Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

accept objectivism ALL of objectivism?

Rate this topic


expertpanda

Recommended Posts

2 questions but I just wanted to make 1 thread

1)

can you call yourself an objectivist and not follow it entirely always? (ie white lies to a girl that her dress is nice)

2)

if you fail to present information or beliefs you have does that count as lying?

for example youre flirting with a girl, she brings up global warming. To say, "I don't know, No opinion" is a lie but if you say nothing or quickly change subject. Is that a lie?

Girl: Are you a democrat or republican?

Me: What kind of music do you like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) If you consciously choose not to follow the philosophy you claim is true, then you are compartmentalizing and/or being pragmatic (valuing anticipated near-term results ahead of principles). If you grew up under pragmatist parents and learned to think in a pragmatist school system, it's unerstandable, if disappointing. But if you've have really decided Oism is true, then it's worse, IMO.

2) If you want to sleep with her, but you think she won't want to if you answer her question honestly, then lying in that case is a form of fraud. Unethical at least, possibly illegal, depending on the question. If you change the subject and she rolls with it, then you can assume she didn't think it was important enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can hold good ideas but not have the integrity to follow them consistently. I would say that a white lie every once and a while, while immoral and inconsistent with Objectivism, wouldn't proclude you from being an Objectivist. If however, you don't have any regrets for your lies and don't consider honesty a virtue, then you would not be an Objectivist. In the first case, you have the right morality, you just aren't morally perfect (although you should try to be as it is very much possible). In the second case, you are rejecting the Objectivist ethics, and thus Objectivism itself.

As for the second question, it is certainly not a lie not to answer a question.

Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ExpertPanda, I think that what's important in practicing Objectivist morality, and can be missed, is to think about moral values as principles--not rules (e.g., "Always be honest."). By this I mean to view values (i) in their broader context of other values and (ii) in relation to the potential real-world consequences of one's enacting one's values. For instance, what benefit (or value) is there for you and her in telling a woman that you hate her dress? If you tell her you like her dress, but you actually hate it (i.e., a white lie), what's the greatest harm you are committing? This may be obvious, but if your intent is to make the woman feel comfortable in your company, and open the channels of communication, giving your negative opinion of her dress (especially if you don't know each her that well), won't get you very far.

The way I see it, the "competing" values in this example involve establishing an amicable interpersonal connection and being honest about one's fashion preferences. Which is more important to you?

Edited by Walter Foddis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Yes, if you want to be a hypocrite. When someone tells me they're an Objectivist, they're telling me that (among other things) they value honesty, and are honest with themselves and with others. If you willfully are not, then drop trying to come across as if you are.

2. You're not obligated to divulge anything. If asked a question, answer honestly, or answer that you don't wish to answer ("I don't wanna get into that right now")

Why lie? To gain a short-term satisfaction? What are the long-term consequences? If you say you like her dress to avoid conflict, have fun dealing with the conflict caused by 10 new similar dresses added to her wardrobe. But perhaps you don't plan anything long-term at all -- maybe this is a one-and-done shot, and once it's done you don't plan on seeing her again. Then have fun sleeping at night knowing that the women you sleep with must be lied to and flattered, that they don't really want you, but the illusion of you that you had to build for them.

Why go through all the trouble of inventing lies for someone who doesn't like you as you are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I don't call myself an Objectivist. A student of Objectivism? Sure. An Individualist? Of course. But A) I'm not fully versed in the philosophy, haven't read all of Rand's works, etc., and B ) I don't fully apply all the principles of Objectivism to my life. Honesty is one of the most important ones to me; on the other hand, I can be willfully lazy, and let emotion and whim dictate my action (vs. rational thought) if I'm not careful... or sometimes I'll even say "fuck it" when I know better, letting my emotional state again dictate my actions.

In my defense, untangling the unwieldy root-ball of your emotional mechanism is harder than inventing something to say that isn't true. I do try. There's definite progress, and that's pleasing and rewarding. As is knowing I'm an honest man.

Edited by Jam Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"appreciate your responses, but to the people that replied, is there no part of objectivism that you agree with but fail to fully apply to your life?"

Before responding to your question, and reading Jam Man's responses, I want to mention another perspective. I think it's more important to be a person of moral integrity, independent thought, and rationality than it is to be a "good Objectivist." But you may say, "But those are Objectivist values!" Yes, they are. But sometimes in the pursuit of being a "good Objectivist," this kind of mentality can lead to following rules, scripts, or more simply, "whatever Rand said" in a very rigid, acontextual way.This is where cultishness creeped into the movement those many years ago and can still be seen among the more dogmatic "Objectivists."

For instance, telling a "white lie" may or may not be going against Objectivist value of honesty, or necessarily mean you are a hypocrite (as Ram Jam suggests). You need to ask yourself why you are telling the "white lie." What are the gains or losses in telling the white lie? Is there another value you are placing higher than honesty about your opinion about a dress? If you respond to woman who asks, "Do you like my dress?" with "I don't want to get into that right now," she will read between the lines. She'll know that means you don't like it. If you don't believe me, give any woman the hypothetical situation. First, they may say something like, "That's a weird response." And if you follow that up with the question, "Do you think the person likes or doesn't like it?" She will probably say, "The person doesn't like it." If a person likes a dress, they will say it. Rarely do men turn down the invitation to compliment a woman

I think what's important is to think about the level of impact (benefit or harm) in being honest or dishonest in any given situation. Let's say you don't like your buddy's new friend and your buddy has invited you out to go a bar drinking with them right now. You could tell your friend that you don't like that guy, but then this raises curiosity, confusion, and possibly doubt in your friend's mind. This "honest" response might not be the best thing to mention in this moment. Here you could tell a "white lie" that you're busy, or you're feeling too tired, so as to avoid what can be an awkward phone call. What harm are you causing in telling this lie? At the moment, there is no harm except your realization that you lied. But then you had some social considerations in mind that prompted you to lie. There may come a point in time when you have this discussion with your friend (e.g., if their friendship has a negative affect on your relationship to your friend) and then you can bring it up in a reasoned way, explaining what you don't like about his friend.

But does the "white lie" during the phone mean you betrayed of your value of honesty? That you are now a hypocrite, morally reprehensible, and deserve 10 Objectivist slashes? I would suggest an emphatic, "no" because there is a broader context to the situation beyond being honest. You were not lying to manipulate your friend. Rather, you lied so as to put off an important discussion for a more appropriate time.

For what it's worth, I go into all this detail in these examples because, frankly, Objectivism offers little in terms of social skills, or how to apply one's "emotional intelligence."

Anyway, to answer your question, if there are Objectivist (or other rational) values that one finds hard to follow consistently, it might not be that the values are "too hard" to follow, but perhaps there is a misunderstanding of how these values are to be applied to a given situation. In the moment, we are prone to our habitual responses. However, if after the fact, we are mindful about your actions, reflect on them when our emotions are not clouding our judgement (although emotions need to be considered as they represent "facts" of our mental states), we can then question whether we were consistent in our values. And if we were not, figure out what was getting in the way of this consistency. Were feelings interfering with thinking clearly, like anxiety, frustration, depression, or anger? Did we act impulsively rather than take a moment to think about the situation a little more? Did we have all the relevant information to make the best decision? Were we trying impress someone (i.e., were you strongly motivated to be liked, which is a natural motive)? And perhaps one of the most important questions: What did we hope to gain in acting this way?

This is where self-honesty becomes incredibly important because humans are masterful at rationalizing their behaviour; at explaining it away or justifying it. The self-reflection I suggest is aimed at understanding one's motives, not justifying them. This may be hard to do, especially when we feel we have betrayed a moral value. But this reflection works best when our goal is to understand ourselves and not adopt the mentality of self-condemnation or self-criticism. It is through self-understanding that we identify the obstacles. Then once we have identified these obstacles (i.e., found answers to our questions that sound reasonable to us), we can then recommit ourselves to the value with the knowledge that we now ~know~ what to do next time.

Hope you find this useful.

For what it's worth, Nathaniel Branden has an essay on some of the pitfalls of "Objectivist" thinking, which I think you might find useful.

http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html

Edited by Walter Foddis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not missed: that white lies are a form of social lubricant, and outright honesty can cause social friction. In terms of dresses, certainly "I'd rather not get into that now" is an awkward response. Here, just be honest. There's no need to be rude or demeaning while stating it. "No, not really; you look better in this-or-that type of dress, or this-or-that color..." etc.. If she loves the dress, well then friction may occur. To me, that's her bad if she can't handle someone else's honest opinion, politely stated nonetheless, with reassurances that she is still beautiful, and that the object of my negative opinion was her dress, not her.

Your buddy thinks Dude X is a great guy; you can't stand him. What's wrong with saying that? "Yeah man, sounds like a good time... but really, Dude X just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather not...." Is your buddy gonna be pissed? Does he know you well enough to understand why you think Dude X is a douche? Consider the alternatives: lying to your buddy, going out with another buddy instead, and having him find out. Now instead of explaining reality (why you'd rather not hang with Dude X), you're explaining sommersaults of fiction in your head. "Well look man I wasn't up to it, but then I changed my mind...." Or would you NOW offer the truth, only after you've been caught in the lie? "Look man Dude X is a douche but I didn't wanna say that on the phone...." How credible is your explaination now? How credible are YOU, now? And if you're gonna offer the truth anyway, why not save a step and offer it to begin with, and save your integrity (and your buddy's opinion of you) in the process?

Yes, lying is an easy way out of sticky situations. But honesty is the RIGHT way out. And you may have to face uncomfortable results: others may not like you (become displeased, not give up the booty, etc.) for who you are. There's nothing you can do about that, if you wish to maintain your integrity, except explain why your opinions are what they are. They will see the light -- or not. You can't force them to, so deal with reality accordingly and move on.

I cannot help but to throw a link to the Lexicon out here for you to consider: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/honesty.html

(Btw, I absolutely agree with Goodman Foddis' statement that it's more important to be a good man than a good Objectivist. However, the two are practically interchangable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i appreciate your responses, but to the people that replied, is there no part of objectivism that you agree with but fail to fully apply to your life?

Absolutely. For example, I know that (-1)(-1)=1, but you wouldn't know it from some of the incorrect solutions I've given to problems in my Calculus refresher course. In the midst of worrying about the calculus, sometimes the arithmetic gets botched.

What I mean is that 1) we are all fallible and make mistakes, and 2) everything worth doing requires some amount of practice.

I don't think any honest person would say they fully apply every principle at every relevant moment of their life. I was already an atheist and capitalist-leaning when I found Objectivism, so those parts were easy. I have had to work hard at some of the more practical applications of Objectivist living: diet and exercise, since I grew up without a discplined approach to these. Not Objectivism, per se, but an application of valuing one's own life and applying rationality, integrity, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jam Man, I see the points you make and acknowledge it is very tough to justify lying when you should be able to present who you really are. But let me ask you this,

Suppose you're a starving salesman and closing a big deal would be greatly aided by a white lie?

Walter, thanks so much for sharing and the Nathaniel Branden essay was great

Jake, yeah I feel you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes, lying is an easy way out of sticky situations. But honesty is the RIGHT way out. And you may have to face uncomfortable results: others may not like you (become displeased, not give up the booty, etc.) for who you are. There's nothing you can do about that, if you wish to maintain your integrity, except explain why your opinions are what they are. They will see the light -- or not. You can't force them to, so deal with reality accordingly and move on."

It seems like you are presenting the case that a person needs to be honest 100% all the time, no matter the situation. Do you ever see a situation in which you can lie? I've tried outline the questions involved to put things into context, but I haven't really seen answers to those questions. You kind of tweaked the examples and presented your own solution to the problem in which honesty is the only option.

Let me return to the dress example. Essentially, what I hear you saying that it is important to your integrity to give your honest ~opinion~ on the dress, which is not a factual statement of reality, but rather your ~subjective~ belief of what looks good on this woman. Holding true to one's values and expressing them is essential to integrity, but to hold one's subjective opinion on fashion as more important than having a pleasant conversation, that's not what I think of as being honest in principle. Some things I consider to be vitally important to be honest about, but in my book, an opinion on a woman's fashion choices is not one of them.

As to the buddy example, the lying in this case is to postpone a conversation because the timing was not right. He asks you, "What do you mean he rubs you the wrong way?" You then explain some of things he says, or how he says them, that bother you. Your buddy then begins to defend his new friend, or tell you are you are taking him too seriously, or criticizing you for not being open-minded in meeting new people. Then you find yourself defending yourself and sensing tension building up, and you get a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan. Finally, your buddy tells you to you're a pretentious snob and hangs up on you. What I am saying is that this shit storm could have been avoided by telling a "white lie" in the moment, which is not to say you intend to keep lying, but to postpone your talk for a more appropriate time in which the conversation can be less hostile.

Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse with the above examples. Here is a better one. I believe Nathaniel Branden gave this one, or a variation of it. Imagine that you are on your deathbed with your wife of 30 years sitting with you. You had a romantic affair about 10 years ago, but she never found out about it. At the time of the affair, you and your wife were already going through a turbulent time. Because of this, you sought emotional and sexual refuge in the affair. You had a feeling that your marriage could end. However, you and your wife eventually worked things out. You ended the affair once you and your wife made serious steps to reconcile your differences. Indeed, you felt your relationship with her was stronger because of overcoming these obstacles.

But now you are dying. Is this the time to be honest about the affair? Your wife is already in a lot of pain in anticipation of your death, and she will be grieving for a long time after you've gone. Is honesty the best policy, that is, is it essential to your integrity to you drop this bombshell on her? I'd be curious to know whether you believe it is a good idea to be honest in this situation and why.

Edited by Walter Foddis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) can you call yourself an objectivist and not follow it entirely always?

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." ~ Polonius, Hamlet

2) if you fail to present information or beliefs you have does that count as lying?

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." ~ Bill Clinton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expert Panda wrote:

"Walter, thanks so much for sharing and the Nathaniel Branden essay was great."

Glad you found it helpful. I think it really puts things into perspective on how moralism can cloud one's critical thinking, including thinking rationally about morality.

You asked:

"Suppose you're a starving salesman and closing a big deal would be greatly aided by a white lie?"

You ask good questions, EP. As your hypothetical situation shows, when it comes to moral dilemmas, there is often a larger context. I am repeating myself, but one cannot think of honesty, or other virtues, as isolated rules that exist in a sacred moral sphere. If you follow the ~rule~ of honesty, meaning "honesty at all costs, no matter what the situation," well then you don't tell the white lie, lose your customer, and lose out on an opportunity to earn money to feed yourself.

But if you look at this situation from a larger context, from a ~principled~ way of thinking, you ask yourself, what other values are in play. Your health, for one. The potential harm of the "white lie" to the customer is another. The benefit of the product/service you are selling to the customer is another. So in deciding in whether to lie, a principled approach is to consider all these factors. Which one is most important? Why? What are costs and benefits of lying or being completely honest?

In the end, you may come out with an answer that many Objectivists may disagree with, but that doesn't make it "objectively" wrong. In coming to a reasoned decision, you have only yourself to be held accountable, whatever that is. But the point is that you took a rational approach and that's the best you can ask of yourself.

This discussion reminds of one of Woody Allen's best movies, Crimes and Misdemeanors. The central premise of the movie is "What if you can get away with a serious moral breach with little to no consequences?" I would highly recommend it. It is sure to get your thinking about the nature of morality, especially at the psychological level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you follow the ~rule~ of honesty, meaning "honesty at all costs, no matter what the situation," well then you don't tell the white lie, lose your customer, and lose out on an opportunity to earn money to feed yourself. But if you look at this situation from a larger context, from a ~principled~ way of thinking, you ask yourself, what other values are in play. Your health, for one. The potential harm of the "white lie" to the customer is another. The benefit of the product/service you are selling to the customer is another. So in deciding in whether to lie, a principled approach is to consider all these factors. Which one is most important? Why? What are costs and benefits of lying or being completely honest?

I believe there's a larger principle that often gets overlooked, being the degree to which you expect others to be honest (even brutally so) with you; or to put it another way, what value do you place on maintaining honest interactions with others? White lies are harmless so long as it's understood by both parties that they represent emotional support, rather than honest opinion. There's no "principled" approach to lying other than the rejection of honesty as a principle, and whatever short term emotional/financial gains are to be had by dishonest means are gradually offset by the errosion of long term interpersonal relationships. The best measure of how acceptable lying is, is how acceptable are you of being lied to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jam Man, I see the points you make and acknowledge it is very tough to justify lying when you should be able to present who you really are. But let me ask you this,

Suppose you're a starving salesman and closing a big deal would be greatly aided by a white lie?

Roark makes this point while being a starving architect in The Fountainhead:

'It's sheer insanity!' Weidler moaned, 'I want you. We want your building. You need the commission. Do you have to be quite so fanatical and selfless about it?' Roark smiled. He said, 'That was the most selfish thing you've ever seen a man do.'

Would I be tempted to lie? Absolutely. Would I feel like a piece of shit after I did? Without a doubt. Would I enjoy the steak dinner it bought me? It would lack savour, and fail to nourish my integrity and self-esteem as it would my body.

"Yes but a just a little teeny white lie!? You would feel so bad over a very small compromise of your values and integrity!?"

Indeed I would. Hopefully it would cause me to realize I need to find a career where I can perform my work honestly, and more fruitfully than I have been. Dominique sums it up:

'Roark, I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between'

There is no difference between "honest" and "totally honest" or "completely honest". You don't start sentences with "Let me be honest..." because it ought to be a given, and you shouln't have to make that distinction to youself when you realize you're speaking to someone else out loud instead of thinking privately; as if everything you say without that qualifier may or may not represent your true and actual thoughts and opinions, or reality. Either you're honest, or you're not. To yourself and to others. The first step to being honest with yourself is to stop trying to justify your dishonesty, especially with life-or-death scenarios that don't represent day-to-day life.

Mr. Foddis,

But now you are dying. Is this the time to be honest about the affair? Your wife is already in a lot of pain in anticipation of your death, and she will be grieving for a long time after you've gone. Is honesty the best policy, that is, is it essential to your integrity to you drop this bombshell on her? I'd be curious to know whether you believe it is a good idea to be honest in this situation and why?

To be honest does not mean that you must reveal secrets, or may not have them. If she asked me, I would tell her the truth. If she didn't ask, I would die with that knowledge, hoping for her sake she'd never find out another way, because she would've rather heard it from the man she loves than his lover. Either way, the consequences of my dishonesty in the past are unescapable. I'm a wreck on my deathbed, and instead of a solemn, final goodbye I'm left consumed with guilt or a twice heartbroken soon-to-be-widow on my conscious. If I've lived dishonestly, what else should I expect?

A person doesn't need to be honest 100% of the time. Certainly he can lie his way into a win-win situation, and even rationalize to himself that he did right, given the results. A man only needs to be honest to the extent that he values his integrity. Some men don't, and lie willingly, white or otherwise. And being honest doesn't mean broadcasting every thought in my head out loud for the world to hear. It just means if you ask, you'll get the truth.

Again about the dress: if she asks for my opinion, I'm going to give it to her, because that's what she asked for. It's more important to my integrity to be honest to her than to lie to her, yes. Just because social considerations come into play doesn't mean that principles go out the window.

As to the buddy example, the lying in this case is to postpone a conversation because the timing was not right.

Is there no other way to postpone a conversation than to lie? If you're saying I tweaked my argument to show that honesty was the only option, then certainly you're tweaking this whole argument to show that lying is the only option that wouldn't lead to a shit-storm. "...with Dude X? No thanks, everytime he's around my girlfiend he tries to get her to leave me for him. I'd rather not." The possibilities are endless. Just tell your buddy the truth. "Why not Dude X?" "Don't worry about it right now man, go enjoy yourselves, we'll catch up later on." Done. Conversation postponed, integrity intact.

There's no "principled" approach to lying other than the rejection of honesty as a principle....

That's the nail being hit on the head right there.

Edited by Jam Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I am not talking about lying as a matter habit, or that if you tell white lies, you must not value your integrity. With each example, I gave the context of multiple values and considerations, in addition to honesty. By principled, I mean there is a hierarchy of values. By context, I mean looking at the bigger picture (i.e., the consequences, cost/benefit, etc.). When judging whether to be dishonest in a situation, by thinking in principle and within a larger context, this does not mean you are rejecting honesty in principle, or throwing out your integrity by rationalizing that lying is moral.

Here's another personal example. My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer. My fiancee's aunt died (from cancer) the day after my mother was diagnosed. In the weeks following, when my fiancee called me (we were long distance),she would talk to me about her grief. I saw no value whatever in telling her, during her early grief, that my mother was terminally ill. i did tell my fiancee about a month after mom's diagnosis. She was a upset I didn't tell her earlier, but then I explained that pouring salt into her wounds wasn't helping anyone. And that if she knew sooner, what would that of changed? At the time, I felt that her grief was more important than mine and that I wanted to be an emotional support for her during her most painful time. I knew that in time when mom would die that I would be turning to her for full support. In this example, I was in effect lying to her by withholding this information from her. Was I throwing my integrity out the window? Was I rejecting honesty as a principle? Why or why not?

Did I feel guilty for not telling her? To be honest, I felt a little guilt at the time, but I understood why I was delaying telling her. Looking back, I have no moral regret for delaying.

Life is complicated. I affirm that honesty is the best way to maintain trust and respect. But my point is that, at times, what to be honest about and when is not so clear cut. Instead of following the rule "be honest,all the time,no matter what," i submit that people consider the larger context and other values involved. In other words, to think of practicing honesty in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With each example, I gave the context of multiple values and considerations, in addition to honesty. By principled, I mean there is a hierarchy of values. By context, I mean looking at the bigger picture (i.e., the consequences, cost/benefit, etc.).

What value would you be gaining by praticing the "virtue" of lying? The value of another's consciousness redirected from what actually is, to whatever fantasy you feel they can emotionally handle? What else must you consider, besides what actually is? Give your fellow man the same oppurtunity you had: to judge, evaluate, and deal with real life. And isn't that really what honesty is all about: being true to reality, to existence itself? What is the actual cost, when you substitute your own inventions for bits and pieces of reality that you find socially undesirable?

Was I throwing my integrity out the window? Was I rejecting honesty as a principle? Why or why not?

You weren't. Having knowledge someone else doesn't have isn't dishonesty. If she really wanted to know, and she'd asked, you couldn't get away with "I don't wanna talk about it" for very long without her insisting. (So by God, she wants to know how your mother is doing, not how you want her to think she's doing. She wants to know what actually is, not what you want her to believe actually is.) But either the truth, or "I don't wanna talk about it," are the only two honest answers you could've given if she had asked. And would she have been able to tell something was wrong? Probably, but that's also probably because something was wrong. Would you think she is ill-equipped to deal with reality, that you must give her a gentler alternative? Instead of looking at it as doubling-down the pain on her, couldn't you see it another way: might not she realize that, if she wants to support the man she loves, then she must be stronger than she has been? Isn't that building character? Isn't that a pair united against what's really there for them to face? What would you have gotten with a lie, if she had asked? Not a chance for her character (and yours) to build, but the equivalent of giving an "A" on an unanswered test. The cost is character, etc... there is no benefit.

But you weren't lying, at all. I wouldn't have told her either. Unless she'd asked. And then there really is no alternative.

Edited by Jam Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was I throwing my integrity out the window? Was I rejecting honesty as a principle? Why or why not?

The premise, that one is providing emotional support by withholding bad news, is flawed but not dishonest. Who is the immediate beneficiary of withholding information? The fact that your fiancee was upset you hadn't told her sooner, may point to a better course of action in the future.

Life is complicated. I affirm that honesty is the best way to maintain trust and respect. But my point is that, at times, what to be honest about and when is not so clear cut. Instead of following the rule "be honest,all the time,no matter what," i submit that people consider the larger context and other values involved. In other words, to think of practicing honesty in principle.

There is no larger context than valuing honest interactions with those you care about. Do you appreciate others determining what you can and can't handle emotionally? It's better to be the bearer of bad news and offer emotional support to cope with it, than be the censor of bad news and put off emotional support for a more convenient time.

In a similar situation, I was spared bad news until my grandmother was unconscious on her deathbed... I didn't consider the decision by well meaning family members to withhold information about her deterioration from me emotionally beneficial then, and I still don't. I would have preferred being given the opportunity visit her while she was conscious of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dishonesty by omission, rather than commission? There've been some thoughtful replies

to some difficult life-examples, but it still seems to me that the greatest respect (and

love) one can give a loved one is for them to share what you know. And let the cards fall

as they will.

I totally agree with Walter's "honesty as principle" - as over-arching all else - to do

otherwise is primarily a potential, and habitual, 'faking of reality' to oneself; followed

closely by perhaps the greatest harm one can do another - distorting their view of reality.

I also believe in my right to not divulge private information to anyone who has no 'need

to know', which can be handled by silence, a "none of your business", or if they're insistent,

an outright lie. As long as it doesn't pose a contradiction to one's much larger (and long-

term) principle of honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to two scenarios by Foddis, and writing up a new scenario at the end:

"Let me return to the dress example. Essentially, what I hear you saying that it is important to your integrity to give your honest ~opinion~ on the dress, which is not a factual statement of reality, but rather your ~subjective~ belief of what looks good on this woman. Holding true to one's values and expressing them is essential to integrity, but to hold one's subjective opinion on fashion as more important than having a pleasant conversation, that's not what I think of as being honest in principle. Some things I consider to be vitally important to be honest about, but in my book, an opinion on a woman's fashion choices is not one of them."

"You ended the affair once you and your wife made serious steps to reconcile your differences. Indeed, you felt your relationship with her was stronger because of overcoming these obstacles."

I'm still not seeing what you'd get out of lying in these situations. To be clear, civility is important - honesty doesn't mean a blank check to say whatever you want as long as it is factually true. Saying "that dress is disgusting, your taste is absolutely despicable" isn't a good way to communicate, and doesn't attain any value than some "need" to express every thought in your head. Now, if you are *asked* about your opinion, you should still state it. So what if you are asked about your opinion, even if it's pretty subjective? You know your opinions, you know what you think. Even if you are not a fashion expert, surely you have enough integrity with yourself to say what you prefer. If someone asks me for my opinion, I'm going to give it. Presumably, I'm being asked because the other person values my thoughts. Maybe she is unsure about wearing a particular dress, so she comes to you for a second, trusted opinion. Then you can say "I'm not a fan, but I think with that hat, you'd look better in purple". Still a pleasant conversation, still truthful, and you probably would find out about each other, such as how you like purple a lot. Trivial stuff, but you get something out of your honesty. What would happen if you told a white lie, said it looked wonderful? You'd be stating the opposite of your thoughts to someone who wants your thoughts, all in efforts to not offend. But your honest answer would offend... why are you being asked? I can imagine that she might be easily offended, and is working on proving that aspect of herself, so in that situation, it might be worth a white lie - sometimes people do have psychological issues. But most of the time, in almost any context, it's worth being truthful. Lying that you like the dress is trying to attain a value - trust, healthy communication, for a few - by means of making something up that's untrue.

As for an affair that ended, in that situation, it's probably a moot point. You failed to talk about something that would have been crucial to fixing past relationship problems. By then, it's too late, nothing will come of it. The worse issue is never having said anything. If you were working things out, that'd include talking about why you had an affair anyway, as a means to better foster communication in the future. Maybe it is true that nothing will be gained out of telling the truth, and being truthful is only going to make her last days worse, but that's only because you got yourself into a nasty mess by not practicing a policy of truth. It would be self-sacrificial to just make things worse for her, but I certainly wouldn't send you accolades.

There are some contexts where a white lie is appropriate, but they're pretty different than the examples given. Say you are eating lunch with your friend Fred one day, and he mentions Jane. Since you know Jane better than him, he asks if Jane cheated on her boyfriend. He has some suspicions and tells you about them. Since you know Jane well and she confides in you a lot, Fred thinks you'd probably know. Sometimes Fred crosses the line a little, but he usually listens when you say to hold off on the questions for a while. In this case, a few days, Jane told you about how she cheated on her boyfriend. Fred's suspicions were correct. She felt really bad, and needed some advice on what to do. She told you not to tell anyone - it was private. What are you going to do? Say that yes, Jane cheated? Say "we'll talk about it later", when dodging the question is basically saying yes? There is no truthful way to respond to Fred without totally ruining Jane's trust in you. The best thing to do is to lie. Say no, Jane didn't cheat. Plus, there isn't a need for Fred to know, in the way I presented the example. The lie in this scenario is in efforts to maintain a value, Jane's friendship, a value that is well deserved. Jane doesn't deny her wrongdoing, and is already planning to tell her boyfriend when he's back from his week at a conference. You are not acquiring a value by a fraud, unlike the dress example (trying to attain a value of trust by making something up).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Fred and Jane scenario...

There is no truthful way to respond to Fred without totally ruining Jane's trust in you. The best thing to do is to lie. Say no, Jane didn't cheat. Plus, there isn't a need for Fred to know, in the way I presented the example. The lie in this scenario is in efforts to maintain a value, Jane's friendship, a value that is well deserved. Jane doesn't deny her wrongdoing, and is already planning to tell her boyfriend when he's back from his week at a conference.

The best thing to do is to lie?! Why not put on your best poker face and tell Fred that you aren't the kind of friend who shares private information with others? What happens to the value of your integrity if Fred (or one of his nosy friends) meets Jane's pissed off boyfriend and discovers your lie?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!" ~ Sir Walter Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!" ~ Sir Walter Scott

I suppose to explain why would depend more on how much Fred is a person who will or will not construe your non-answers as a yes or even a no. I'm presenting it in a way where I probably would need to include more details about Fred's character in a very sensitive topic. If Fred is notoriously bad on these topics, he may go blabbing all over how you, a close friend of Jane, can't simply say no to a question like that. To be sure, this is a flaw in Fred, so this kind of decision involves being fairly certain that he will act irrationally, and Fred may do bad things as a result. If Fred will probably have a reasonable reaction and realize even a question dodge is just respect for privacy, certainly tell the truth of "don't ask private questions like that".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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