“The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” Aristotle
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. Jean-Paul Sartre
I’ve often thought that honesty was the most pivotal virtue, along side courage. What good is any other virtue if you’re not capable of standing by it when called for and willing to present honest information to others so as not to mislead them? You cannot abide any virtue without first having the courage to do what you think is right, and the honesty not to mislead anyone or misrepresent the state of things so that others may have the chance to act virtuous, including yourself.
While I still very much agree with the place of honesty and courage within my ethical framework, it has started to become quite difficult in ascertaining where exactly the appropriate amount of honesty is. I generally hold honesty in a very high regard, and hope to only lie in extreme situations. To mislead others I believe is one of the gravest immoral actions to be had, primarily because it denies another person the opportunity to act in accordance with the world around them. By lying to somebody, I essentially condemn them to failure on their attempts to be ‘good’ if I knowingly hand them faulty information, knowing full well that if they act on that information it will lead to consequences that person has not intended. In light of this view though, I feel I’ve run into some difficult situations where it would seem like lying becomes a necessary evil, but I’m still not sure to what expense. I will attempt to detail how I think honesty works, and then attempt to highlight the issue, particularly how it relates to Sartre’s concept of authenticity.
Consider the following. I know that person Y has no malicious intent toward person X. Knowing this, I then claim to person X that person Y definitely does have malicious intent toward person X. Person Y, to defend themselves preemptively takes action that leads to negative consequences for person X, who in actual fact has done nothing wrong, and such actions were unnecessary.
In that situation, who exactly has done something wrong, and who is responsible? I would argue that I am predominantly responsible, as I think most would. I’ve misled a person and that person, through innocent and reasonable action has acted in a way that has brought about an unjust consequence unintentionally. But why? The situation as I see it has unfolded in this way precisely because I have intentionally misled this person as to the ‘way things are’. I’ve intentionally provided an incorrect picture of things, and this person who has tried to do the right thing has ended up doing something negative. If person X was then made aware of my dishonesty, they would surely be ashamed at their actions that have brought upon negative consequence for innocent person Y. By lying, and not being honest, I’ve impacted the lives of two people quite negatively.
But is person Y also responsible, and to what degree? We can assume that they are a normal, sentient human being who is free in their actions (illusory or not) and are capable of deciding for themselves what course of action to take. It would seem to me they ought not be held responsible in the same manner as I though, simply because they acted on information they thought was genuine. They could perhaps have been more critical in discerning whether or not what I was saying to them was the truth or not, but lets assume that I am a master liar and that any reasonable person would have been convinced. Person Y’s actions are their own and they are 100% responsible for them, but have they acted immorally? The answer to that I’m not quite sure of.
Now it is a bit abstract and too malicious of an example to illustrate the issues that I’m trying to get at. The above example is one good reason as to why I think my honesty is important in the context of others, but it doesn’t quite get to the heart of what this quandary of mine is. Consider then that if I believe honesty is important as I do, and that it can have such an immense impact not only to myself and to others, I ought then to do my absolute best to be as honest a man as I can. The difficulty comes when there appear to be situations in which lying may be the best choice for all involved.
Consider Kant’s classic example of a murderer at your door, asking you to tell him the location of your family so that he may murder them. It would seem an absurd thing to do to tell the truth in this circumstance. We would all agree that our families do not warrant being murdered (well most of us anyway), and so it would seem reasonable to lie to this man, in order to avoid that if possible. It would seem then that dishonesty is the way to go, but there certainly are alternatives. Being honest does not mean providing information relevant to all people all the time, at least to me. One does not have to reduce oneself to dishonesty by lying to the man when a refusal to answer may suffice. But let us then consider the same situation, except the murderer will kill you if you do not provide a location. There seem only two choices, A) Provide a location you know to be incorrect, i.e be dishonest, or B) Provide the real location of your family where they will presumably then be murdered.
What does this new situation change, and in both cases, who is responsible for what? If i tell the truth, am I responsible for my families murder, just as I was to some degree responsible for the situation that unfolded when I lied? Does honesty entail responsibility for consequences in the same way that dishonesty does? I do not force the man to kill my family, he does that of his own volition. I remain virtuous by not misrepresenting the world, in yet it would seem I have allowed a horrid situation to occur, when I may have otherwise prevented it by sacrificing my honesty, and misleading this man.
This cuts a lot closer I think to the core issue that I’m running headfirst into. I think the critical reason honesty is so important is authenticity. The conscious effort to make sure that you are in control of who you are, and accept responsibility for your actions, your character traits, your virtuousness or viciousness. To embrace your freedom and wield it in the manner that you choose, in a manner that you think is right, and just. That is what honesty protects, in both myself, and in others.
But to what degree does this murderous man with murderous intent deserve my honesty? I agree with Kant’s arguments in regards to why all of human life should be valued, that if I treat myself as an end, and not simply as a means to an end, in what possible way does that reasoning not extend to the whole of humanity? I am not special in any meaningful way to warrant different treatment, and in the interest of maintaining logical and rational consistency I ought to treat others with the same respect. What then makes this man seemingly unworthy of that treatment? To what degree should I be dishonest if it means undermining this persons responsibility (and burden) to constantly create himself, and his responsibility to live a moral life. It would seem to me that lying is an appropriate choice in this circumstance, and one in which I would choose to do something not entirely honest, in order to sabotage another persons ability to act and choose, because I am convinced that they will be unable to act justly, and I am to some degree justified in disrespecting their autonomy.
To conclude this line of thought, I’d like to spin it around a little. Instead of talking of malicious murderous men and considering their actions and how important their authenticity, responsibility and freedom to choose weighs up against me being honest or not. Consider instead almost the opposite. Consider Person X who is legitimately in dire need of help from Person Y. Without that help their life will be affected extremely negatively. However it is known that Person Y does not respect or consider the reason person X needs help to be legitimate, although for Person X it really is. Should person X lie in order to get the help they so critically need? It would seem then that not only would they sacrifice their honesty in order to mislead this person into doing what Person X thinks person Y should do, thus robbing person Y the choice of action, authenticity and of being able to do the ‘right’ thing. They also rob themselves of their authenticity by hiding who or what they are, by rejecting what they believe to be the right thing, by misrepresenting and manipulating in order to get the legitimate help they need. They are to some degree not being courageous, not being honest, and not being authentic. The real question here is, is it worth it? Is it virtuous to manipulate and be dishonest, to deny ones own thoughts and feelings in order to appease someone else to get what you need? How can I elevate myself higher than those I deceive? Exactly how do I judge whether I am worth it?
The answer to this I do not know, but an old cynic saying comes to mind.
Solvitur Ambulando. It is solved by walking. The only way to find out the right course of action in a virtue ethics framework is to do, I’m not sure I’ll ever think my way to a hard conclusion to this grey problem without continuing on and attempting to do what is right, and failing to do the right thing sometimes.
Hopefully one day I will be able to post a follow up to this, let me know what you all think in the comments section.
It disturbs me no more to find men base, unjust, or selfish than to see apes mischievous, wolves savage, or the vulture ravenous. Jean-Paul Sartre
Place of the White Blog 
It’s definitely a tricky question and I like your final thoughts on figuring it out by doing, even if you sometimes do the wrong thing. I think that’s all we can expect from anyone, is for them to try their best, but to expect mistakes because we are all human. I think in your final example, an alternative action for person X could be for them to attempt to convince Y that their needs are legitimate. If Y is a reasonable person, they will listen and do their best to understand. But if they can’t understand, no matter which way X explains their need, then X is left with the same dilemma unfortunately. In that case, I think X should do what’s best for themselves because the only thing they know for certain is that by lying, they can help themselves and that is a good thing (assuming their need is indeed legitimate and not selfish).