# The Depths of Honesty



## shesulsa (Dec 18, 2004)

Some people I speak with would rather be frankly, totally, even brutally honest than refrain from speaking, evade revealing their true leanings or gracefully lie.

 Others feel it can be appropriate to guard one's true leanings in the interest of protecting another's feelings or perhaps learning more (sometimes this can even change one's point of view).

 In your opinion, is there such a thing as a white lie or are all lies damaging?  Is holding one's tongue considered lying or does it depend on the situation?

 Please express and discuss your opinions on the appropriateness of honesty, silence and slight prevarication.


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 18, 2004)

I work in healthcare, where I believe complete honesty is vital to providing good patient care.
If someone asks," is this gonna hurt?," the answer is "yes, but it may not be so bad depending on your pain tolerance. "
I have been asked by family members to lie to relatives about their condition...
"don't tell Grandpa that Grandma has cancer, it will only upset him."
"don't tell my 16 y.o. daughter she has an STD, don't you know it's prom night!"

At TKD the other night, I got kicked in the shins by a 12 y.o.  but not purposefully. (my shin was in the wrong place at the wrong time)
He asked if I was OK and instead of saying "no, it hurts like he11," I said "I'll be fine, don't worry about it." I evaded his question. Is that dishonesty?

Two days later, I have a bruise the size of Rhode Island   --- OK, that's an exaggeration, technically a lie. 

When the nice policeman asks me politely, why were you doing 65 in a 50 mph zone, I always tell him the truth.

I don't believe that lying in order to spare another's feelings ever really does anyone any good in the long run. I have seen my instructor have to tell little kids who have been coming to class regularly for months and want to get a new colored belt that they aren't ready.  If he lies, and says they are OK to test, what will happen is that they will flunk their test, and that makes the GM upset, the parents upset, and our school look bad.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## modarnis (Dec 18, 2004)

Complete honsesty is great.  One can be honest but tactful.  If you see someone who is having a bad day you can voice your concers by asking:

1.  Is everything going okay?

or

2.  What's up your a** today?

My guess is one of the messages will get received differently.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2004)

I won't go into too much depth here ... but my friend Bill put it this way.



> .... became willing to make amends to them all {those we had harmed}.
> 9.  Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.


To use 'The Truth' in a way that offends another is to assert the ego where humility is needed; to put my concerns above the concerns of another. In these situations, silence, perhaps is a better choice than telling a 'white lie'.

Mike


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 18, 2004)

i agree with michaeledward.  Humility and the concerns of others rather than your own can guide you whether you should be blunt about the truth or just be silent.  

I really hate white lies though, especially when found out.  And then I say why?  Why say you had too much work when you really were doing something else.  Really silly and that is a sign to me of their integrity.  That is really what we are talking about.  

Then there is the deeper issues of integrity where you have to speak up even though you know that it is going to cost you dearly.  I've had occasion to do that three times in my life. One resulted in leaving a job I loved and one other, probably my second degree belt and the other I will remain silent.  They were all still, worth it and I can sleep at night. TW


----------



## someguy (Dec 18, 2004)

Some times its ok to bend the truth.  If it is for the sake of a joke then it is ok.  Then it isn't really lieing as its telling a joke.
If you have to lie to get out of say fighting then it can be acceptable.

If a mad man wants to konw where your friend is will you tell them the truth?  Not I and I won't tell them nothing either.  I don't really know what I will do.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 18, 2004)

Any lie is damaging no matter what the intent. 
Small little lies chip away a trust in a relationship (family, friends, lovers, co-workers, whatever!) just as much as a bold flat faced one. 
Some would argue it's human nature to lie. We lie because of fear. We lie because we assume the responsibility for another's feelings. We lie because it's easier than the truth. We lie because we're selfish, we lie because we can get away with it, we lie out of desperation and on and on with countless of reasons. 

To do the little white lies; "Oh your hair/dress looks fine dear."  "No that didn't hurt."  "I don't care whatever."  All they do is dis-service a particular relationship.  Ben Franklin said "Honesty is the best policy." and he was right.  Bible scriptures read: "The truth shall set you free..." An old proverb mentions to  "Tell the truth and shame the devil."  These little things that we've heard throughout our lives, in our hearts we know these truths to be self-evident (pardon the pun).  We've seen them in action in real life.  But we still lie. 
I think the biggest reasons why we lie to one-another is because of fear and assumption of the responsibility of another's feelings. 
We did something wrong (ironically in some situations is a lie unto itself) and when confronted about it by a significant other or authority figure we are _afraid_ of the consenquences and thus we lie hoping to avoid the trouble.  Kids do it a lot because they're often not taught by their parent/teachers that telling the truth is a hellva lot better even though they will still get punished for whatever it is they did wrong (broken item, fights, whatever!).  This habit goes grows with us into adulthood. With dilligence and (self) discipline we over come our fears and learn to tell the truth regardless of the consenquences and we learn NOT to screw up.  The result our lives are a little or a lot better. 
We also lie because we assume the responsiblity for another's feelings. A wife asks her husband if her dress is alright or her hair is okay for an evening out. The husband looks and while he doesn't agree with her choice will say: "You look fine hunny" because he assumes she will pout on a negative answer and go change and thus further delay their plans. 
As with Melissa426's post <snipped> 





			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> At TKD the other night, I got kicked in the shins by a 12 y.o. but not purposefully. (my shin was in the wrong place at the wrong time)
> He asked if I was OK and instead of saying "no, it hurts like he11," I said "I'll be fine, don't worry about it." I evaded his question. Is that dishonesty?Two days later, I have a bruise the size of Rhode Island --- OK, that's an exaggeration, technically a lie.


 imo she didn't want to hurt the 12 year old's feelings and told the lie that she was ok so they wouldn't feel bad and continue with the lesson for the sake of learning. So the 12 yr. old might or might not see the bruise but technically a lie. 
A child lies to the parent on breaking a valuable in the home, they assume their parents' feelings so they won't make them mad. Blames the sibling because they're afraid their lie won't be good enough. 

The reasons we go to such lengths to presume how someone feels are varied as the wild flowers in a field.  It's something subconciously and conciously taught. "Don't tell grandma her dress is ugly... it'll hurt her feelings."  and so forth. It takes a while to overcome the stigma of this assumption and we also do *that* because we are afraid of that they will think of us when we tell the truth. 
On line it's a hellva lot easier to tell the truth if we are not afraid of what they think because we can hide behind screen names and false profiles.  Problem with on line telling what we think is that we cannot project the tonal quality of our statements (EXCEPT BY USING CAPS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED YELLING!    ). 
Face to face however we can see the reaction and it may not always be what we were wanting/hoping it to be.  :idunno: well, can't help that... and it's one of the hardest things to learn sometimes. It's hard because we care, because many of us are decent human beings with love for our fellows in our hearts and thus want to see them happy. So we tell those little white lies to spare them the grief. 
Tact and diplomacy, something that Mike was talking about. To admit to something we did in the past and try to make up for it. Sometimes... it's not always possible. 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> To use 'The Truth' in a way that offends another is to assert the ego where humility is needed; to put my concerns above the concerns of another. In these situations, silence, perhaps is a better choice than telling a 'white lie'.


 That is a very noble way to live and something definitely to strive for I agree. But unfortunately not always possible. 


			
				someguy said:
			
		

> Some times its ok to bend the truth. If it is for the sake of a joke then it is ok. Then it isn't really lieing as its telling a joke.
> If you have to lie to get out of say fighting then it can be acceptable.
> If a mad man wants to konw where your friend is will you tell them the truth? Not I and I won't tell them nothing either. I don't really know what I will do.


Bend the truth for the sake of a joke... hmm, guess it depends upon the joke right? Been there and done that. But I think there are ways to do it without bending the truth. Just have to think about it and eventually one will find a way. 
Lives are in danger from a psychotic, so tell them a lie to spare the others...what if they find out you're lying? Hell to pay right? The Status Quo factor. That's a toughie alright. 
Is it okay to lie to a bad person as opposed to lying to a good person? That makes us judges don't it? Maybe we're right but we still assume righteousness when we say this is a bad person. Whew, what a sticky huh? 

I recall a funny line from an old TV show "Wings"... the mechanic was asked a question: "When is it okay to tell a lie?"  he stammered for a moment and thought and then answered "W-when you can't remember the truth?"


----------



## Ender (Dec 18, 2004)

We had to come up with a definiton of lying for a business class a few years ago and we came up with this:

"A deliberate deception for self serving or evil purposes"

A mistake is not a lie, neither is a point of view. But truth/lying can have different shades. For example, If you lived in Germany during the 30's and 40's, and your daughter/son married a Jew, your best friend was a Jew, or simply a neighbor was a Jew . Then the  Nazi's come to your door and ask you have seen any Jews. is it a lie to say no?...or is it simply the right thing to do?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 18, 2004)

Sometimes I lie quite a bit at work..

"Ma'am I need to speak to your son, he was involved in a minor fender bender and I need to ask him a question about it."

In reality he has a felony arrest warrant...effective technique. Sometimes I lie to a suspect to gain compliance without scaring/alerting him which could result in a fight or chase. Of course there are things I cant lie about because it would violate constitutional rights.

The lie in and of itself isnt evil..its the intent of the liar.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 18, 2004)

Intent is important - as is respect for the other person/people with whom you are communicating.

I am guilty of lying most often because I do not want to bother someone else, quite frankly.  I'd rather say I'm fine - especially to more casual acquaintances, rather than the few good friends I have - that go into the details of why I'm annoyed, or feel bad, or whatever.

I think Melissa and tgace both posted important points about the line of work you are in as well.  I certainly would want to hear the whole truth from my caregivers - and the police may often have to lie a bit, or perhaps omit information, or remain silent on certain points - in order to catch someone.  

I have met a few people who live by the policy of being "brutally honest".  I can respect them for that.  I would be lying if I said sometimes my little feelings weren't hurt by people like that, however.    Sometimes I'd rather NOT know that you think I make myself look dumb in public, etc.


----------



## someguy (Dec 18, 2004)

When I'm bending the truth for the sake of a joke it becomes rather obvious.
If a person kicks my shin by accedent then my response is something like no problem.  It will heal. Then you keep going.


----------



## someguy (Dec 18, 2004)

Another thought that just occured to me deals with santa clause the easter bunny and all of them.
Think about child hood.  
I'll leave you to come to what ever you want to about that abecause cartoons are on(adult swim)


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 18, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Intent is important - as is respect for the other person/people with whom you are communicating.


 Oh, I SO agree.  One's intentions surely belie the outcome when all cards are finally played.  This moves forward to applications on the job, on the mat, in the bedroom.

I think certain situations command complete honesty and the medical field is one.  I don't want a cock-and-bull story about my health - I'm a big girl - give it to me straight.  Though, consideration must be given for some younger children and in special circumstances.

 The police are allowed to use untruths in the attempt to illicite confessions from suspects.  Would any of you use this kind of a tactic in your own lives, relationships, jobs or MA clubs?


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 19, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Any lie is damaging no matter what the intent.
> Small little lies chip away a trust in a relationship (family, friends, lovers, co-workers, whatever!) just as much as a bold flat faced one.
> Some would argue it's human nature to lie. We lie because of fear. We lie because we assume the responsibility for another's feelings. We lie because it's easier than the truth. We lie because we're selfish, we lie because we can get away with it, we lie out of desperation and on and on with countless of reasons.
> 
> ...


Great quote from "Wings!" :ultracool 

I haven't actually read this, so if anyone has, please feel free to correct me. But I heard that in "Dante's Inferno" the 7th circle of He11 (for the worst sinners) is reserved for those who lie because of the damage not only to your own soul but to the soul of those you lie to. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Adept (Dec 20, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> We had to come up with a definiton of lying for a business class a few years ago and we came up with this:
> 
> "A deliberate deception for self serving or evil purposes"
> 
> A mistake is not a lie, neither is a point of view. But truth/lying can have different shades. For example, If you lived in Germany during the 30's and 40's, and your daughter/son married a Jew, your best friend was a Jew, or simply a neighbor was a Jew . Then the Nazi's come to your door and ask you have seen any Jews. is it a lie to say no?...or is it simply the right thing to do?


 I would have shortened your definition to just "A deliberate deception". In the case of the nazis, saying you havent seen any jews is still a lie, even if it is the right thing to do. A lie is a lie, but not all lies are bad.

 What it basically comes down to is predicted outcomes. You weigh the options of all the things you could say, and choose the best one.


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> I would have shortened your definition to just "A deliberate deception". In the case of the nazis, saying you havent seen any jews is still a lie, even if it is the right thing to do. A lie is a lie, but not all lies are bad.
> 
> What it basically comes down to is predicted outcomes. You weigh the options of all the things you could say, and choose the best one.


If more German citizens would have spoken/acted out against the mentality that murdered the Jews, then maybe the killings would have been prevented or mitigated.  Certainly, one is not compelled to answer all questions asked; the answer to the question "have you seen any Jews?" may well should have been "it is a terrible thing that is taken place, and I am against it."  

Now, would a German citizen have been killed for giving such an answer (or not replying to the question)?  Probably.  Would it have prevented many of the murders?   Maybe, maybe not.  But the evasive lie that saves one friend may be the lie that allows the brutal regime to continue to kill others.

For a just cause, we need to stand up and be counted, even it is uncomfortable, even if it means pain or death.  It is a better alternative than trying to justify lying...I am against moral relativism; I believe that there is a moral and ethical choice to be made in every situation - a right and a wrong; I don't believe in infinite shades of gray between the choices.  

But that's just me.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Some people I speak with would rather be frankly, totally, even brutally honest than refrain from speaking, evade revealing their true leanings or gracefully lie.
> 
> Others feel it can be appropriate to guard one's true leanings in the interest of protecting another's feelings or perhaps learning more (sometimes this can even change one's point of view).
> 
> ...


context and deliver.

I think that during a job interview, a little 'white lie' (as in embellishing your actions with colorful descriptions) is par for the course.

If my wife asks me if I find Shania Twain attractive or the check out girl or what ever, I am honest and say 'yes' because the lie would only show through (so I am being honest NOT entirely because it is the 'right' thing to do, but partly because either answer could create complications and it is easier to deal with the lesser of the two complications if it is based on an honest answer).  During the inevitable "I don't feel so pretty right now" discussion when such questions come up, I can always say how I find her attractive and how I chose to marry her and that attraction is a natural/biological thing - it is what I do with it that counts and I choose to do nothing because I am attracted AND love her/my life with her and losing that is not worth it.....

Better than trying to push a lie of "No one is prettier than you, my love...."  I know there are WAYYYYYY better looking men out there than I, so I would see through that one in a minute if the roles were reversed.

In court, your best bet is to tell the truth because ANY lie will create incredibility and blow your sides case....

If my son asks how he did in his last hockey game and he really sucked, I can deliver my honest answer diplomatically so that I am being honest AND respecting his feelings/expressing my love for him at the same time.

Option one: "You sucked, you were lazy, you looked like you weren't even trying...."

Option two:  "I've seen you play better, were you tired today?  You looked like you weren't as 'on' as you have been in other games.  I did notice that you were still recieving passes well even though you looked slightly out of it."

Both are honest, neither is a 'white lie' (unless you think taking my emotional frustration/disappointment in his performance out on him is more 'honest').


----------



## Adept (Dec 21, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> For a just cause, we need to stand up and be counted, even it is uncomfortable, even if it means pain or death. It is a better alternative than trying to justify lying.


 So given the option of lying, which would save your life, those of your family, and those of your jewish friends, you would rather 'stand up and be counted'?

 You would rather condemn yourself, your wife and your children to death, than tell a lie which would prevent that from happening? All for the sake of not telling a lie?

 I find such a decision to be absurd.



> I am against moral relativism; I believe that there is a moral and ethical choice to be made in every situation - a right and a wrong; I don't believe in infinite shades of gray between the choices.


 Well, thats your opinion. But what about when you and I disagree on the correct moral decision to make? Who trumps who? Is your right _more_ right than mine? Can we refer to a neutral third party who will arbitrate for us?

 I agree that there are moral decisions to be made, I simply disagree that everyone should be expected to choose the same path, and I strongly disagree that there is one, correct path, and that all others are completely evil, as you would suggest by your disbelief in shades of grey.


----------



## Ray (Dec 21, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> So given the option of lying, which would save your life, those of your family, and those of your jewish friends, you would rather 'stand up and be counted'?
> 
> You would rather condemn yourself, your wife and your children to death, than tell a lie which would prevent that from happening? All for the sake of not telling a lie?
> 
> I find such a decision to be absurd.


You may not have read the first two paragraphs of my posting.  I didn't say that the question had to be answered with the location of my Jewish friends - I said if more German citizens had spoken or acted against the brutal Nazi regime then maybe the killings could have been stopped or reduced.  As far as my family being condemned to death: all living things perish.  Are some things worth dying for?



			
				Adept said:
			
		

> Well, thats your opinion. But what about when you and I disagree on the correct moral decision to make? Who trumps who? Is your right _more_ right than mine? Can we refer to a neutral third party who will arbitrate for us?


I agree that there are moral decisions to be made, I simply disagree that everyone should be expected to choose the same path, and I strongly disagree that there is one, correct path, and that all others are completely evil, as you would suggest by your disbelief in shades of grey.[/QUOTE] 
There is no suggestion, stated or implied, that I think anyone who disagrees with me is evil...the word "evil" doesn't appear in my post.  Please, do not mis-represent me.  You are welcome to hold your belief that there may be more than one correct path in a given situation and I respect your opinion.  If fact, you're probably right, there are probably more than only 2 choices in many situations; maybe they can be classed into: worst, bad, immaterial, good, better and best.  And obviously, everyone needs to weigh the alternatives and make their own decision.


----------



## Adept (Dec 21, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> You may not have read the first two paragraphs of my posting. I didn't say that the question had to be answered with the location of my Jewish friends - I said if more German citizens had spoken or acted against the brutal Nazi regime then maybe the killings could have been stopped or reduced. As far as my family being condemned to death: all living things perish. Are some things worth dying for?


 I dont think most German citizens would have wanted to, and any such show of resistance would have been crushed. But lets not get off topic.

 Yes, all things must die. And yes, some things are worth dying for. But I dont believe in sacrificing innocents without a very, very good reason. You would be tortured, your jewish friends killed as well, and your family would die without changing anything.



> There is no suggestion, stated or implied, that I think anyone who disagrees with me is evil...the word "evil" doesn't appear in my post.


 Your words:

_"I am against moral relativism; I believe that there is a moral and ethical choice to be made in every situation - a right and a wrong; I don't believe in infinite shades of gray between the choices"_

 If there can be no moral relativism, and no shades of grey, then there are only two choices. Right and wrong. Anyone who does not select the right choice, by default must select the wrong choice. Without shades of grey, or levels of 'right' and 'wrong', then each choice must be the extreme. The very best choice, or the very worst choice.



> If fact, you're probably right, there are probably more than only 2 choices in many situations; maybe they can be classed into: worst, bad, immaterial, good, better and best. And obviously, everyone needs to weigh the alternatives and make their own decision.


 How does this weigh against your earlier position that there are no shades of grey?


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> How does this weigh against your earlier position that there are no shades of grey?


When you put it that way, I am correct: there is a right path and a wrong path.  

But, like you said, that is my opinion--and you have a different one.  You are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine.

In the hypothetical situation given: to have told a lie to save one Jewish friend from the holocaust and remained silent while millions of other died is wrong. Root Cause Corrective Action is required.  The Nazi policy & practice of killing Jews was wrong and that's what should have been fought against.  

And could you have saved the Jewish friend, in the hypothetical situation, without telling a lie?  When a hypothetical situation is constructed does it mirror reality -- are there only two choices?  Hypothetical situations are constructed with only two apparent chioces to try to persuade others - not to explore the gamut of actions available.

A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 22, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.


I disagree with this. Honesty is the best policy. But policies should not be rules that cannot be broken under any circumstance. There are appropriate times to bend the rules. If lying is going to save someone's life, for instance, then I believe it's justified. I believe there ARE shades of gray.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 22, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> When you put it that way, I am correct: there is a right path and a wrong path.
> 
> But, like you said, that is my opinion--and you have a different one. You are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine.
> 
> ...


And there is 'cruel/blunt' honesty and there is honesty that is tempered with respect/love for your fellows.

I think it is just as wrong to deliver the 'truth' in a way that is obviously hurtful and insensitive to another person - which could be construed as a 'lie in action' because you 'say you love them' but you 'act like they don't matter' when your 'just being honest' in a way that you know will cause pain strictly for the purpose of 'being honest.'

Now, don't confuse that with a 'tough love' level of honesty.  For example:

"Your drug use is killing you and ruining this family."

with being honest at the expense of another persons feelings for no good reason:

"You suck at hockey."  

Instead of 

"You are still learning and improving, it comes with time and practice."

All those statements are 'honest' but only one of the three really is designed to respect the person recieving the message.  It is all about context and intent.


----------



## Adept (Dec 22, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> A lie is a lie; and a lie is wrong.


 Perhaps. But do you really consider lying to be the _most_ wrong thing in _all_ situations?

 I mean, you cant really believe there are no no shades of grey, can you? If kicking a puppy is wrong, is it equally as wrong as kidnapping, mulitating, murdering and then raping a dozen young women? Or is one worse than the other?

 Surely, if we can accept that some things are worse than others, even if they are both wrong, then we can make choices so that we can generate the best possible, or the least wrong, results.


----------



## GAB (Dec 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And there is 'cruel/blunt' honesty and there is honesty that is tempered with respect/love for your fellows.
> 
> I think it is just as wrong to deliver the 'truth' in a way that is obviously hurtful and insensitive to another person - which could be construed as a 'lie in action' because you 'say you love them' but you 'act like they don't matter' when your 'just being honest' in a way that you know will cause pain strictly for the purpose of 'being honest.'
> 
> ...


Hi Paul,

Like I have said in the past, you have a good way with words, being able to speak or write them. It is enjoyable to read.

I will say that this is as close to the truth regarding feelings etc. The content has to be truthful but still respectful.

If someone has taken their life and the life of a loved one, you can't tell the family they died in a car accident. 

That is a tough situation, to tell the blunt honest truth should be imperative but you still need to find a way of being respectful for the ones hearing this truth.

I think as a nation regarding the Nazi item it is very hard not to condem them as a whole. We need to remember this tragedy always and never go there again. 
I believe it is something that happens around the world on a daily basis, we are trying to right wrongs, there is only so much you can do as a seperate power.

I think this is a very good topic and we should be allowed to stray a little.

Regards,Gary


----------



## Ray (Dec 23, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> Perhaps. But do you really consider lying to be the _most_ wrong thing in _all_ situations?
> 
> I mean, you cant really believe there are no no shades of grey, can you? If kicking a puppy is wrong, is it equally as wrong as kidnapping, mulitating, murdering and then raping a dozen young women? Or is one worse than the other?
> 
> Surely, if we can accept that some things are worse than others, even if they are both wrong, then we can make choices so that we can generate the best possible, or the least wrong, results.


First, don't kick the puppy and then don't lie about it.  Both are wrong.

Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?

I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs.  But there are times when I've chosen to do the wrong things...now that I'm an old man and have reflected on my past, I endeavor to choose the right.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> First, don't kick the puppy and then don't lie about it. Both are wrong.
> 
> Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?
> 
> I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs. But there are times when I've chosen to do the wrong things...now that I'm an old man and have reflected on my past, I endeavor to choose the right.


Thanks to the quality of life most people live, we don't run into the intensely challengling 'moral quandry' situations all that often.  That is why, if you notice, the 'Reality Show' craze is so popular IMO:  A group of people that are 'breaking the rules' of society because they are living in a microcosm of a society for the sake of 'surviving the game' (which changes what is and is not 'right' drastically from what we say it is from our cooshy lives back here).

That is why I try to reserve judgement of news about 'attrocities' during war, in third world countries where life is much harder and so on.

If you HAD raped a dozen women, then were being held captive by an old time posse and they said, "Did you do it?" what do you think would be the 'right' thing to do under that circumstance?

Personally (though I have no intention of raping 12 women...) I would find it normal and 'acceptable' from a survival point of view to hear that person lie through his pearly whites...called survival.

It is like the idea that taking any life is a 'crime' yet practice/rehearse behavior (martial arts) that could lead to killing.  Obviously the context of a Self Defense situation would change the 'crime' to 'jusitified' in most peoples mind...


----------



## Ray (Dec 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If you HAD raped a dozen women, then were being held captive by an old time posse and they said, "Did you do it?" what do you think would be the 'right' thing to do under that circumstance?


Certainly someone who has committed the rapes would lie about it to save their own skin.  I would be suprised if they didn't.  But the rapes are wrong and the lie is wrong



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Personally (though I have no intention of raping 12 women...) I would find it normal and 'acceptable' from a survival point of view to hear that person lie through his pearly whites...called survival.


We can rationalize our behavior if we want, but that doesn't make it right.  Fifteen years ago I worked as loss-prevention for a department store and arrested shoplifters for a couple years.  At first I held the misconception that most of them were forced into stealing - but my opinion changed: not because I became calloused, but because none were forced into it. 

In the end, there was one 14-year old boy that I truely felt sorry for.  His mom & dad had died and he was living with his older sister (and her husband).  When I called to have someone pick up the boy (so the cops wouldn't cart him to detention) the man said "Do I have to? The football game is on."  It took some convincing, but he finally picked up the boy.  There were other indications that the boy was not properly cared for.  The boy may not have known any better.

Nevertheless, it is not my job to judge other people.  It is my job to judge the choices that I have available to me and to choose the one that I think is right.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is like the idea that taking any life is a 'crime' yet practice/rehearse behavior (martial arts) that could lead to killing. Obviously the context of a Self Defense situation would change the 'crime' to 'jusitified' in most peoples mind...


Not all killing is a crime.  the context of Self-Defense does not change the "crime" to "justified" since self-defense is not a crime (althought one may still be convicted of a crime).


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Certainly someone who has committed the rapes would lie about it to save their own skin. I would be suprised if they didn't. But the rapes are wrong and the lie is wrong
> 
> 
> We can rationalize our behavior if we want, but that doesn't make it right. Fifteen years ago I worked as loss-prevention for a department store and arrested shoplifters for a couple years. At first I held the misconception that most of them were forced into stealing - but my opinion changed: not because I became calloused, but because none were forced into it.
> ...


Personally, if it lieing is 'always wrong' and someone were to ask me if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany... I would sacrifice my immortal soul and say "No, I am not"...at least until I got myself and my family out of the country. It may be 'wrong' as you say, but I can see situations where that level of absolutism is 'wrong' to live by too.

There was a time when the word 'Shifty' didn't have the negative connotation that it does now.  'Shifty' was a complimentary term that originally meant that you could use weapons equally well when you 'shifted' them from your dominate to non dominate hand, therefore making you a 'handy' person to have around because you were so versatile and adaptable.

This literal 'shifty' meaning expanded to mean someone was mentally tricky/crafty and versatile at dealing with people as well....which was considered 'good' at one time.

Now, though, we use the term to mean someone is 'immoral, untrustworthy,..' and so on.  The context of the Viking/Scandanavian culture deemed 'shifty' as good while the current day says it is 'bad.'

Context can play a big role in how we set up our 'right' and 'wrong' ideas.


----------



## Adept (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Have you seriously been in a situation where you had only two choices: 1) to kick your dog and 2) to rape a dozen young women?


 Well, now you mention it...

 But seriously, the above was not a hypothetical situation. It was just a comparison. Is one act worse than the other, or are all 'wrongs' equal?



> I've never been in a situation where I've only had a choice of two wrongs.


 Then I would say you have lead a very lucky life. Because, if all wrongs are equal (as it would seem you maintain) then even the choice between attending a work function (and upsetting your family) or staying at home (and upsetting your boss) might as well be the choice between selling your soul to satan, and some other really bad thing (hey, its 02:39. My brain is tired).

 You have really never had to choose the lesser of two evils?


----------



## Ray (Dec 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Personally, if it lieing is 'always wrong' and someone were to ask me if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany... I would sacrifice my immortal soul and say "No, I am not"...at least until I got myself and my family out of the country. It may be 'wrong' as you say, but I can see situations where that level of absolutism is 'wrong' to live by too.


Are there only 2 choices in your hypothetical situation?  Are there only 2 choices in most real life situations?

I believe that you have the right to make your own decisions; and I do too.  I will not judge you for your choice - I will only judge the whether an action is right or wrong for me.  

I hope, that when it becomes uncomfortable for me to choose the right, that I have the strength to live up to my level of "moral absolutism."


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Are there only 2 choices in your hypothetical situation? Are there only 2 choices in most real life situations?
> 
> I believe that you have the right to make your own decisions; and I do too. I will not judge you for your choice - I will only judge the whether an action is right or wrong for me.
> 
> I hope, that when it becomes uncomfortable for me to choose the right, that I have the strength to live up to my level of "moral absolutism."


It isn't/wasn't hypothetical. It happened then, it happened/happens all over the world: "Are you Croate/Bosniac/Serb?","Are you Hootoo?","Are you Christian/Jew/Muslim?"....

And yes, in some of these situations there are only two choices: Tell the truth with the reasonable expectation that an 'honest' answer of 'yes' will get you killed/assaulted/raped.... and lie to extend a possible escape or avoid the prior consequences.  I spent the better part of a year on peacekeeping operations in the Bos because of the epidemic of such situations.

I hope, should a situation that dire come up in my life, I make the 'right choice' that I can live with (should I be able to live) after that moment is over.

The idea that I would be so selfish as to pick 'principle over people' and die for the sake of being 'honest' at the hands of a Nazi/extremist and not survive to provide love/guidance/support/protection to my family/community/country in the future is more 'wrong' to me than the 'wrong' of lieing.


----------



## Ray (Dec 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I hope, should a situation that dire come up in my life, I make the 'right choice' that I can live with (should I be able to live) after that moment is over..


That much we can all agree on.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The idea that I would be so selfish as to pick 'principle over people' and die for the sake of being 'honest' at the hands of a Nazi/extremist and not survive to provide love/guidance/support/protection to my family/community/country in the future is more 'wrong' to me than the 'wrong' of lieing.


You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> That much we can all agree on.
> 
> 
> You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.


I did and do.  When I was in the service, things like the Laws of Land Warfare, Geneva convention and other guidelines helped me consider and outline what was and what was not a 'good death.'

Dying for an ideal is a noble thing.  Timing that choice so that you make the most of it is what I think is the struggle.

Someone picks a 'little battle' to die over and is selfish because they are denying their mates the added manpower, firepower, support, laborer to distribute the hard work with over the long haul.

Someone picks a key moment, like to create an opportunity to escape/extend, delay a threat, increase the odds of the survival of others as an expression of their ideals - that is 'selfless service' IMO.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 23, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> That much we can all agree on.
> 
> 
> You may want to allow others the option of sacrificing themselves for those causes they deem just.



So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause.  One man's truth is not the same as another's.  TW


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause. One man's truth is not the same as another's. TW


 
There is a difference between 'truth' and 'honesty' but you make a good point about how isolating one element of a value system leads to some 'wrong' examples looking 'right' within the discussion context.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 23, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> So what about fanatic extremists who really believe they are right, honest, just...to the extent of blowing themselves up (Mosul) to strike out for their cause.  One man's truth is not the same as another's.  TW



What about them?

Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.

He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What about them?
> 
> Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.
> 
> He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.


And which 'perspective' would be closer to 'supportable reality?'

The US troops are there supporting the establishment of Democratic elections (maybe not perfectly run but at least grassroots) and the 'cowardly terrorist' is supporting a regime that would condone the restriction of feminine rights (arranged marriages, legalized murder by spousal brutallities) and the institution of laws such as mandatory beards for men (offenses punishable by beatings/execution) and the stoning/beating of women that are not escorted by a male companion because, in accordance with the extremist view of Islam - she could 'inspire' a man to do evil simply by being a woman.....


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What about them?
> 
> Many of us see a cowardly terrorist striking freedom loving soldiers trying to take a rest at a mealtime.
> 
> He likely saw himself striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.


And if the occupation ends, then what?  They've destroyed everything in the name of  striking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end.  For what reason?  Because there are 1,000 virgins waiting for them in heaven?  Because some cleric decides what a good Moslem should/should not do?  That cleric is whipping others into a frenzy and surviving -- usually quite nicely and in comfort that the others don't have.

C'mon Peach.  We all know that war isn't a good moral choice.  Is flying three airplanes into three targets filled with innocent people who never did anything really wrong - other than show up for work, a meeting, or something else -- on the wrong day a *good* moral choice?  Were the World Trade Center towers a legitimate military target?  Did those people deserve to die?

Shades of grey.


----------



## GAB (Dec 24, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> And if the occupation ends, then what? They've destroyed everything in the name ofstriking a legitimate military target of a nation that has contributed to the starvation of thousands and thousands, perhaps millions of his people through sanctions and bombings, an unwanted invasion, and an occupation that will not end. For what reason? Because there are 1,000 virgins waiting for them in heaven? Because some cleric decides what a good Moslem should/should not do? That cleric is whipping others into a frenzy and surviving -- usually quite nicely and in comfort that the others don't have.
> 
> C'mon Peach. We all know that war isn't a good moral choice. Is flying three airplanes into three targets filled with innocent people who never did anything really wrong - other than show up for work, a meeting, or something else -- on the wrong day a *good* moral choice? Were the World Trade Center towers a legitimate military target? Did those people deserve to die?
> 
> Shades of grey.


Hi, 

Probably from their point of view it was a good thing.

We will never get out of this one. We can't do what we did in Vietnam, that was another time and place. 

The reason for this war runs deeper then just the last few years of strife, it literally goes back 1500 years +.

What is the truth and what is honesty, varies with who's God you believe in.

The United States took on the big one this time. (terrorism) It has been going on for so long in other areas and we turned our head many times, but not this
time. 

To many persons want the end and what is the 'truth' is when you die it is the end. IMO...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 24, 2004)

Arabs aren't the only ones who carry grudges;  they're just more bombastic about how they deliver their retribution.  After all, they're the ones who cut off thieves' hands, aren't they?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> And if the occupation ends, then what?



This is completely off topic, so I won't argue this further here, other than to say that I didn't mean to justify suicide bombings or the World Trade Center attack -- simply to help clarify the thinking of some of these people.  The topic was honesty, and suicide bombers honestly feel they're serving a just cause.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And which 'perspective' would be closer to 'supportable reality?'
> 
> The US troops are there supporting the establishment of Democratic elections (maybe not perfectly run but at least grassroots) and the 'cowardly terrorist' is supporting a regime that would condone the restriction of feminine rights (arranged marriages, legalized murder by spousal brutallities) and the institution of laws such as mandatory beards for men (offenses punishable by beatings/execution) and the stoning/beating of women that are not escorted by a male companion because, in accordance with the extremist view of Islam - she could 'inspire' a man to do evil simply by being a woman.....



I'm not sure this thread is really about "supportable reality", is it?

I honestly don't know if that particular terrorist was a Shiite espousing the particular set of disgusting views you list, or a Ba'athist conducting retribution for the depradations and deaths under the sanction and bombing regimes of the UN, Bush I and II and Clinton; do you?

Regardless, I'm certain that person felt like an honest freedom-fighting warrior against occupying evildoers.

And that his victims felt honestly like men and women who just wanted something to eat and relax.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Arabs aren't the only ones who carry grudges;  they're just more bombastic about how they deliver their retribution.  After all, they're the ones who cut off thieves' hands, aren't they?



Jews are excellent about retribution as well, KT, they just tend to save it for the larger crimes.  "Operation Wrath of God" ring a bell?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

Peach, It's true.  And I can carry a grudge with the best of them.

I think it's a matter of perspective.  One (looks around furtively for Robertson) believes that one's faith/beliefs/cause is the true and only one.  To maim and kill in the name of it isn't honest.  It's using it as a crutch to justify one's evil.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I think it's a matter of perspective.  One (looks around furtively for Robertson) believes that one's faith/beliefs/cause is the true and only one.  To maim and kill in the name of it isn't honest.  It's using it as a crutch to justify one's evil.



I think even that is circumstancial, isn't it?

One might argue that it depends on whether one is committing active evil in the world (such as going out in the world and flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people, which I doubt many people could argue is anything other than despicable) or whether someone is involved in a desperate insurgency to free one's nation from unwanted invaders, or occupiers.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 27, 2004)

I really did not intend for this to be a political discussion and I'm concerned about the vein in which it is going.

 My intent was to discuss honesty in interpersonal relationships.  Let us leave comments that could be construed as racist out if it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

Point taken, SheSulsa.


----------



## JPR (Dec 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Some people I speak with would rather be frankly, totally, even brutally honest than refrain from speaking, evade revealing their true leanings or gracefully lie.
> 
> Others feel it can be appropriate to guard one's true leanings in the interest of protecting another's feelings or perhaps learning more (sometimes this can even change one's point of view).
> 
> ...


 Truth is a lot like a knife. In the hands of a skilled surgeon it can work wonders and save life. In the hands of a fool, it simply cuts, maims, scares and leaves a mess.

     Directly to the questions you originally asked;

     Sometimes being blunt can be so damaging that it is not worth it. You can see this especially in dealing with children. You can bluntly tell them the truth and watch them wilt. Or try being blunt with someone that is very emotional. 

 All lies are deceptions so I dont really believe in white lies. I think that, if nothing else, to tell a white lie harms your integrity and erodes your trustworthiness. 

    Holding your tongue isnt lying.  It is your statement that you dont want to address what ever at this moment.

 The overriding principle I try to use is to speak the truth in love and to use the truth to build up, not to tear down a person. To do this you really have to stop and ask yourself some questions. What is my motive for saying this? In what way can I present this truth that will be the best for the hearer? What happens if I leave this truth unsaid? How important / critical is this issue to me? 

 You have, to me, another interesting question in your post. It is the one about learning more and perhaps changing your point of view. This seems like a separate question to me. I believe that it is critical to understand anothers point of view before I open my mouth. I have learned, and try to practice, a skill that is helpful in this. If I can listen to anothers point, understand it, and then make their point back to them in such a way that they see that I really understand, then I am ready to add my view to the issue(s). 

 When I listen first and understand, I may indeed change my mind. If I dont, at least I am synced up with the person and more able to present my insight in a way that resonates with them. Also, if they feel like they are understood, they are more inclined now to listen to me, instead of simply waiting for me to stop so that they can try and make their point again since I obviously havent gotten it yet.

    I am getting long again.  Ill stop here.

    JPR


----------



## Adept (Dec 28, 2004)

JPR said:
			
		

> All lies are deceptions


 But are all deceptions bad? And if so, why?



> When I listen first and understand, I may indeed change my mind. If I dont, at least I am synced up with the person and more able to present my insight in a way that resonates with them. Also, if they feel like they are understood, they are more inclined now to listen to me, instead of simply waiting for me to stop so that they can try and make their point again since I obviously havent gotten it yet.


 I find most intelligent people do this. An intelligent person actually wants to contribute to the conversation, and is prepared to listen, rather than simply wait for their turn to speak.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this thread is really about "supportable reality", is it?
> 
> I honestly don't know if that particular terrorist was a Shiite espousing the particular set of disgusting views you list, or a Ba'athist conducting retribution for the depradations and deaths under the sanction and bombing regimes of the UN, Bush I and II and Clinton; do you?
> 
> ...


No it isn't about 'supportable reality' but it is about 'honesty' and if the person who felt personally justified was feed a line of BS that was much longer/deeper than could be 'honestly believed' if he/she was given the chance to see a comparison/contrast of the POV's, then the question is whether they would still have chosen the path they did.  How can this or any person doesn't have opportunity for an 'honest' study of the motives/actions/rationale really have an 'honest' perspective?  Notice I said opportunity to study, as people of democratic nations have and not members of a Political/Religiously driven state (Al Q type).

I am not 'certain' about how this person felt to be truthful.  And, targetting these troops for the current campaign as retribution/revenge for past actions - is that an 'honest motive' or more damage caused by damaged motives?

He could very well have been told "either do this or we will kill your entire family" as a motive - which is far from the 'noble motives' of a person who believes they are targeting combatants.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 28, 2004)

I started a thread about the 10 Commandments:  "Continuum or Rules" and didn't get as many comments on the idea of continuum as I did about the history of how the 10 Cts were applied through history.  Enlightening, but not what I was looking for in the end.

I think this idea of "The Depths of Honesty" is a chance to look at the Continuum of Morals/Ethics in the same way.

Honesty is only one of many positive traits of a person/culture.  It has to be balanced/reconciled/applied in conjunction/comparison to the others in each moment.

In any given moment, which is better "honesty" or "loyalty" and other 'moral quandries' that are the source of movies, poems, and life crisis all the time.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 18, 2005)

So here's a classic question to further this discussion:

 You find out your best work friend has been taking office supplies home - pens, pencils, sticky notes, computer paper, binders, even staplers and hole punches home.  It's once in a while, but you know it adds up.

 Are you honest enough to report it and get your buddy (who does a stellar job, btw) fired?

 Why/Why not?


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 18, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> So here's a classic question to further this discussion:
> 
> You find out your best work friend has been taking office supplies home - pens, pencils, sticky notes, computer paper, binders, even staplers and hole punches home.  It's once in a while, but you know it adds up.
> 
> ...



No, because everyone in the office has done that at one time or another.  Would you report yourself for taking a pen since it was over your ear when you walked out of the office?  Probably not.  Does that make it right?  Not really.  

Now if you saw them loading a crate of the stuff straight from the loading dock, that might be grounds to talk to someone.  If you turn them in for grabbing a pack of stickey notes here and there, or a pen, that's poor form. Maybe talk to the person first (ESPECIALLY if it's a friend) and find out what's going on.  Have an "intervention" if you're feeling so inclined.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> So here's a classic question to further this discussion:
> 
> You find out your best work friend has been taking office supplies home - pens, pencils, sticky notes, computer paper, binders, even staplers and hole punches home. It's once in a while, but you know it adds up.
> 
> ...


Yes. If I had a friend and knew that he/she was stealing, then yes I would report him/her.  If my friend report to me then I would fire him/her.

Why?  I'm part of management.


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 18, 2005)

"Everybody does it"? 
Puh-leaze.
Worst excuse in the world for what amounts to petty theft. Is it OK to take towels from hotel rooms too?:idunno: 

Yes, by all means, SS, talk to your friend.  Lost revenue in supplies means fewer raises and other perks for you and other employees and it is not fair, let alone honest. Maybe if you raise it from that angle, she won't be too offended. More than likely, she will keep doing it, but just hide it from you better.
BTW, if an employee was doing this to me, I would not fire them, for this one thing, especially if they really are good at their job. But I would let them know they are being watched. 

Yes, I am self-employed, of course I'd feel this way. :uhyeah: But when I worked at a hospital during college, I didn't help myself to various and sundry medical supplies, that I could have easily such as a whole box of band-aids, ace wraps, hydrogen peroxide, betadine, antibiotic ointment, alcohol pads, etc etc.  An occasional band-aid, yes, with permission.   If you work at DQ, can you make yourself an ice cream cone when you want to?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 18, 2005)

All right, so how about another classic question:  

 You find that one member of a couple whom you are friends with is cheating on his/her spouse - do you tell the other?  Does this depend on which one you are best friends with?

 Explain.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Feb 18, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> All right, so how about another classic question:
> 
> You find that one member of a couple whom you are friends with is cheating on his/her spouse - do you tell the other? Does this depend on which one you are best friends with?
> 
> Explain.


Oh wow.

That's a really tough one.

For me, I would tread VERY LIGHTLY, or not at all, on other folks relationships - unless I were asked explicitly for advice/help/etc.

If I knew the cheater much better - I'd talk to him or her first, if I felt that would be possible without them blowing up in my face.  

If I knew the cheatee much better - I'm honestly not sure.

If I were friends with both - again, I'm not sure.  Most likely though, I would say nothing.  Honest?  Not completely.  Cautious?  definetly.  Hopeful?  That too.


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 18, 2005)

I have always felt that honestly, tempered with the ability to be discrete and softening the words to the level the recipiant can handle, is the best policy.



> You find out your best work friend has been taking office supplies home - pens, pencils, sticky notes, computer paper, binders, even staplers and hole punches home. It's once in a while, but you know it adds up.
> 
> Are you honest enough to report it and get your buddy (who does a stellar job, btw) fired?


Talk to your friend. Tell them that you know what he/she is doing, that it is wrong, and it needs to stop. If it happens again report him/her. If you don't you are aiding in the theft of office supplies and if it comes out that you knew about it and didn't report it you are in trobule as well. You shouldn't lose your job because of somebody else's wrong doings.




> You find that one member of a couple whom you are friends with is cheating on his/her spouse - do you tell the other? Does this depend on which one you are best friends with?
> 
> Explain.


I hate to get involved in other people's personal lives, but I would feel like I was allowing and aiding someone to cheat and trample on another person's feelings if I didn't speak up. Is it my buisness? No. Are they my friend? Yes, and part of being a friend is having each other's back.


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 19, 2005)

Several situations where the "white lie" is not only called for, but socially demanded:


"Why, yes, he's absolutely the most adorable baby I have ever seen!"
-instead of-
"Good Lord, is it supposed to look like raw hamburger?!?"

"We all remember Frank fondly, he was a wonderful man and a loving husband"
-rather than-
"Thank God that old SOB is dead, eh? What a jerk he was!"

and...

"No, Grandma, the roast isn't too tough! It's just as delicious as it was last year!"
-as opposed to-
"Screw this! I'm going to In&Out!"

Some people like to hide behind the concept of "Brutally Honest" when in fact, they are just hurtful people who enjoy hiding behind a facade of "biblical morality"

Not to yank the bible into things, I'm not qualified, but the commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." which speaks specifically of "No, it wasn't me that stole it, it was BOB!"


M


----------



## lulflo (Feb 19, 2005)

I think that in order to discuss honesty in depth there has to be some definition of truth. I think that truth is a perception that an individual has of information that is presented based on the knowledge that has been given to him/her from society. I believe that of all the information I have, only 5-10% of it has come from me (if that). 

Here's what I mean. When I was little, I was told that my hand, is a hand. Now every time I see something at the end of what I call an arm, I call it a hand. I'm sure you are following. So, to discuss honesty in depth, I would have to really know something for myself and not take into account what society is telling me is the truth.

It would seem to me that only the information that I have come to know on my own could be honest. I guess experience is pretty close to that, but I am still making judgments based on what society is telling me is good or bad, right or wrong, honest or a lie. So what now, like the Matrix spoon, is it really a spoon? 

So as much as I can figure, I think there is a greater honesty within us that doesn't allow us to say to ourselves that we are too clumsy to do this or that, or that we don't have to work harder at work because we do a good enough job already or that our kids are fine without us playing with them right now, etc. The truth is, we make decisions every second not to hear every sound there is to hear, not to smell every smell, not to think every thought, to sense everything there is to sense. I would like to think I live in the light and that I am honest with everything I do, but right now, everything exactly as it is, I am failing.

Farang - Larry


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Some people I speak with would rather be frankly, totally, even brutally honest than refrain from speaking, evade revealing their true leanings or gracefully lie.
> 
> Others feel it can be appropriate to guard one's true leanings in the interest of protecting another's feelings or perhaps learning more (sometimes this can even change one's point of view).
> 
> ...



What an incredible topic, Shesulsa.  Thank you.

An imagined scenario:  You've come upon an accident scene, a child has been killed and her mother lies critically injured.  As you administer first aid to the mother she asks how the child is doing.

You decide an honest answer would be the height of cruelty and unwise at that moment.  So...you adeptly deflect the question without telling her a lie, nor telling her the truth.  Later once she's stabilized the doctors tell her the heartbreaking news.

I present this scenario only to illustrate the difficulty life's circumstances bring us in dealing with the issue of bald honesty.  

Silence, as witnessed by the quote in my current signature, can be taken as a dishonest attempt to hide an embarrassment.  The silence can then be rationalized in a number of ways by the actor in question so as to provide balm for his ego.  The unfaithful husband doesn't confess to his wife, for "fear of hurting her," when in actuality he fears the consequences of her pain and rage.  In this instance his silence is less painful than his confession...less painful for him, in any case.

However; a white lie in proper context might do no harm and spare pain, and genuine altrusim might be the motive.

A tender six year old child may be spared the awful realization her kitten was unintentionally crushed by her father's truck as he backed out the drive way.  Years later when she is better able to handle the shock he can offer his apologies for his unwitting part in the tragedy, and for his decision to opt for temporary deception.

The mother of a soldier killed in Iraq may be spared the knowledge that her son burned slowly to death, trapped in a Humvee.  His lieutenant, writing her a letter, might avoid giving her the details altogether, saying more vaguely that he was killed in the explosion of a roadside bomb.  The lieutenant and the men of his company elect to carry the burden of the horror of the man's death--rather than inflict the mother and her family with it.

We can go on and on with such scenarios, but finally have to come to the moment where we have to choose blunt honesty or the varying degrees of deception of deflection open to us.  However it breaks, we need to ask ourselves if our motives are _properly rationalized_, or a _rationalization_.  The first requires strenuous effort at a reasoned approach to our final method; the second is a vain attempt to give solace to our egos--or as a palliative to others who might question our actions.

One can conceive of misplaced altruism giving way to what is rationalized as a white lie.  A mother elects not to tell her son that his test scores were too low to get into a particular advanced class at the middle school.  She tells him instead the class is full and can't accept new students.  She doesn't fear his response towards her, but rather fears _for his feelings_ so much that she deceives.  This could easily compound the problem should he find out (and very well might), and in the efforts to "protect" him, she risks her relationship with him.  This is different than the scenario of the unfaithful husband in that she stands nothing to lose in telling her son the truth.

Lying might well be morally justified if it were to spare life or limb.  A Jew might find it best to hide his ethnicity if he found himself surrounded by potentially hostile anti-semites.  Likewise a Gay man might find such discretion equally apt if he were in certain surroundings.  Oddly, in our culture, we might find the Jew and the Gay standing side by side facing the same crowd at the time they ponder these decisions.

Lying has always been a part of war and its strategy.  Deception is an art form in counter-intelligence.  When one lies in such a fashion nobody calls "cheat."  A general on an opposing side might recognize the brilliance of such a tactic, though it caused his downfall.

Regards,


Steve


----------

