I’ve a close friend who proclaims himself ‘a servant of Truth’. This means, basically, that if asked he will tell the truth without consideration for consequence, because Truth is an end to be desired in and of itself.
I proclaim myself a servant of nothing, and as such will not adhere to any ideal which I perceive to be detrimental to me (or by extension those I care about) in any given situation just for the sake of upholding the ideal. If telling the truth results in more harm than good, what is the real value of that truth? This logic has earned me the title of ‘Decepticon’ by my friend, but I don’t feel that I’m inherently deceptive just because I’d rather tell an insignificant lie than hurt someone’s feelings or upset a peaceful balance.
Really, is it so crazy to value Peace over Truth? Or am I a lying, cheating, untrustworthy bastard?
I consider myself a very honest person, but I still know how to be diplomatic when it’s called for. In total contradiction of that statement, let me say this: your friend is a dick. To get down to it, you’re rarely faced with a stark choice between honesty and peace, if ever. In almost any situation you can be honest and still try not to hurt people needlessly. This is something your friend clearly does not grasp.
Many people think that the truth is always (or at least, very nearly always) for the best in the long run; this can be simplified to saying that truth is good itself for, eg. teaching to children.
Is it possible that this is what your friend thinks? You could test it by asking him extreme hypothetical quetions where he could save someone’s life by lying.
If that’s not a bold-faced lie, I’ve never heard a lie. No, really, I’ve never heard a lie… what’s it like?
The value of truth, or an objective truth, is not relative to the harm or good that comes of it. How one uses ones knowledge is a question of ethics-- withholding truth can be as damaging as exposing it.
Avoiding conflict is a questionable end. I myself tend to avoid conflict and so I think of it as being a terrible personality flaw. Peace is not inherently maintained by avoiding conflict. The enlightenment resulting from a realization that veracity has been obsfucated may lead to ire and, perhaps vitriolic retrebution.
well, no, he’s not a dick; we just disagree on this point, and perhaps I should have qualified that the nickname is a playful, half-serious one. He does try to be diplomatic in his telling, but sometimes I think the truth itself is undiplomatic, and no amount of sugarcoating is going to change that.
then, what is it relative to? are you saying that truth contains innate goodness?
I agree, and in those cases, the truth holds more value for me.
a good point. I have been called ‘conflict avoidant’ more times than I care to recount, and you’re right, avoiding conflict in the short run does not always guarantee peace in the long run. I think it’s a safer bet than truth–>conflict–>upsettingness–>peace, though.
hmm… this has undertones of “ignorance is bliss”, and that makes me feel icky. I think it’s pretty unhealthy to prefer a fantasy world to reality because reality makes you uncomfortable, but I guess even this only holds for me on issues I deem Important-- for example, if I’m not in love with my SO anymore, sure it’s going to cause conflict, but I feel I have to tell him. Conversely, if my grandmother asks me if I still believe in God, of course I’m going to say yes rather than have her 1) sit and worry her heart out that I’m going to the Bad Place and 2) harass me to no living end about it.
Hmmm…I never came entirely clean with an ex, as to one of the major reasons I broke up with her. I felt it would save potential humiliation and embarassment (on both of our parts). I still wonder if it was the best course of action.
Imagine the truthful scenario, “I think we shouldn’t see each other because I can’t stand your stench. You are unhygenic and smelly and it turns my stomach.”
I just can’t be that cruel. I suppose I could have been diplomatic, but there were other considerations as well, it was just a foregone point and it would have been useless and cruel to bring it up.
Heinlein once said that “only a sadistic bastard takes pride in telling nothing but the unvarnished truth.”
While I agree that if your opinion is asked for you should certainly be as honest as possible, why hurt someone if you can easily remain silent? It’s just cruel.
I think my brother in law is a knuckle dragging macho putz. But he makes my sister happy, and he treats her well. That’s all that matters. Telling her the complete truth about my feelings for him would only cause problems, and I love my sister. Why stir shit needlessly?
Yes. In some cases, I think it’s better to be diplomatic than “brutally honest.”
On the other hand, in addition to people who need to learn to keep their mouths shut, I suspect a lot of people could do with telling the truth a bit more - I know I, and a lot of friends, smooth over slightly overmuch, when there’s no good reason not to tell everything, except an unjustified feeling it might cause problems.
Well, a person can be honest and still withhold comment on various situations. You can say, “What do you think of my new dress?” and I could say, “You look so confident in that color!” and never have to say that chartruse is not your color. I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, particularly over mundane shit that won’t change the world anyway.
Not to be circuitous, but: Truth is relative to its object. It may be true that you smell like the front row of a Phish concert, and I might say so in order to be hurtful. Your odor is relative to you; my intention is relative to me. Subjective truths are often irrelative-- their veracity has no impact on the objective world and they can change without impacting on their object.
Innate goodness… I guess so. Knowing that touching a hot stove will cause a burn is a good thing; getting burned is a bad thing. The truth is the same.
no, never; he’s actually one of the kindest, most considerate people I’ve ever known. I wish it were as easy as dismissing his position as that of an asshole-- as it stands, he may be wrong, but he is not an asshole.
uhhh. so you’re saying there is an absolute value to every objective truth…?
I, uh, hm… wha?
That might be a subject for another thread or for e-mail-- feel free to e-mail me if you wish to discuss the topic. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but I enjoy philosophical discussion.
As for the thread, my point is that the TRUTH could be that you have something in your teeth.
I might say, quietly,“You might want to look in a mirror.” I could also raise my voice and say,“Hey, have you ever heard of a thing called a toothbrush, ya moss mouthed gutter monkey!”
The truth is the same regardless. I don’t believe there is a necessary valence to objective truth, but I guess ‘absolute value’ is as good a term as any.
Whether you are trying to maintain the peace, avoid conflict, or “serve the truth”-- whatever the hell that means-- the Truth remains the same. To borrow a phrase, reality is the final arbiter.
The truth is that Truth doesn’t really need servants.
While you may not be a lying untrustworthy bastard, it is worth noting that no matter how benign someone’s intentions are, if they’re keeping facts from you, they’re keeping facts from you.
Even if you trust someone’s general opinions and trust that they won’t hurt you, unless they’re 100 percent honest you simply can’t trust everything that they say. Who knows when one of their values or goals conficts with yours? Who knows when the peace they value is ranked higher than the truth of them telling you something?
Although many people might have visceral reactions to your friend’s policy on Truth, they could at least be sure that whatever opinion they got was accurate. It seems if you hang out with this guy you can at least be sure that he means what he says, even though it may be abrasive at times.
And to me, at the very least, that sort of honesty does indeed seem valuable for its own sake.
