# Should we ALWAYS tell the truth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424 "2005-05-18T16:08:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/121 "2005-05-30T17:45:49Z")
> [@Wake up call](#): > > Sorry to jump in at the middle of the 3-way discussion of **Priceguy** , **Lucius** , and **Cosmosdan**. > It seems at this point, the debate has been diverted from “Should we ALWAYS tell the truth?” to definition of personal happiness and pleasure, and sacrificing yours for other peoples happiness (the soldier case, or charitable contributions). > It appears that without “knowing, hearing or telling the Truth”, \*\*Lucius \*\* cannot achieve pleasure and happiness. Heya - sorry to disregard with the rest of the post, but its at this point here I think where I’d want to make a fundamental objection - its not that I’m claiming that there can’t be pleasure without truth. I’m claiming that truth is valuable in its own right, no matter the pleasure, pain or whatever it caused. (and, by the way, in that particular example I’d probably be perfectly happy for the girlfriend who cheated if she simply never brought up the subject of the affair to the partner. As I think I’ve probably said above, just because I don’t think you should lie doesn’t mean you always have to automatically volunteer the truth.) ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/122 "2005-05-30T18:06:31Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > You said “The protagonist of the movie, when faced with the choice, elects to live in the real world because he values truth over the psycho-somatic comforts available to him in the Matrix”. I pointed out that this is incorrect. When he made the choice, he didn’t know that the world he thought was real was not. He knew that one pill would lead to the truth and the other would lead to something other than the truth. Correct? What does that mean to you? > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand what this has to do with anything, but if we’re going to talk about _Matrix_, let it at least be correct. Well, I’m using the Matrix to illustrate a point, just as you used the situation with your mother and family members to make a point, and others have used Nazis to make a point. I don’t understand your confusion. > [@](#): > > I think we should leave the movie out of this. It brings very little to the discussion. Why? It brings as much revelance as anecdotes about family get-togethers and wives with fat asses in unflattering clothes. > [@](#): > > If this is so, and I’m not saying that it is or that it isn’t, that still only means that truth has value because it promotes happiness. Isn’t that what gives any thing of value its value? This contant refrain is meaningless, and I’m amazed you are still using it. It’s like saying money has value because we can buy things with it. Well, yeah. That’s why it has value. It’s still important to distinguish “truth has value because its promotes happiness” from “we should only be truthful if we can tell that it will produce positive, ‘happy’ consequences”. The latter argument is what I have problems with, not the former. **ywtf:** > [@](#): > > You’re saying that the consequences of knowing (or telling) the truth must be factored in before you decide to seek (or share) the truth. I disagree. Sometimes those consequences should be factored in (e.g. with Nazis), but not always. > [@](#): > > Why not, and how do you distinguish between the two situations? Because in my opinion, by default we should tell the truth. It is only at extreme situations where personal feelings should get in the way of honesty. These situations occur when my following the honesy rule conflicts with me following other moral/ethical rules and guidelines. By default, I tell the truth (unless I’m being a badass). Circumstances have to meet certain criteria before I deviate from that. Nazis at my door meets those criteria. Normal, day-to-day things, don’t usually meet those criteria. That’s why I don’t structure my ethical beliefs around those extreme case. > [@](#): > > If this policy were to be implemented, it would be a matter of record, which would in turn mean that no-one would ever trust what a doctor said, which would in turn mean that _more_ patients would suffer anguish. Well, less say that the record was falsified so that no one would know. What then? **ywtf:** > [@](#): > > No, the previous discussion on cheating dealt with the question of knowing versus not knowing. My question asked how many people who have found out that they were being cheated on actually wish they could erase that knowledge and continue living in ignorance. So the two questions are different. **I don’t believe** most people would wish to un-know they were being cheated on. Maybe at first, when the pain is at its most acute, but few people in the long run actually wish ignorance on themselves like that. **Priceguy** > [@](#): > > Cite? I thought it was pretty clear in my post that I was expressing an opinion (just as you opined the opposite earlier in the thread). If you would like, add “IMO” to the last sentence. > [@](#): > > Utilitarianism may lead to wrong conclusions sometimes. It’s still better than following blind rules. According to whom or on what basis? If it doesn’t lend itself to practical application, what good is it? > [@](#): > > So you follow the rule, except when the consequences of following the rule compel you to break the rule? How does that make you unlike me? Because the presumed consequences of following the rule don’t always govern whether or not I will follow it. Only in extreme situations where following the honesty rule clashes against with other morality rules (like not aiding and abetting murder, assault, or needless suffering) will I weigh the value of truth against the prudence of lying. But in the absence of those situations, I tend to put my trust in truth and don’t feel it is necessary to self-rationalize why honesty is better than being deceptive. Like I said earlier, it is the default standard. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/123 "2005-05-30T19:30:55Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > He knew that one pill would lead to the truth and the other would lead to something other than the truth. Correct? Correct. > [@](#): > > What does that mean to you? Nothing. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m using the Matrix to illustrate a point, just as you used the situation with your mother and family members to make a point, and others have used Nazis to make a point. I don’t understand your confusion. There is no confusion; I just consider the movie references to be meaningless, as they do not stem from reality. > [@](#): > > Why? It brings as much revelance as anecdotes about family get-togethers and wives with fat asses in unflattering clothes. It might, if you phrased it like “What would you choose in Neo’s position, and what do you think others would choose?”, but referring to what characters in a movie did is pointless. > [@](#): > > Isn’t that what gives any thing of value its value? Ah, we agree. Great. > [@](#): > > It’s still important to distinguish “truth has value because its promotes happiness” from “we should only be truthful if we can tell that it will produce positive, ‘happy’ consequences”. The latter argument is what I have problems with, not the former. Then I have misunderstood you, and apologize. Anyway, we agree that truth has value because it promotes happiness. Do we agree that truth does not have value when it does not promote happiness? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/124 "2005-05-30T20:27:09Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Anyway, we agree that truth has value because it promotes happiness. Do we agree that truth does not have value when it does not promote happiness? I hesitate to say we are in agreement because, in our position as fallible actors, we really have no idea when something promotes the most happiness, especially in the long-term. If, as an objective observer, I watched a society of people being honest for the sake of honesty, and nothing good came out of that policy, then I would agree that the truth had no value because nothing good came out it. But I have a hard time imagining that. It’s like imagining a car with all working parts, plenty of fuel, and a competent driver, but not expecting the car to run. Why _would_ I expect to find nothing good in a society where people accept without cynicism what other people say, because the concept of lying is so foreign? One doesn’t have to search hard to see the good in that. Imagine saying that science has no value unless it promotes happiness. Is the individual scientist supposed to trouble himself with the question of happiness when he is looking for life on Mars or trying to debunk the theory of relativity? I hope not, because the question of whether or not science will cause happiness has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is life on Mars or whether there are holes in the theory of relativity. There will always be some people who prefer to not know the truth because they don’t see the value in it, but that doesn’t mean that the truth is meaningless, or that it needs to be falsified. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/125 "2005-05-30T21:13:40Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I hesitate to say we are in agreement because, in our position as fallible actors, we really have no idea when something promotes the most happiness, especially in the long-term. If, as an objective observer, I watched a society of people being honest for the sake of honesty, and nothing good came out of that policy, then I would agree that the truth had no value because nothing good came out it. So, we agree that truth has value because and if, _and only because and if_ it promotes happiness? If so, we are in agreement. You seem to consider it rather more difficult to ascertain the probable consequences of telling the truth versus lying than I do, but apart from that, we agree. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/126 "2005-05-30T22:57:28Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > How is that logical? Once we establish that X is good and that “good” is something desirable, then surely it is logical to attempt to maximize good? Good to who, I think is the important question. Even if we might personally find it abhorrent, it is perfectly logical to maximise my own good or, if you like, pleasure. Why do we find that abhorrent is the real question. > [@](#): > > Yes I do. That doesn’t mean I value equality. In the sense that I’m using the word, yes it does. To me that sentence reads: “Yes I agree. That doesn’t mean I agree.” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Once again, I must apologize if I have offended or insulted you. The last time I believed I had done so you assured me that I hadn’t, but now I can see no other explanation. Why else would you believe that I considered the opinions of others to be worthless? Because you’ve already said it. You’ve already claimed that even though I claim that I have an instinctive value for things other than pleasure that my subjective instincts are wrong, and that your subjective instincts are right. > [@](#): > > Then explain it to me. I am a human, just like you. I’m equipped with the same sensory apparatus as you. The process that created me is very much like the process that created you. The same substances flow through our bodies. The same impulses travel throughout our system of nerves. We are the same in every relevant way. There is no reason why I should not be able to understand the value of truth, or the value of nobility, or the value of meaning, if you do understand them. Different people value different things - why should we share identical tastes? But if you want, I’ll say it again: I find pleasure for its own sake enjoyable, yes, but ultimately empty and meaningless. I want some sort of meaning, some sort of purpose, to exist for more than existence’s sake. Any animal can live a short term life of seeking out short term amusement. Any programme can reach its conclusion, just as I can follow my biological instincts. But that’s not enough. I want to be better than that. To defy the forces of nature. To be something above, beyond and separate from it. And I accept that if I lived this ideal it may well lead to a life of hardship. Who knows? Maybe even dying young. That it could probably live to more pain than pleasure. And I don’t care. Because pleasure isn’t the only thing valuable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/127 "2005-05-31T00:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **Wake up call** > > So, why prefer C to B? Especially if you don’t know Robbie, or how he turns out to be? I had a hard time deciphering that last part but let me say this. In a relationship other than the vows of marriage I don’t think revealing a fling is required by truth unless you are asked a direct question. Do I think it’s possible for one partner to live in ignorence of an affair and be relatively happy. Yes. As you said your significant other might have a fling and realize he or she made a huge mistake. It might cause them to apreciate you even more. In that case we have no way to measure the degree of “happiness” that the truth might bring. As discussed before. Sometimes pain now leads to greater good later. If the offending spouse tells the truth with honesty and contrition it might lead to an even better realtoinship. It might mean they go their seperate ways to find happiness with others. There’s no way of knowing. One thing we can be pretty sure of is a lie leaves us on the edge waiting to be discovered with our happiness always in jeopardy. The truth leads us to growth. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/128 "2005-05-31T07:13:50Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > Good to who, I think is the important question. I don’t. The variable of who experiences the pleasure never enters the picture. > [@](#): > > I find pleasure for its own sake enjoyable, yes, but ultimately empty and meaningless. I want some sort of meaning, some sort of purpose, to exist for more than existence’s sake. Any animal can live a short term life of seeking out short term amusement. Any programme can reach its conclusion, just as I can follow my biological instincts. > > But that’s not enough. I want to be better than that. To defy the forces of nature. To be something above, beyond and separate from it. > > And I accept that if I lived this ideal it may well lead to a life of hardship. Who knows? Maybe even dying young. That it could probably live to more pain than pleasure. > > And I don’t care. Because pleasure isn’t the only thing valuable. So you would rather live a horribly painful and harsh life filled with truth, than an ecstatically happy life where you knew you couldn’t trust anybody or anything, but were still ecstatically happy? I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t believe that. I believe you’d pick the lying happiness in a heartbeat. ---
**Author:** ![Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b782af/32.png) [@Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucius)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/129 "2005-05-31T09:59:50Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I don’t. The variable of who experiences the pleasure never enters the picture. :smack: > [@](#): > > So you would rather live a horribly painful and harsh life filled with truth, than an ecstatically happy life where you knew you couldn’t trust anybody or anything, but were still ecstatically happy? I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t believe that. I believe you’d pick the lying happiness in a heartbeat. See, yet again, my apparently opinions are worthless to you. What is the point in me debating with you if you will ignore everything I say? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424/130 "2005-05-31T10:16:49Z")
> [@Lucius](#): > > What is the point in me debating with you if you will ignore everything I say? We do, in fact, appear to have run into a brick wall. As parting words, I wish to say that I have all along maintained that my philosophy would not hold up to the scrutiny of anybody who didn’t agree that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and I have also constantly admitted that I cannot in any way show or prove that pleasure is good and pain is bad. You did agree that pleasure is good and pain is bad, but you also wished to place value in other things such as truth and nobility, on the same grounds on which I placed value in pleasure, which must mean that your philosophy does not hold up to someone who does not agree that truth and nobility are good. That someone is me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-always-tell-the-truth/304424.md?page=6)