Honesty, by definition, doesn't allow for lying. A rigid approach to morality doesn't allow mercy. Love trumps truth-telling if it can be determined that the truth will cause more harm than a lie. In honesty, love, and truth, we have to take it one situation at a time. The golden rule is as good a navigational compass as we have got.

'Withholding the truth' suggests not saying anything - which is not the same as lying. Sometimes, a person might infer a meaning on the basis of your not saying something, but that is still not lying. Although, incidentally, I don't think you can get through life telling all the truth, all the time. Sometimes a bit of fudging is unavoidable, I think. Where I would draw a very strict line is 'lying for gain'.

Da buddha said something like once youve figured out the right thing to do, dont think about the consequences, or the difficulties involved.

Lying is attacking someones intuition, and infantilizing them. Deciding what is or isnt good for them, and what sorts of information they can and cannot handle. Its never really about love or kindness anyway. Its about not wanting to be the bearer of bad news, or having them dislike us for not having the opinions, or saying the things that they prefer.

The retort i get the most (including from my daddoo just last night) is the ol' "do i look fat in this?" question. My response to that is two fold. Firstly the question is deeply misunderstood, and is just asking if you still think theyre beautiful, and ideally the most beautiful, which is a question of taste, evaluation commitment and not about facts. Secondly the two traits women most go on about wanting in their men is honesty and confidence.

Thinking that such a question requires a lie is quite disheartening, and says far more about the men than women to me. There is a right answer, and it isnt that theyre actually ugly or lie... neither of which is what women want... but an answer that is in the affirmative, and meant. Thats the ideal, and if you cant do that, then you should question your maturity and level of commitment... not their sanity or maturity.

Fuck the consequences. Always tell the truth, and if the truth is wrong then fucking change yourself until its right.

A rigid approach to morality doesn't allow mercy. — Bitter Crank

Why is that? How do you define mercy?

'Withholding the truth' suggests not saying anything - which is not the same as lying. — Wayfarer

In my first example, when someone lies to me that means that they've told me something that isn't the truth, so they're both lying and withholding the truth.

Where I would draw a very strict line is 'lying for gain'. — Wayfarer

But do you think lying out of love is possible, or at least logical as I described it?

Lying is attacking someones intuition, and infantilizing them. Deciding what is or isnt good for them — Wosret

Say a dude's going to go murder a bunch of people, but you lying to him can keep him from doing that. Isn't that doing what is loving for both the almost-murderer and those he's saving from not being murdered?

Surely another individual is capable of deciding what's good for you at least some of the time, right? If I didn't want to eat my fruits and vegetables, then should my parents have just stopped what they were doing and said, "welp, we can't force anything upon Heister 'cause he dun wanna!" Or are parents doomed if they lie to their child about Santa, even though they're being honest with regard to taking care of their child?

Say a dude's going to go murder a bunch of people, but you lying to him can keep him from doing that. Isn't that doing what is loving for both the almost-murderer and those he's saving from not being murdered? — Heister Eggcart

No one sees your justifications or rationalization, they just see your actions.
You'll never actually encounter such a situation, be realistic, this is just a wedge technique, in order to justify lying in less and less extreme situations.
You can't protect anyone, you can only make them strong. This is again, to infantilize.
Lying tells people to not trust their senses, but to trust you instead, and strips them of their autonomy, and is most effective on people that make the mistake of daring to trust and love you in the first place, making themselves susceptible to your puppeteering them. You make them look to their conceptualizing for the truth rather than their senses, binding up their body, making them ignore parts of themselves in order to maintain the deception. Lies destroy lives. This isn't about purity, or maintaining a pristine moral character or some such, it's about not physically and mentally crippling people with your deceptions, which can last not only through their lives, but through generations.

If you want to stop the murderers, then attempt to stop them by actually doing something that risks yourself, and not just everyone else. That would be more loving, I'd think.

I know that everyone thinks that lies have no consequences, but understand that they have dire consequences.

Perhaps this is the murkiest part of my position, but I hold that love is first among equal virtues, with other such virtues being honesty and truth. I think this because one can tell the truth without being loving, and honesty only comes about once one wills the good of another, once one loves, so honesty is merely a result of love's precedence. — Heister Eggcart

If love precedes acts of honesty and truth, it also becomes the compelling force that solidifies your will to honesty; therefore if one loves they cannot lie. As they say, there is no fear in love and I think since people are capable of being deceptive even to themselves, telling themselves that a lie is somehow 'white' or virtuous is just another form of self-deception. The utility may function for a while, but it always catches up to you and eventually you will be faced with the consequences for it. If you lie to someone you love, you quite simply don't love them.

Is there a particular example that you want to discuss?

In my first example, when someone lies to me that means that they've told me something that isn't the truth, so they're both lying and withholding the truth. — Heister Eggcart

What I meant by 'withholding the truth' is not saying anything - maintaining silence. That is not lying. Of course there are 'white lies', I would be lying if I said I never told them, although I don't know if that justifies them.

Is there a particular example that you want to discuss? — TimeLine

Okay, off the top of my head here...consider those during WWII that sheltered Jews and others from being rounded up and sent to work/death camps - when these people told SS officers that, "no, no Jews are here," does that lie mean that they're not being honest to both the Jews and the soldiers? On one hand the lie protects the Jews hiding in the attic, but on the other it protects the soldiers from they themselves committing wrong doing - that is, not acting out of love. Were those who sheltered Jews to say to the soldiers, "yes, here they are, take them to their deaths," is that really good will? They'd be telling the truth, but such a decision would also be the least loving possible, with regard to the Jews in hiding. So, if you were to shelter Jews, and were asked by German soldiers whether you were sheltering Jews, what would you say? Would you tell the truth and send the Jews off to the cattle cars, or would you lie, thus saving the Jews?

To clarify, I'm not refuting the moral quality of the lie in itself, but whether that lie may or may not facilitate honesty in the individual doing the lying. As I said in the OP, honesty follows from love. If an action is taken that is loving, that wills the good of another or others, then it therefore is honest. So, if you chose to save the Jews by lying, then you'd either say that such a lie is moral (loving) or at best amoral. But if the decision to lie in the Jews/Soldiers example is but an arbitrary, amoral one, then what moral grounds would you have in defending your choice if at the end of the day it doesn't matter?

What I meant by 'withholding the truth' is not saying anything - maintaining silence. That is not lying. — Wayfarer

I see. I'd argue that withholding the truth would be a dishonest action, but an action that's not a lie, as you've not actively made the untruth known to the person you're withholding the truth from.

Right. It's like, in the American legal system, 'taking the fifth'. ;-)

Pleading the fifth usually entails waiting to tell the truth, not that the truth is never given.

Liars aren't honest ever, regardless of what good intentions, and better future they're selling their souls for.

The SS (again, a ridiculous example that will never happen to you ever, ever, ever, and just is a wedge rationalization for continuing sociopathic behavior) didn't show up to anyone's house thinking themselves to be evil, and there to kill the righteous innocence. It was lies, bullying, indoctrination, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation that brought them to your door to do the "righteous thing", which every act they viscerally knew was wrong, but also had lots of justifications and rationalizations, and the best of intentions.

Nazis aren't going to come to your doors, and most strangers don't have much incentive to believe you anyway, let along SS officers... no this is just a rhetorical ploy, and wedge in order to rationalize all of the puppeteering, and manipulation of loved ones and friends, the ones the most susceptible, and at risk of falling prey to you.

Calling lying honest is playing a language game that is designed to alleviate a person's guilt for what they feel is intuitively wrong.

One can imagine situations where lying might be morally preferable to telling the truth, however...

As a rule, I agree with Wosret. If you want to live in a civilized society, the society is a better place to live when trust is at it's highest. Trust is at it's highest when people lie the least. I believe it is most psychologically healthy to integrate what you say with how you believe the world is.

Most lies are not to prevent murders, but rather to prevent embarrassment. If you can become comfortable with embarrassment, you have increased your ability to learn and grow. For most of our waking hours, we interact with each other and the world reflexively;out of habit. Say "How's it going?" to someone, and they'll answer you without even considering how things are going for them most of the time. That's why I advise making honesty habitual. Just do it all of the time, and you'll do it without thinking. The world is a better place, and you're a better person if you do.

I would say that there are two kinds of lies:

1.) A lie in a situation where the liar contributed to the formation of what he/she lies about.

2.) A lie in a situation where the liar did not contribute to the formation of what he/she lies about.


Examples:

1.) The liar stole something and is asked if he/she committed the theft.

2.) The liar recognizes a child who has been kidnapped. The kidnapper asks the liar for directions to the interstate. The liar gives the kidnapper directions that take him/her back towards downtown and then calls the police.


And I think there are other differences. Example 1 is evasion. Example 2 is trickery.

But suppose the liar in 2.) is afraid that the kidnapper will catch on to the liar's intentions if the original response is given. Suppose he/she therefore answers the question honestly and gives directions that lead to the interstate. But suppose that he/she still tries to trick the kidnapper, this time by giving the longest route to the interstate or a route that will go right by a police station. That is still being deceptive. It is being deceptive about one's intentions. Can it be called honest?

Intentions, not words uttered, are probably where honesty and dishonesty are really found.

To clarify, I'm not refuting the moral quality of the lie in itself, but whether that lie may or may not facilitate honesty in the individual doing the lying. As I said in the OP, honesty follows from love. — Heister Eggcart

Your example of the Nazi camp is a situation or circumstance that is external to you.

I certainly stand corrected with your example, however my understanding works twofold; the ethical and the moral. For instance, if you were told in confidence by someone who was remorseful about them cheating on their partner as he sought your advice and you told him to be honest, if he fails to be honest and she inquired with you about whether he had cheated on her or not, would you lie and say that you do not know? You are caught between your obligation for the trust and confidence he had asked of you despite the wrongdoing of his actions and the deceit she was experiencing by him. Sometimes, by saying nothing at all, you are saying 'yes' and so a lie almost becomes inevitable.

But that really has nothing to do with me, in a sense, it is an ethical problem. Morally, however, it is about being deceptive or lying relating to my own actions and indeed they do cross-over, but not, because I was not the one who committed the wrongdoing itself that led to that ethical dilemma. In the case of the man who cheated, he may have appeared remorseful but he was more afraid and I believe that by remaining dishonest he has no love for his partner. He loves himself more, which is the reason for him cheating and his so-called guilt was actually the fear or risk of losing his reputation, as an example.

This is why I said that honesty toward someone you love and care for would always outweigh a lie, you would have absolutely no fear to tell the truth whatever that may be because your moral position outweighs your ego.

Honesty, then, is to will the good with the fullest intent. This means that, for me, to love is to be honest, and to be honest is to love. However, I did say earlier that one can withhold the truth yet still be honest and loving. Perhaps this is the murkiest part of my position, but I hold that love is first among equal virtues, with other such virtues being honesty and truth. I think this because one can tell the truth without being loving, and honesty only comes about once one wills the good of another, once one loves, so honesty is merely a result of love's precedence.

If honesty is Good then how can a consequentialist be Good ... if the Good lies in the intent behind our actions then what can be said of the effects of our actions. Can a consequentialist be Good if good lies in our intent and not in the consequent of our action. If a consequentialist lies and effect of that lie is good, then was the consequentialist 'honest'.

I am not sure what love is, but I don't think it is a virtue, it's the force behind the relationship between people, the lover and the beloved, where love is the coupling agent, the glue holding them together. For Plato love is born out of Eros.

Liars aren't honest ever — Wosret

Except when they say they're lying ;)

"Liar" isn't an identity...

Liars aren't honest ever, regardless of what good intentions, and better future they're selling their souls for. — Wosret

Well, hold on. I'm not judging who's a liar and who's not, but whether a lie can pair itself with honesty and love.

The SS (again, a ridiculous example that will never happen to you ever, ever, ever, and just is a wedge rationalization for continuing sociopathic behavior) — Wosret

What? Clearly this example did happen, so similar examples can happen in future. I don't see how it's not relevant.

didn't show up to anyone's house thinking themselves to be evil, and there to kill the righteous innocence. It was lies, bullying, indoctrination, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation that brought them to your door to do the "righteous thing", which every act they viscerally knew was wrong, but also had lots of justifications and rationalizations, and the best of intentions. — Wosret

No idea what you're trying to say here. Please reword and clarify.

Nazis aren't going to come to your doors, and most strangers don't have much incentive to believe you anyway, let along SS officers... no this is just a rhetorical ploy, and wedge in order to rationalize all of the puppeteering, and manipulation of loved ones and friends, the ones the most susceptible, and at risk of falling prey to you. — Wosret

The SS example was just that, an example. In principle I can plug in different people with a different setting and the moral paradigm would remain the same, I think.

suppose the liar in 2.) is afraid that the kidnapper will catch on to the liar's intentions if the original response is given. Suppose he/she therefore answers the question honestly and gives directions that lead to the interstate. But suppose that he/she still tries to trick the kidnapper, this time by giving the longest route to the interstate or a route that will go right by a police station. That is still being deceptive. It is being deceptive about one's intentions. Can it be called honest? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I would say that the "liar" is honest in both cases, so long as his intention's are grounded in love.

Intentions, not words uttered, are probably where honesty and dishonesty are really found. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I do think so. Lies depend on active communication, I'd say, whereas honesty and dishonesty isn't quite as superficial.

Your example of the Nazi camp is a situation or circumstance that is external to you. — TimeLine

What do you mean?

For instance, if you were told in confidence by someone who was remorseful about them cheating on their partner as he sought your advice and you told him to be honest, if he fails to be honest and she inquired with you about whether he had cheated on her or not, would you lie and say that you do not know? — TimeLine

Hmm, it would depend upon whether I knew the cheating partner was cheating before he came to me. If so, then I wouldn't lie to the other partner, I would only tell (her) what I knew beforehand. Had I not known about the cheating, and was asked whether I knew if (he) was cheating, I'd probably deflect and not answer, instead advising her to ask that question to him and not me. It wouldn't be fair for her to put me in the middle, so if I respect her and she respects me, she'd realize that she shouldn't press me about that. But, if she did press me, I'd deflect again and ask her why she suspects (he) may be cheating, as it's more important why she thinks that over me.

You are caught between your obligation for the trust and confidence he had asked of you despite the wrongdoing of his actions and the deceit she was experiencing by him. Sometimes, by saying nothing at all, you are saying 'yes' and so a lie almost becomes inevitable. — TimeLine

Well, as I think POMO was trying to get at, one can lie in one moral dilemma but work elsewhere to make sure the good is achieved. So, let's say I don't break confidence, that's just one choice. In future I can still protect both the cheater and the cheated-on by working around the various moral confines in place. In other words, lie in one case but not lie in another cases. Then again, I might not always have to lie and break confidence depending on the situation, as I kinda suggested just above.

But that really has nothing to do with me, in a sense, it is an ethical problem. Morally, however, it is about being deceptive or lying relating to my own actions and indeed they do cross-over, but not, because I was not the one who committed the wrongdoing itself that led to that ethical dilemma. In the case of the man who cheated, he may have appeared remorseful but he was more afraid and I believe that by remaining dishonest he has no love for his partner. He loves himself more, which is the reason for him cheating and his so-called guilt was actually the fear or risk of losing his reputation, as an example. — TimeLine

I think it's probably better to say that the man loves his partner less after having cheated. If he loved her not at all, he'd have fucked off and not looked back. That he seemingly has reservations about his decision makes me think he still cares about her, otherwise he'd not think twice about hurting her again, with or without her knowledge.

Also, with regard to your previous example of a middleman being consulted by both the cheater and the cheated-on, I think it's on the middleman to look out for both parties. Relationship/friendship-wise I've come to know that being a middleman is reeeeally difficult to make work from a moral standpoint because picking a side that, let's say, "receives more of your love" is almost inevitable, which is fucking annoying. I've been in this position myself and it sucks major nips. Regardless of whether they were the right decisions, I think I've always tried to back myself up and get out of the cross-airs, and try to make both parties realize that they need to come together without doing so through me, somehow.

This is why I said that honesty toward someone you love and care for would always outweigh a lie, you would have absolutely no fear to tell the truth whatever that may be because your moral position outweighs your ego. — TimeLine

I think I agree on the surface, but my OP really only applies to a three-way moral dilemma. So soldiers - citizens - Jews, or you - me - and the cheater. If it's just me and another person, 1 on 1, I'd probably never lie. But, in the event that I deem it necessary, what I'm trying to get at here is that do so still keeps me an honest and loving person, that a lie for love doesn't rubbish my character.

I do think that the situation that I refer to in the OP and later on here is indeed pretty rare, and would be an outlying, moral predicament. I think Wosret has been worried about me suggesting that "lying honestly", if possible, should be used at all often, which is not what I'm saying. I'd say that lying out of love would essentially be a last resort, a kind of necessary evil, maybe.

One's good intentions must be informed by past, present, and future consequences in order to be most loving, in my opinion. You can't just intend to do the good if you do not first know what the good was, is, or may still be.

Well, hold on. I'm not judging who's a liar and who's not, but whether a lie can pair itself with honesty and love. — Heister Eggcart

It can with self honesty, and self love... but it's to infantilize, and damage anyone else. It's possible to not suffer the physical and mental draw backs... to turn one's back on the holy spirit, as they say, but those are called narcissistic psychopaths.

No idea what you're trying to say here. Please reword and clarify. — Heister Eggcart

Lies are what brought them to your door. You further cause, you escalate the problem with more lying.

The SS example was just that, an example. In principle I can plug in different people with a different setting and the moral paradigm would remain the same, I think. — Heister Eggcart

I know that it was just an example, and super hyperbolic... as I said. You could come up with different examples, but they'd be less and less persuasive the closer they got to reality.

do think that the situation that I refer to in the OP and later on here is indeed pretty rare, and would be an outlying, moral predicament. I think Wosret has been worried about me suggesting that "lying honestly", if possible, should be used at all often, which is not what I'm saying. I'd say that lying out of love would essentially be a last resort, a kind of necessary evil, maybe. — Heister Eggcart

No, that isn't at all my concern... it's that lying to oneself makes one an idiot... lying to others makes them idiots... and further, that people that believe absurdities, will commit atrocities.

I mean... "honest lying" is obvious double speak... and "necessary" means that it's impossible that it couldn't happen. These are just clear misuses of words to maintain absurd beliefs... it's idiocy.

It can with self honesty, and self love... but it's to infantilize, and damage anyone else. It's possible to not suffer the physical and mental draw backs... to turn one's back on the holy spirit, as they say, but those are called narcissistic psychopaths. — Wosret

I'm recently recovering from being woven in a narcissists's web, so I probably empathize with you here, but I think self "love" is the wrong wording. Self esteem isn't the same as love, at least how I've defined here (see the OP again.)

Lies are what brought them to your door. You further cause, you escalate the problem with more lying. — Wosret

I dunno about that. Lying might be a problem in itself, but I'm saying that they might be necessary for the good.

You could come up with different examples, but they'd be less and less persuasive the closer they got to reality. — Wosret

What about TimeLine's? I answered that if you didn't read my reply to her.

No, that isn't at all my concern... it's that lying to oneself makes one an idiot... lying to others makes them idiots... and further, that people that believe absurdities, will commit atrocities.

I mean... "honest lying" is obvious doubt speak... and "necessary" means that it's impossible that it couldn't happen. These are just clear misuses of words to maintain absurd belief... it's idiocy. — Wosret

I'm not concerning myself with whether someone lies to themselves, only when they lie to another in order to be more loving than not lying would be.

I'm recently recovering from being woven in a narcissists's web, so I probably empathize with you here, but I think self "love" is the wrong wording. Self esteem isn't the same as love, at least how I've defined here (see the OP again.) — Heister Eggcart

I'm not... I'm recovering more from being a narcissist. So one lies out of a high self-esteem then...?

I dunno about that. Lying might be a problem in itself, but I'm saying that they might be necessary for the good. — Heister Eggcart

Then that makes lying good...

What about TimeLine's? I answered that if you didn't read my reply to her. — Heister Eggcart

I didn't, you'll have to point it out.

I know that you keep repeating that like a mantra, but you're just using elevating emotive words in order to emotionally manipulate yourself and others... but you're using them wrong. Narcissism is what is concerned with some ideal love.

You're really making no sense to me anymore. Are you saying that you're a narcissist or no? If you are, then I dunno why you're disagreeing with me so fervently. You're patronizing yourself.

Well... you're the self-proclaimed bullshitter... out of love though...

He so loved the world that he deceived them all for their own good...

lol?

Had I not known about the cheating, and was asked whether I knew if (he) was cheating, I'd probably deflect and not answer, instead advising her to ask that question to him and not me. — Heister Eggcart

Are you not being dishonest by not saying anything? Inaction is action; witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is just as terrible as committing the crime; one can answer a question by not answering, that dishonesty becomes necessary as you a caught between protecting the trust of a man who unfairly expressed his wrongdoing to you in confidence and her unfairly pressing to inform her of the truth. Moral dilemmas are never fair.

For my part, I would tell her but certainly not before I inform him that I will be if he does not because there are a number of principles that I adhere to that far outweigh his trust, and certainly I admire and wholeheartedly respect the courage one has to stand and face your wrongdoing. As I said, moral dilemmas are never fair and I will deflect that unfairness back to the source or the very root cause of the ethical issue even if it means losing a friend or making an enemy.

In future I can still protect both the cheater and the cheated-on by working around the various moral confines in place. In other words, lie in one case but not lie in another cases. Then again, I might not always have to lie and break confidence depending on the situation, as I kinda suggested just above. — Heister Eggcart

I understand this, but it is a blanket morality. It is trying to shield the guilt in some ways for failing to take the right action at a given moment and make yourself believe that an alternative solution can resolve the problem. All this does is prolong the inevitable.

I think it's probably better to say that the man loves his partner less after having cheated. If he loved her not at all, he'd have fucked off and not looked back. — Heister Eggcart

It is not his partner that he loves but what he attains from having such a partner, a social status, a community of people that congratulate his trophy but that emptiness is hidden. What people don't know does not miraculously make a person moral and a coward or a liar is incapable of loving. It is that subjective intent that matters and I am certain that a man who genuinely loves a woman would not be able to cheat on her, which leads to:

But, in the event that I deem it necessary, what I'm trying to get at here is that do so still keeps me an honest and loving person, that a lie for love doesn't rubbish my character. — Heister Eggcart

I disagree when it comes to 1-1 but when the middleman, indeed, there are circumstances that are just too unfortunate that you are forced to become a part of, and depending on these circumstances (like the cheating issues) does not necessarily change the nature of your character.

In my humble opinion we must first make a distinction; that between ends and means. If you look at the class of human actions, by which I mean our speech and deeds (have I left anything out?), we immediately understand they're means to an end. The end, the goal, is more abstract and drives our actions.

As means, I consider human actions to be like tools and tools don't have moral import. It's the ends, the objectives, that have any moral relevance.

Honesty is an end in itself and so can be evaluated as good/bad but lying is a means and is neither good nor bad.