we should assess when and how to tell the truth, instead of telling it indiscriminately. — Cobra

Normal people figure this out by kindergarten ...

Ok. That shit wasn’t the question, though. Read the last part which contains a question.

Hahaha! :grin:

Is what determines the point of truth a matter of utility? — Cobra

No. The collective truth has a power beyond utility and boring. This is not the whole-greater-than-sum-of-its-parts case. Rather, when it comes to truth-telling, the parts are as important as the whole collective of truth tellers. If you could pick and choose only those with clear utilities and only then you would tell the truth, then you are violating the principle of fidelity of the whole community of truth tellers. Your system of ethics and morality would quickly crash and burn.

I think truth-telling is overrated. Sam Harris seems to disagree: "In Lying, best-selling author and neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that we can radically simplify our lives and improve society by merely telling the truth in situations where others often lie. He focuses on "white" lies—those lies we tell for the purpose of sparing people discomfort—for these are the lies that most often tempt us. And they tend to be the only lies that good people tell while imagining that they are being good in the process".

There is an unwritten rule about white lies, yes. For those, we have a common understanding not to castigate someone telling white lies.

I think truth telling is more about habit than actual rational decision making where utility or parties' interests are effectively weighed. So always telling the truth to the point you're avoiding white lies, makes for a better person.

There's something you're not telling us. :grin:

If a majority of truths are redundant, uninteresting, or "just are," and have no epistemic or ethical value in terms of utility, — Cobra

This is a contradiction. It is only throught truths that the rational mind can comprehensively establish a path for itself both ethically, as well as far as for simple goal orientation. There is nothing more epistemological than truth qua truth, and any attempt to make a moral decision, especially of those with utility as its focus is reliant upon it. The greater the possible utility, the greater the need for truth, no other options.

would it be fair to say that truth-telling is often unnecessary, and that we should assess when and how to tell the truth, instead of telling it indiscriminately. — Cobra

Of course, why would I speak with a driveling fool about matters of sophistication such as great literature, or a moral code, or a drug addict about the nature of the value the human life they're squandering, or a scientist who thinks Hume was right about induction? Now, I may be able to find specimens within those cetegorical domains who are worth the time, but it will be up to my rational discretion.

Is what determines the point of truth a matter of utility? — Cobra

No, full stop. Cancer doesn't care about utility, and neither does the sky. Utility is but ONE method by which to achieve a morally consistent behavioral execution and outcome, and is almost always destructive if moved beyond the individual purview, or is relied upon as the only ethical metric. Correspondence determines truth, congruence determines truth, logic determines truth, coherence determins truth, inductive reasoning determines truth, falsifiability determines truth, all of these are metric that MUST be taken into account as often as can be applied. Ethics acts in a very similar manner.

Let me know what you think.

There's something you're not telling us. — Agent Smith

It's okay to beat around the bush.

we should assess when and how to tell the truth, instead of telling it indiscriminately. Is what determines the point of truth a matter of utility? — Cobra

If you are asking, "Does my brain look big in this post?", I have to tell you it does not. Telling people what they want to hear when it is not true is fostering delusion, and thus insanity. And in the longer term, it undermines communication and community and the language itself, and the loss of trust produces paranoia.

This does not mean that one should be looking to inflict the cruel truth on folks who have not asked for it, but when your wife asks whether her bum looks big in this, though she wants to hear that it does not, she wants more to hear the truth, rather than have folks sniggering behind her back, because you flattered her with a lie.

f you are asking, "Does my brain look big in this post?", I have to tell you it does not. — unenlightened

Well, I'm not that intelligent, I'm fine with that. I just ask random questions on here that come into my head while reading or watching Star Trek reruns.

Most fat people know they are fat. A wife asking if she looks fat is testing you to see if you'll grant her a certain freedom to ask. She wants to see how safe and knowledgeable of her you are and if you'll defend her against the people snickering behind her back because she knows she's fat and probably shouldn't be wearing that. To be apathetic and indifferent to those snickering behind her back inflicting malicious harm on her after she wears something she likes, because the truth is, "she's fat" .. seems morally questionable.

To tell at fat ass person they are fat after they have been demonstrably gaining weight after popping out 3 kids and complaining about it for 10 years to me is an infliction of a pointless harmful truth under the weird guise that the wife doesn't know the truth already, considering she's complained about gaining weight for 10 years, just so the husband can virtue signal his morally superior 'truth-telling'.

There is an unwritten rule about white lies, yes. For those, we have a common understanding not to castigate someone telling white lies. — L'éléphant

Examining this is kind of the point of my question. Why do you think that is? Maybe because castigating them serves no utility for either party. I think people intuitively and alturistically understand this. Most people can't handle the truth, so they do not want to hear it. I then think it is more problematic than not to step in truth-telling all over the place to people who are harmed by the truth no matter how soft it is, instead of just minding your business. Or taking things too literally in social contexts. We can observe what people are want and are asking of you by just observing and knowing them. I think people indifferent to that may be showing a bit of autism.

Examining this is kind of the point of my question. Why do you think that is? Maybe because castigating them serves no utility for either party — Cobra

Incorrect. The reason is because we have a common understanding that while liars want to avoid that which is more harmful in relationships. Would you tell your boss she's fat if she asked you if she's fat? Truth is, no matter how nice a husband tells his wife the truth about her elephantile derriere, that cellulitic comment is never gonna enter her floppy ears like a philharmonic orchestral music.

And no, women should stop asking their SO to comment about their body parts. They should pay a psychologist to provide a critique, that way, it comes out as a professional consultation, and nothing personal.

There's something you're not telling us.
— Agent Smith
It's okay to beat around the bush. — L'éléphant

Yeah, one gets a rough idea of what an interlocutor actually wants to discuss. :smile:

Gennaion pseudos (Noble lie) = White lie.

Those who advocate white lies should be closet/open antinatalists; truth is bitter i.e. life is suffering (re: the Buddha).

The beautiful bouquet of flowers :flower: on a gravestone hide the decomposing form beneath :death: .

The beautiful bouquet of flowers :flower: on a gravestone hide the decomposing form beneath :death: . — Agent Smith

I take offense with this. Spirit lives on in infinite slumber. Somehow, flowers is one of those that we use to connect with them. And I always wonder about this. Cause there are fruits to be given, too. There are some really beautiful fruits and they last longer than flowers on a headstone. Plus you don't need to put them in a vase with water.

Still life paintings didn't come about for no reason.(Sorry for the pun)

Spirit lives on in infinite slumber. — L'éléphant

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

A wife asking if she looks fat is testing you — Cobra

It may be so. Then it is a dishonest question. She is asking for sartorial advice, but really she is asking if you love her. One should answer both questions honestly; there is no point in pretending an affection verbally that is not going to be enacted, and there is no point encouraging a size 18 to squeeze into a size 14. A relationship founded on flattery is a fantasy relationship, a real relationship is made of affection, truth and trust.

Ok. That shit wasn’t the question, though. Read the last part which contains a question. — Cobra

Same reply: Normal people figure this out by kindergarten.
The topic of truthtelling is one that becomes progressively elusive the more one tries to pin it down analytically. So the optimal way to handle it is the intuitive one.

Most people can't handle the truth, so they do not want to hear it. — Cobra

No. That's just a reference to a punchline from a film, nothing more.

Saying ugly things harms the relationship between the people involved. People typically want to retain their relationships or don't want them to worsen (insofar they think they are good).

By saying something ugly (even if it's true), you don't hurt the other person's feelings per se, you hurt their feelings for you. Or even hurt their feelings for humanity.

Of course, perhaps this is what you wanted to begin with.

So always telling the truth to the point you're avoiding white lies, makes for a better person. — Benkei

That depends on what those truths are in particular.
If one is creative enough, one can always say things that are both true and harmless (and on topic, at that).