a "white lie", but the underlying desire to act is primarily based on the strong emotional attachment. So next time it may be murder, rape or torture.

Slippery slope. The differences are so enormous between the debate scenario and violence that I'm not sure I even need to start addressing them.

Edited by Live forever or die trying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no virtue in being able to say that I made my mothers final moments of life miserable, but hey, I have lived a life of integrity. The grain of integrity I surrender is meaningless to me, but the value I gain is not.

There are two telling things in this paragraph;

1) Rather than take credit for the actual virtue you performed (being honest), you take credit for the actions of the other person (how they choose to react to the truth).

2) Integrity is something to be sacrificed when some other gain is possible. That kind of defeats the whole idea of integrity to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

("If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral." - “The Ethics of Emergencies”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 46).

Refusing to comfort the dying mother, an action clearly damaging to her, is a breach of integrity, regardless of the nature of such comfort.

I'm not sure how you get the latter from the former as they are not even remotely the same. You will note that the the lack of integrity that results from the Rand quote is a direct result of the man's DISHONESTY. Second, I bet you would note a signficant difference in the man in Rand's case and in your behavior. For instance, if you mother asked you to get her some tea, would you refuse her that comfort? If you mother asked you to fluff her pillow, would you refuse her that comfort? If you mother asked you about the weather, would you refuse to answer her? You are NOT wholesale refusing to comfort your mother as the man is wholesale failing to live up to the words "I love you." You would be refusing in one particular instance not to sacrifice your integrity upon a demand to do so by someone who allegedly loves you.

You are NOT being breaching your integrity by being honest to your mother. You are breaching your integrity by LYING to her. SHE is responsible for her reaction to the information, NOT YOU.

BOTH of you are breaching your integrity by placing each other's emothional responses above reality. You don't want to feel bad by being honest and your mother wants you to lie to her to feel better.

If you value these emotions above honesty, no amount of rational discourse will persuade you otherwise.

That being the case, I'd suggest you contact someone from Hospice. They will likely give you the answer you want to hear.

Slippery slope. The differences are so enormous between the debate scenario and violence that I'm not sure I even need to start addressing them.

Well, in your words...

regardless of the nature of such comfort.
Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental tradeoff here is between one's integrity and the emotional state of another individual (one's mother in this case). In choosing to sacrifice one's integrity, one is placing the emotions of one's victim above reality. That is, one is choosing these emotions as a standard from which to determine one's actions (I believe Dr. Peikoff attributed this argument to Rand in one of his podcasts). This is the policy followed by Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Keating consistently held the emotions of others as his highest values, and chose his actions accordingly.
I dont tell untruths to people who must then act based upon my falsehoods. That would create a victim. Lying to a person on their deathbed does not make that person a victim. I dont hold the emotions of others as primaries, but there are times when the emotions of those close to me are of more value than some insignificant loss of personal integrity. This is one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two telling things in this paragraph;

1) Rather than take credit for the actual virtue you performed (being honest), you take credit for the actions of the other person (how they choose to react to the truth).

I assume you mean "how they choose to react to the lie". Good point, but what was the cause for the mom's reaction to the lie? The son's lie. The son would therefore take credit for his own action, whose result he anticipated, not for the result itself.

2) Integrity is something to be sacrificed when some other gain is possible. That kind of defeats the whole idea of integrity to begin with.

Interesting point. I think what needs to be clarified here is the distinction between honesty and integrity. We agreed that honesty can and should be breached when one's own life is at stake (the gun-to-my-temple-do-you-renounce-objectivism scenario).

"Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality." - “The Ethics of Emergencies”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 46. Now if the son's value of comforting his mother in her final moments is higher than his value of being honest even in one single occasion when such honesty would deeply hurt his mother in her final moments, he would actually preserve his integrity by lying to her in that unique occasion. The question is, how does the son rationally balance these two values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever have a son, hearing a lie from him that is designed to make me feel better would be a moment of disgrace and sadness. I would not want my son to be that kind of man, and to sacrifice the value of his integrity.

If a mother can be happy with such a sacrifice, with a line of behavior that destroys her son's self-esteem, then she is not a good mom.

A good mom should teach her son the right principles, and tell him to always stick to them and be a man of honor.

The beauty of this scenario is that the mother would have no way of finding out that what I told her was a lie. It is my integrity that she is counting upon, which makes the lie so effective. As I said earlier, a similar situation actually happened to me--I told a death bed lie to my grandma. That was 1988. If, in your mind, that taints me as a man with no integrity, so be it. But in those 20 years, I cant think of another time where I lied to appease the emotions of another, nor do I feel that my self-esteem has in any way been damaged. Quite the contrary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you mean "how they choose to react to the lie". Good point, but what was the cause for the mom's reaction to the lie? The son's lie.

Again you give yourself credit where you don't deserve it. The "cause" of mom's reaction to the lie is more likely a deep-seated and life-long committment to that which makes her feel better rather than that which may be an uncomfortable truth (probably in certain instances anyway). The son's lie is just the continuation of such "enabling".

I'll answer your second part in a bit (after some quote search of my own). But in short, you cannot legitimately keep throwing Rand quotes out there and trying to make them fit into your situation if you are going to ignore what would be a primary ethical "rule" in her book, that being about not faking reality. Objectivism is above all about the consistent recognition of WHAT IS (objective), not what want wants it to be(subjective). If you operate on any other premise, the quotes you put out there are meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you give yourself credit where you don't deserve it. The "cause" of mom's reaction to the lie is more likely a deep-seated and life-long committment to that which makes her feel better rather than that which may be an uncomfortable truth (probably in certain instances anyway).
I disagree. The only way to get the proper reaction from the mother--that is, for her to believe what you tell her--is that she first believes that you are a person of integrity and honesty. If my mom believed me to be fundamentally dishonest or likely to appease her in any given situation, the death bed lie would not be believed. It is that she knows you to be trustworthy and honest that she takes the death bed lie as truth.

Now if the son's value of comforting his mother in her final moments is higher than his value of being honest even in one single occasion when such honesty would deeply hurt his mother in her final moments, he would actually preserve his integrity by lying to her in that unique occasion.
That is essentially the way I view it: I put a higher value on the emotional well being of my mother in her final moments of life than I do some insignificant lapse in my own integrity or honesty. Telling someone close to you an uncomfortable truth is never easy, but if that person is not going to be dead by morning, he will have plenty of time to come to grips with the harsh reality of the truth. Telling your mother on her death bed a lie meant to comfort her causes her no harm. Any harm falls upon the shoulders of the person telling the lie. From my perspective, lying to my grandma about her dog put her mind at ease. Any blow that brought to my integrity or honesty was worth it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty of this scenario is that the mother would have no way of finding out that what I told her was a lie. It is my integrity that she is counting upon, which makes the lie so effective.

<_< So your mom has raised you to be a man of integrity, she is counting on your integrity, and the beauty is that you repay her by betraying what she has taught you? What is beautiful about that?

As I said earlier, a similar situation actually happened to me--I told a death bed lie to my grandma. That was 1988. If, in your mind, that taints me as a man with no integrity, so be it. But in those 20 years, I cant think of another time where I lied to appease the emotions of another, nor do I feel that my self-esteem has in any way been damaged. Quite the contrary.

<_< I have not passed any judgement on you personally. Nor would I judge a man based solely on his actions in the past. What matters is the kind of man you strive to be and working to become, much more than who you are or were.

If I would judge you for anything, it would be for trying to glorify lying for the sake of pleasing someone and seeing it as an ideal to strive to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your mom has raised you to be a man of integrity, she is counting on your integrity, and the beauty is that you repay her by betraying what she has taught you? What is beautiful about that?

Betrayal? Who is harmed by the lie?

I have not passed any judgement on you personally. Nor would I judge a man based solely on his actions in the past. What matters is the kind of man you strive to be and working to become, much more than who you are or were.

If I would judge you for anything, it would be for trying to glorify lying for the sake of pleasing someone and seeing it as an ideal to strive to.

I have no problem with what I did in the past and if the circumstances were the same, I would do it agian, so feel free to judge me all you want. But be honest about it. I am not glorifying lying. I am saying that there are times when honesty can cause irreparable damage. Death is one of those times, because it doesnt afford you the time to come to terms with reality. If my mother asked me to care for her dog when she was in no danger of imminent death, I would say no. This might dissapoint her, but she would have ample time to make other arrangements. In terms of this scenario, if I am honest with my mother, it makes her final hours of life miserable. If I am dishonest, she passes in greater comfort. What do I gain by telling the truth? Some self-congratulatory pat on the back for adhering slavishly to principle at best. That is of no value to me if it comes at the expense of my mothers emotional well being in the final hours of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Yes, and I disagree with that. I'd have a concern over a mother who would be upset and lack understanding if I told her something like this;

Mom, I know you want me to be happy, but no, I haven't found a love interest yet. I'm happy now and I continue to be optimistic about my future in finding the right woman. But it must be the right woman, and finding any woman now just for the sake of having some relationship would not be right - it would not make me happy. I'm alright mom, and I will be alright when I do find the woman that is right for me. This is something that may take time, but it is time well spent. I'm sorry that I cannot make this happen right now, but in the hopes that you truly love me and seek my hapiness, I hope you understand. I will be alright. As for right now mom, I'm happy to be here spending time with you and helping you in your time of need.

I've told the truth, my integrity is intact, and my mom should be rational enough to understand and be happy about that. If she is not, it's because she is just as I described; a person who seeks to hear what they want, not what is. A person who avoids the truth in favor of "feeling good". A person who really doesn't respect me because they would rather I placate them with a lie than demonstrate the honesty of a man. In my experience, in the end, a rational mother really wants to know that their boy has grown up to be a man. And men don't allow themselves to be manipulated by their mother's emotions, played like puppets. Likewise, a man sells his mother short by believing they know better than her what's best for her, that this is the right time to lie to her.

My mother already is dead (as is my dad who just died in January this year). I never had the chance to tell her some of the truth of things before she died because she died WHOLLY unexpectedly while I was out of town on vacation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I disagree with that. I'd have a concern over a mother who would be upset and lack understanding if I told her something like this;

Mom, I know you want me to be happy, but no, I haven't found a love interest yet. I'm happy now and I continue to be optimistic about my future in finding the right woman. But it must be the right woman, and finding any woman now just for the sake of having some relationship would not be right - it would not make me happy. I'm alright mom, and I will be alright when I do find the woman that is right for me. This is something that may take time, but it is time well spent. I'm sorry that I cannot make this happen right now, but in the hopes that you truly love me and seek my hapiness, I hope you understand. I will be alright. As for right now mom, I'm happy to be here spending time with you and helping you in your time of need.

Actually, I hadnt commented on that particular scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have a concern over a mother who would be upset and lack understanding if I told her something like this;

Mom, I know you want me to be happy, but no, I haven't found a love interest yet. I'm happy now and I continue to be optimistic about my future in finding the right woman. But it must be the right woman, and finding any woman now just for the sake of having some relationship would not be right - it would not make me happy. I'm alright mom, and I will be alright when I do find the woman that is right for me. This is something that may take time, but it is time well spent. I'm sorry that I cannot make this happen right now, but in the hopes that you truly love me and seek my hapiness, I hope you understand. I will be alright. As for right now mom, I'm happy to be here spending time with you and helping you in your time of need.

This is what I would say as well, if given the opportunity to do so. It's tactful, yet honest, reassuring for her, and the son preserves his integrity. A lesson learned from this is that such dilemmas are rarely so dichotomic in reality; and the scenario should be clear in order to not allow for middle ground, at the risk of becoming unrealistic.

The only way the initial dilemma in this thread could survive would be if the mom could only perceive a "Yes" or "No" answer. Imagine she has become deaf and blind, and she asks the son: "My son, hold my hand tight if you found someone to marry, and that will allow me to die happy". In that case, fletch's reply:

In terms of this scenario, if I am honest with my mother, it makes her final hours of life miserable. If I am dishonest, she passes in greater comfort. What do I gain by telling the truth? Some self-congratulatory pat on the back for adhering slavishly to principle at best. That is of no value to me if it comes at the expense of my mothers emotional well being in the final hours of life.

seems quite compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way the initial dilemma in this thread could survive would be if the mom could only perceive a "Yes" or "No" answer. Imagine she has become deaf and blind, and she asks the son: "My son, hold my hand tight if you found someone to marry, and that will allow me to die happy". In that case, fletch's reply:

As your scenario continues to warp out of reality, I think this will be my last stab effort. I only learn from realistic scenarios and I'm not really crazy about hypotheticals anyway. Unlike real life, hypotheticals almost always seem to get twisted in the effort to get the answer one wants.

However, given that this scenario still is minutely remotely possible, I would still say it doesn't work. I may hold her hand to comfort her anyway without intending to communicate what she wants to hear and given her communication limits, she may interpret that as a "yes". Alternatively, when faced with that dilemna, I might give her a hug instead of holding her hand to avoid that miscommunication. If she cannot be comforted by her son's hug and expression of love, maybe she doesn't love him as much as she seeks her gratification for her own sake. Maybe his happiness is not what she really cares about.

I do not believe you will find an Objectivist-oriented answer that says her feelings are primary over your integrity and reality. None the less, you would obviously be free to pursue whatever course of action you choose.

I only wish that I had the opportunity for some final honesty with my mother before she was gone without me knowing. I guess that is why it is so tragic to me that someone else that would have that opportunity and instead think that the best parting gift to her would be a lie.

Good luck with all that.

seems quite compelling

No to me.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe his happiness is not what she really cares about.
And why should it be? Arent you getting just what you want? You dont care about her well being, why should she concern herself with yours? You condemn her for seeking her own gratification and concratulate yourself for doing the same thing.

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why should it be? Arent you getting just what you want? You dont care about her well being, why should she concern herself with yours? You condemn her for seeking her own gratification and concratulate yourself for doing the same thing.

There is no where I have said I don't care about her well being. If you are going to respond to my posts, don't twist them up and misrepresent them. What I have said was I won't sacrifice my integrity to appeal to irrational demands or emotional manipulation. There is a gaping difference.

I'm not seeking my gratification at her expense. I'm not requiring something of her to make me happy like she is doing to me. I don't condemn her for seeking happiness; I condemn her for seeking happiness by placing an irrational demand on me and/or my life.

If she wants me to be happy by having the right mate, she has to be willing to let me find the right mate in my own time. If she wants me to find just SOME mate so she can die happy, regardless of whether it is the right mate because she will die soon, too bad. If she wants me to lie to her just so she can feel happy, again, too bad.

So the question is, why does she want to know if I have found a woman? Is it because she wants me to be happy, or is it because she wants herself to be happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Is it acceptable to lie to not hurt someone's feelings?

Are you kidding me? Of course it is! Have you ever had a girl look at herself in the mirror and ask you, "Sweety, does this dress make me look fat?" You absolutely must say, "No, you look fine," regardless of the reality. If you say, "Yes," man, you're in for a world of suffering.

If you've had an affair, it's definitely better to not mention it to your sweety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? Of course it is! Have you ever had a girl look at herself in the mirror and ask you, "Sweety, does this dress make me look fat?" You absolutely must say, "No, you look fine," regardless of the reality. If you say, "Yes," man, you're in for a world of suffering.
Why are you dating a woman who is so out of touch with reality that she can't face facts?
If you've had an affair, it's definitely better to not mention it to your sweety.
There's another "Why are you..." question that I could raise, and I imagine you know what that question is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...