I personally value honesty a lot, and I think it's a form of assertiveness. Being honest is asserting your personhood, lying is suppressing it. Are there times when being assertive is not the move? Yes, I think there are many:
1. You know someone is insecure about an immutable aesthetic characteristic (height, eye shape, etc). They ask you point blank if you think it looks good. You don't. You could be honest to assert your personhood, or you could prioritize them by telling a convincing white lie.
2. Your injustice example: you could lie to prevent injustice, or you could tell the truth and let it stand. Is it worth prioritizing your personhood over the practical suffering? I don't think so. As to the second order effects, I'm not sure that I'd prefer a pliable population with a centralized system of morality. Injust laws should be fought, passively or actively. Just laws can still be enforced through strong deterrence etc.
3. Someone is suicidal and you're talking them down. You exaggerate the value of life, because you think they aren't being rational, and you aren't sure if they should reconsider or not. Prioritizing your personhood can come at great costs.
4. Even self-delusion has its place. Sometimes you might have a very harmful belief that you can't shake. You could prioritize your self-expression and follow that belief to its logical end. But it's often better to ignore that, delude yourself into de-prioritizing (by explicitly lying to yourself), and talk to others or just accept some level of self-delusion.
I found the post very interesting, especially in terms of how lying is so commonly double-standard-ed without any rationalization. But I think honesty/assertive/self-expressiveness can be overruled at times, other you risk being excessively egotistical.
I think (3) makes sense. (1) I'm not on board with - what good does it good to lie? Why are they asking in the first place? I'd really interrogate those questions before choosing to lie. I'd rather be honest and teach them to overcome insecurity than to perpetuate it by pandering to it.
On (2) fair, but do you accept it when other people make the same argument? Every rich person ever who evades taxes justifies it by saying they're paying too much already, and it's not fair for them to support people who don't work. Is that fair game?
(4) is tricky. Is the belief 'real'? E.g. if someone believes they're stupid, surely it's relevant whether or not they are?
For 2, I personally do. If a rich person is evading taxes because they think it's not fair to support people, I would judge them more for having flawed moral beliefs, rather than acting on their flawed beliefs. But it is tricky - what if someone had flawed beliefs but didn't act on them, and was thus "accidentally" good? Not sure.
1 and 4 are kinda similar in my mind. Global skepticism is a good example - I know I don't know things, but I delude myself into thinking I do, as I think that's better. Similarly for other "foundational" beliefs - some self delusion to build on is good. And from there, it's not a crazy stretch to sometimes endorsing delusion in others. True beliefs are not always helpful.
I think lying is bad, but so is being rude, greedy, or lazy. Is lying exceptionally worse than those?
I personally have gotten very upset by hypocrites and dishonest people, but I've come to believe that's a personal bias. Understanding and reading people did not come naturally to me, and perhaps I wished everyone could be honest and direct and therefore easily understood.
Lots to thinknabiut.
I personally value honesty a lot, and I think it's a form of assertiveness. Being honest is asserting your personhood, lying is suppressing it. Are there times when being assertive is not the move? Yes, I think there are many:
1. You know someone is insecure about an immutable aesthetic characteristic (height, eye shape, etc). They ask you point blank if you think it looks good. You don't. You could be honest to assert your personhood, or you could prioritize them by telling a convincing white lie.
2. Your injustice example: you could lie to prevent injustice, or you could tell the truth and let it stand. Is it worth prioritizing your personhood over the practical suffering? I don't think so. As to the second order effects, I'm not sure that I'd prefer a pliable population with a centralized system of morality. Injust laws should be fought, passively or actively. Just laws can still be enforced through strong deterrence etc.
3. Someone is suicidal and you're talking them down. You exaggerate the value of life, because you think they aren't being rational, and you aren't sure if they should reconsider or not. Prioritizing your personhood can come at great costs.
4. Even self-delusion has its place. Sometimes you might have a very harmful belief that you can't shake. You could prioritize your self-expression and follow that belief to its logical end. But it's often better to ignore that, delude yourself into de-prioritizing (by explicitly lying to yourself), and talk to others or just accept some level of self-delusion.
I found the post very interesting, especially in terms of how lying is so commonly double-standard-ed without any rationalization. But I think honesty/assertive/self-expressiveness can be overruled at times, other you risk being excessively egotistical.
I think (3) makes sense. (1) I'm not on board with - what good does it good to lie? Why are they asking in the first place? I'd really interrogate those questions before choosing to lie. I'd rather be honest and teach them to overcome insecurity than to perpetuate it by pandering to it.
On (2) fair, but do you accept it when other people make the same argument? Every rich person ever who evades taxes justifies it by saying they're paying too much already, and it's not fair for them to support people who don't work. Is that fair game?
(4) is tricky. Is the belief 'real'? E.g. if someone believes they're stupid, surely it's relevant whether or not they are?
For 2, I personally do. If a rich person is evading taxes because they think it's not fair to support people, I would judge them more for having flawed moral beliefs, rather than acting on their flawed beliefs. But it is tricky - what if someone had flawed beliefs but didn't act on them, and was thus "accidentally" good? Not sure.
1 and 4 are kinda similar in my mind. Global skepticism is a good example - I know I don't know things, but I delude myself into thinking I do, as I think that's better. Similarly for other "foundational" beliefs - some self delusion to build on is good. And from there, it's not a crazy stretch to sometimes endorsing delusion in others. True beliefs are not always helpful.
I think lying is bad, but so is being rude, greedy, or lazy. Is lying exceptionally worse than those?
I personally have gotten very upset by hypocrites and dishonest people, but I've come to believe that's a personal bias. Understanding and reading people did not come naturally to me, and perhaps I wished everyone could be honest and direct and therefore easily understood.