The Morality of Truth

[turtle]

Is the truth always the moral choice? Is knowing the truth always constructive to our society, family, friends, self, surroundings, etc? Is telling and knowing the truth always a good thing?

I'm sure all of you have heard this phrase, white lie. If not, a white lie is when someone flagrantly skews the truth to suit the situation or save someone's feelings from being hurt. Of course, this action might, in the end, be bad for the individual being lied to, as it would exclude them from that certain morsel of knowledge or understanding. But, in certain situations, is a white lie the moral way to go? An example situation would be this: A mother is told her son died fighting for a good cause, yet in truth, he died doing absolutely nothing, but standing there. So, the mother already thinks her son has died honorably, should someone tell her the truth, or should the lie be kept, to save her emotionaly?:hmmm:

Despite the obvious advantages and good that come from the truth, is it always the moral road? In my opinion, no, not always.
But, I do think it is the right choice, perhaps not the moral one... in all cases.

So, what do you guys... and gals (considering the few) think about this?


P.S. I think a thread along these lines may have already been started a while ago, but I didn't really get in on that one, so I'd like to get some new opinions from the diverse population on TWC.

[Skyler]

I have no problems with telling or knowing the truth, but telling the truth isn't always a good thing.

Some people do not want to hear the truth and some people do not want to tell the truth, if everbody was truthful people would view them differently, sometimes for the better but more often for the worst.

Besides truths are subjective, are they not?

[Irishman]

Nihilism, there is no moral truth, only what is more productive and more destructive.

It is very hard to make a case (assuming the absence of religion) for morality. Of course you have the Kant followers who think that the only good things are intentions, and then you have the utilitarian, view that what is right is what leads to the greatest utility.

So I guess my question is, how do you define the moral ought?

[Segestan]

Truth is often decided from ones point of observation. Truth is a Case by Case decision. Often their is My truth and Your Truth. The Moral Path is The Best path when dealing with issues that require a True statement but that must be tempered by the Justice of those whom are being told this Truth. Truth can open minds or cause anger in others. their is No set moral code or point of observation. You decide case by case.

[Cato the Younger]

Is the truth always the moral choice? Is knowing the truth always constructive to our society, family, friends, self, surroundings, etc? Is telling and knowing the truth always a good thing?

First and foremost, I think morality is a point of view; not everyone has the same morals.

Knowing the truth, IMO, is always constructive to our society (and the others that you listed). For example, knowing the truth about the causes of an unjust war can shift popular opinion, therefore changing an outcome of the war. The truth can only help us as a society; being lied to and kept in the dark is subversive and dangerous.

Having said that, telling the truth is not always a good thing. There are plenty of circumstances where telling the truth should not be advised, although I'm sure some would disagree with me. If a man walked up with me and threatened to kill me unless I told him vital information that would further endanger the lives of many others, I'd like to think that I wouldn't tell him the truth of the matter (but that is hard to say, isn't it). Knowing the truth, however, is not bad.

Truth is a tricky thing. As Oscar Wilde so brilliantly put it, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

[Spart]

Well, even though I'm not a big fan of Kant, most of you know what he thought of this. Eventually, lying is always wrong, because it's breaking the common rules and the truth should always be told. Always.
But, it was W.D. Ross who made a theory about prima facie duties.
Meaning, if in a situation there is more harm done by lying than by telling the truth (risking human lives for example), you have to think which duty (telling the truth or saving lives) is more important.

Well, it sounds pretty reasonable, but I usually make case by case decisions, moral theories are.. Well, theories. And I'm not a moral person anyway.
Conclusion. White lies are usually completely okay, if there is absolutely no harm done. Think about the "does my ass look fat?"-situations.

[turtle]

Truth is very much subjective, as well as morality. We all have our own opinions on both of those touchy subjects. But for the most, we somewhat agree on what is right and what is wrong. We also, for the most part, agree on truths, depending on the circumstance and the people involved.

I agree with pretty much all of your replies. As far as social constructiveness goes, the truth is always the right thing. But as far as someones immediate feelings go, it is sometimes not the moral choice, according to my morals as a product of American society. A white lie, when it comes down to it, is actually the lazy and quick way out of a situation involving the truth. In the long run, a white lie will always be a deconstructive force. But at the moment in question, a white lie is the moral choice; past the moment in question, a white lie is often the immoral and unethical choice.

[Nihil]

A white lie, when it comes down to it, is actually the lazy and quick way out of a situation involving the truth. In the long run, a white lie will always be a deconstructive force. But at the moment in question, a white lie is the moral choice; past the moment in question, a white lie is often the immoral and unethical choice.

I used to have a very strict view of the truth. I used to think that no matter what, you had to be blunt with people and tell them the unadulterated truth. I considered this to be a sort of Nietzschean challenge to myself.

Then, I gradually realised that although this was an interesting character-building challenge for me, people just thought I was rude. I didn't mind that they thought that, but I did mind that they were unable to share my fanatical devotion to the principle of absolute frankness. Not only that, but they were also unable to understand most of the "truths" that I felt duty-bound to divulge to them.

So, I eventually gave up on it. My pragmatic rationale was as follows - in much the same way as we must often of necessity shield children from truths that they are too young to understand, so it is with adults. Adults are no different from children in this: there are many things that you cannot tell them even if if you are willing, because they just won't understand. It's a lonely burden to bear, but when you've experimented with the "absolute truth" regime for a while, you begin to see why it can't work.

The purpose of the human ego is not to perceive the truth, but to filter it out. Trying to breach people's anti-truth shielding is not only unwelcome and unlikely to earn you any friends, but it is also a little cruel.

[turtle]

I used to have a very strict view of the truth. I used to think that no matter what, you had to be blunt with people and tell them the unadulterated truth. I considered this to be a sort of Nietzschean challenge to myself.

Then, I gradually realised that although this was an interesting character-building challenge for me, people just thought I was rude. I didn't mind that they thought that, but I did mind that they were unable to share my fanatical devotion to the principle of absolute frankness. Not only that, but they were also unable to understand most of the "truths" that I felt duty-bound to divulge to them.

So, I eventually gave up on it. My pragmatic rationale was as follows - in much the same way as we must often of necessity shield children from truths that they are too young to understand, so it is with adults. Adults are no different from children in this: there are many things that you cannot tell them even if if you are willing, because they just won't understand. It's a lonely burden to bear, but when you've experimented with the "absolute truth" regime for a while, you begin to see why it can't work.

The purpose of the human ego is not to perceive the truth, but to filter it out. Trying to breach people's anti-truth shielding is not only unwelcome and unlikely to earn you any friends, but it is also a little cruel.

I agree completely with your sentiments. That's pretty much what I said in the quote you had on your post, but in much shorter terms. I think a white lie can be a good thing, at the momment. But once that momment has passed and the lie sinks into the individuals' mentality, it will eventually be deleterious to their mind and possibly their body as well. In the long run, as you said, the truth is ultimately the right and ethical way to proceed.