Does honesty allow for lying?
This topic has been on my mind for quite some time and I would be grateful to hear everyone's opinion on the matter.
My current position is that one can lie whilst still being honest. That is, someone can lie to me instead of telling me the truth, but that someone is being honest if they are lying out of love. Now, to define my terms, I'm in line with the Christian view that love is to will the good of another. Honesty, then, is to will the good with the fullest intent. This means that, for me, to love is to be honest, and to be honest is to love. However, I did say earlier that one can withhold the truth yet still be honest and loving. Perhaps this is the murkiest part of my position, but I hold that love is first among equal virtues, with other such virtues being honesty and truth. I think this because one can tell the truth without being loving, and honesty only comes about once one wills the good of another, once one loves, so honesty is merely a result of love's precedence.
Given the above, does honesty allow for lying? I do think so, but there are a couple reservations I have. One is whether lying out of love can become a slippery slope for applied narcissism. If I lie and lie and lie, even if I do so out of good will, this doesn't necessarily ensure the good of the lied-to in future, and may constitute a certain degree of abuse on my part in lying to someone so often - in other words I'd begin to manipulate the person I was lying to, only telling them what I thought was honest truth, let's say. But after a while, past this threshold, it would seem that I would no longer be willing the good of that person, that I wouldn't be lying out of love. If that's the case, at what point does my good will fade into selfishness and ill-will? Does the slippery slope come into play right at the beginning, when one lies out of love, or do things get slippery at some future, further-along point? If it's the latter, how might we pin point that, and is that even feasible? If it's the former, wouldn't the slippery slope occurring from the beginning rubbish the thought that one can lie out of love? If so, how does that dismantle my understanding of love, honesty, and truth?
Clearly this topic can go all over the place, but I would like it if you all could address the flow of my post, from my own position to some of my later questions. I can also clarify how I'm using certain words if anyone's confused as to what the fuck I'm going on about, as I will be the first to admit that I'm not much of a philosopher, O:)
My current position is that one can lie whilst still being honest. That is, someone can lie to me instead of telling me the truth, but that someone is being honest if they are lying out of love. Now, to define my terms, I'm in line with the Christian view that love is to will the good of another. Honesty, then, is to will the good with the fullest intent. This means that, for me, to love is to be honest, and to be honest is to love. However, I did say earlier that one can withhold the truth yet still be honest and loving. Perhaps this is the murkiest part of my position, but I hold that love is first among equal virtues, with other such virtues being honesty and truth. I think this because one can tell the truth without being loving, and honesty only comes about once one wills the good of another, once one loves, so honesty is merely a result of love's precedence.
Given the above, does honesty allow for lying? I do think so, but there are a couple reservations I have. One is whether lying out of love can become a slippery slope for applied narcissism. If I lie and lie and lie, even if I do so out of good will, this doesn't necessarily ensure the good of the lied-to in future, and may constitute a certain degree of abuse on my part in lying to someone so often - in other words I'd begin to manipulate the person I was lying to, only telling them what I thought was honest truth, let's say. But after a while, past this threshold, it would seem that I would no longer be willing the good of that person, that I wouldn't be lying out of love. If that's the case, at what point does my good will fade into selfishness and ill-will? Does the slippery slope come into play right at the beginning, when one lies out of love, or do things get slippery at some future, further-along point? If it's the latter, how might we pin point that, and is that even feasible? If it's the former, wouldn't the slippery slope occurring from the beginning rubbish the thought that one can lie out of love? If so, how does that dismantle my understanding of love, honesty, and truth?
Clearly this topic can go all over the place, but I would like it if you all could address the flow of my post, from my own position to some of my later questions. I can also clarify how I'm using certain words if anyone's confused as to what the fuck I'm going on about, as I will be the first to admit that I'm not much of a philosopher, O:)
Comments (41)
Lying is attacking someones intuition, and infantilizing them. Deciding what is or isnt good for them, and what sorts of information they can and cannot handle. Its never really about love or kindness anyway. Its about not wanting to be the bearer of bad news, or having them dislike us for not having the opinions, or saying the things that they prefer.
The retort i get the most (including from my daddoo just last night) is the ol' "do i look fat in this?" question. My response to that is two fold. Firstly the question is deeply misunderstood, and is just asking if you still think theyre beautiful, and ideally the most beautiful, which is a question of taste, evaluation commitment and not about facts. Secondly the two traits women most go on about wanting in their men is honesty and confidence.
Thinking that such a question requires a lie is quite disheartening, and says far more about the men than women to me. There is a right answer, and it isnt that theyre actually ugly or lie... neither of which is what women want... but an answer that is in the affirmative, and meant. Thats the ideal, and if you cant do that, then you should question your maturity and level of commitment... not their sanity or maturity.
Fuck the consequences. Always tell the truth, and if the truth is wrong then fucking change yourself until its right.
Why is that? How do you define mercy?
Quoting Wayfarer
In my first example, when someone lies to me that means that they've told me something that isn't the truth, so they're both lying and withholding the truth.
Quoting Wayfarer
But do you think lying out of love is possible, or at least logical as I described it?
Quoting Wosret
Say a dude's going to go murder a bunch of people, but you lying to him can keep him from doing that. Isn't that doing what is loving for both the almost-murderer and those he's saving from not being murdered?
Surely another individual is capable of deciding what's good for you at least some of the time, right? If I didn't want to eat my fruits and vegetables, then should my parents have just stopped what they were doing and said, "welp, we can't force anything upon Heister 'cause he dun wanna!" Or are parents doomed if they lie to their child about Santa, even though they're being honest with regard to taking care of their child?
No one sees your justifications or rationalization, they just see your actions.
You'll never actually encounter such a situation, be realistic, this is just a wedge technique, in order to justify lying in less and less extreme situations.
You can't protect anyone, you can only make them strong. This is again, to infantilize.
Lying tells people to not trust their senses, but to trust you instead, and strips them of their autonomy, and is most effective on people that make the mistake of daring to trust and love you in the first place, making themselves susceptible to your puppeteering them. You make them look to their conceptualizing for the truth rather than their senses, binding up their body, making them ignore parts of themselves in order to maintain the deception. Lies destroy lives. This isn't about purity, or maintaining a pristine moral character or some such, it's about not physically and mentally crippling people with your deceptions, which can last not only through their lives, but through generations.
If you want to stop the murderers, then attempt to stop them by actually doing something that risks yourself, and not just everyone else. That would be more loving, I'd think.
I know that everyone thinks that lies have no consequences, but understand that they have dire consequences.
If love precedes acts of honesty and truth, it also becomes the compelling force that solidifies your will to honesty; therefore if one loves they cannot lie. As they say, there is no fear in love and I think since people are capable of being deceptive even to themselves, telling themselves that a lie is somehow 'white' or virtuous is just another form of self-deception. The utility may function for a while, but it always catches up to you and eventually you will be faced with the consequences for it. If you lie to someone you love, you quite simply don't love them.
Is there a particular example that you want to discuss?
What I meant by 'withholding the truth' is not saying anything - maintaining silence. That is not lying. Of course there are 'white lies', I would be lying if I said I never told them, although I don't know if that justifies them.
Okay, off the top of my head here...consider those during WWII that sheltered Jews and others from being rounded up and sent to work/death camps - when these people told SS officers that, "no, no Jews are here," does that lie mean that they're not being honest to both the Jews and the soldiers? On one hand the lie protects the Jews hiding in the attic, but on the other it protects the soldiers from they themselves committing wrong doing - that is, not acting out of love. Were those who sheltered Jews to say to the soldiers, "yes, here they are, take them to their deaths," is that really good will? They'd be telling the truth, but such a decision would also be the least loving possible, with regard to the Jews in hiding. So, if you were to shelter Jews, and were asked by German soldiers whether you were sheltering Jews, what would you say? Would you tell the truth and send the Jews off to the cattle cars, or would you lie, thus saving the Jews?
To clarify, I'm not refuting the moral quality of the lie in itself, but whether that lie may or may not facilitate honesty in the individual doing the lying. As I said in the OP, honesty follows from love. If an action is taken that is loving, that wills the good of another or others, then it therefore is honest. So, if you chose to save the Jews by lying, then you'd either say that such a lie is moral (loving) or at best amoral. But if the decision to lie in the Jews/Soldiers example is but an arbitrary, amoral one, then what moral grounds would you have in defending your choice if at the end of the day it doesn't matter?
I see. I'd argue that withholding the truth would be a dishonest action, but an action that's not a lie, as you've not actively made the untruth known to the person you're withholding the truth from.
Liars aren't honest ever, regardless of what good intentions, and better future they're selling their souls for.
The SS (again, a ridiculous example that will never happen to you ever, ever, ever, and just is a wedge rationalization for continuing sociopathic behavior) didn't show up to anyone's house thinking themselves to be evil, and there to kill the righteous innocence. It was lies, bullying, indoctrination, propaganda, and other forms of manipulation that brought them to your door to do the "righteous thing", which every act they viscerally knew was wrong, but also had lots of justifications and rationalizations, and the best of intentions.
Nazis aren't going to come to your doors, and most strangers don't have much incentive to believe you anyway, let along SS officers... no this is just a rhetorical ploy, and wedge in order to rationalize all of the puppeteering, and manipulation of loved ones and friends, the ones the most susceptible, and at risk of falling prey to you.
One can imagine situations where lying might be morally preferable to telling the truth, however...
As a rule, I agree with Wosret. If you want to live in a civilized society, the society is a better place to live when trust is at it's highest. Trust is at it's highest when people lie the least. I believe it is most psychologically healthy to integrate what you say with how you believe the world is.
Most lies are not to prevent murders, but rather to prevent embarrassment. If you can become comfortable with embarrassment, you have increased your ability to learn and grow. For most of our waking hours, we interact with each other and the world reflexively;out of habit. Say "How's it going?" to someone, and they'll answer you without even considering how things are going for them most of the time. That's why I advise making honesty habitual. Just do it all of the time, and you'll do it without thinking. The world is a better place, and you're a better person if you do.
1.) A lie in a situation where the liar contributed to the formation of what he/she lies about.
2.) A lie in a situation where the liar did not contribute to the formation of what he/she lies about.
Examples:
1.) The liar stole something and is asked if he/she committed the theft.
2.) The liar recognizes a child who has been kidnapped. The kidnapper asks the liar for directions to the interstate. The liar gives the kidnapper directions that take him/her back towards downtown and then calls the police.
And I think there are other differences. Example 1 is evasion. Example 2 is trickery.
But suppose the liar in 2.) is afraid that the kidnapper will catch on to the liar's intentions if the original response is given. Suppose he/she therefore answers the question honestly and gives directions that lead to the interstate. But suppose that he/she still tries to trick the kidnapper, this time by giving the longest route to the interstate or a route that will go right by a police station. That is still being deceptive. It is being deceptive about one's intentions. Can it be called honest?
Intentions, not words uttered, are probably where honesty and dishonesty are really found.
Your example of the Nazi camp is a situation or circumstance that is external to you.
I certainly stand corrected with your example, however my understanding works twofold; the ethical and the moral. For instance, if you were told in confidence by someone who was remorseful about them cheating on their partner as he sought your advice and you told him to be honest, if he fails to be honest and she inquired with you about whether he had cheated on her or not, would you lie and say that you do not know? You are caught between your obligation for the trust and confidence he had asked of you despite the wrongdoing of his actions and the deceit she was experiencing by him. Sometimes, by saying nothing at all, you are saying 'yes' and so a lie almost becomes inevitable.
But that really has nothing to do with me, in a sense, it is an ethical problem. Morally, however, it is about being deceptive or lying relating to my own actions and indeed they do cross-over, but not, because I was not the one who committed the wrongdoing itself that led to that ethical dilemma. In the case of the man who cheated, he may have appeared remorseful but he was more afraid and I believe that by remaining dishonest he has no love for his partner. He loves himself more, which is the reason for him cheating and his so-called guilt was actually the fear or risk of losing his reputation, as an example.
This is why I said that honesty toward someone you love and care for would always outweigh a lie, you would have absolutely no fear to tell the truth whatever that may be because your moral position outweighs your ego.
If honesty is Good then how can a consequentialist be Good ... if the Good lies in the intent behind our actions then what can be said of the effects of our actions. Can a consequentialist be Good if good lies in our intent and not in the consequent of our action. If a consequentialist lies and effect of that lie is good, then was the consequentialist 'honest'.
I am not sure what love is, but I don't think it is a virtue, it's the force behind the relationship between people, the lover and the beloved, where love is the coupling agent, the glue holding them together. For Plato love is born out of Eros.
Except when they say they're lying ;)
"Liar" isn't an identity...
Well, hold on. I'm not judging who's a liar and who's not, but whether a lie can pair itself with honesty and love.
Quoting Wosret
What? Clearly this example did happen, so similar examples can happen in future. I don't see how it's not relevant.
Quoting Wosret
No idea what you're trying to say here. Please reword and clarify.
Quoting Wosret
The SS example was just that, an example. In principle I can plug in different people with a different setting and the moral paradigm would remain the same, I think.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
I would say that the "liar" is honest in both cases, so long as his intention's are grounded in love.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
I do think so. Lies depend on active communication, I'd say, whereas honesty and dishonesty isn't quite as superficial.
Quoting TimeLine
What do you mean?
Quoting TimeLine
Hmm, it would depend upon whether I knew the cheating partner was cheating before he came to me. If so, then I wouldn't lie to the other partner, I would only tell (her) what I knew beforehand. Had I not known about the cheating, and was asked whether I knew if (he) was cheating, I'd probably deflect and not answer, instead advising her to ask that question to him and not me. It wouldn't be fair for her to put me in the middle, so if I respect her and she respects me, she'd realize that she shouldn't press me about that. But, if she did press me, I'd deflect again and ask her why she suspects (he) may be cheating, as it's more important why she thinks that over me.
Quoting TimeLine
Well, as I think POMO was trying to get at, one can lie in one moral dilemma but work elsewhere to make sure the good is achieved. So, let's say I don't break confidence, that's just one choice. In future I can still protect both the cheater and the cheated-on by working around the various moral confines in place. In other words, lie in one case but not lie in another cases. Then again, I might not always have to lie and break confidence depending on the situation, as I kinda suggested just above.
Quoting TimeLine
I think it's probably better to say that the man loves his partner less after having cheated. If he loved her not at all, he'd have fucked off and not looked back. That he seemingly has reservations about his decision makes me think he still cares about her, otherwise he'd not think twice about hurting her again, with or without her knowledge.
Also, with regard to your previous example of a middleman being consulted by both the cheater and the cheated-on, I think it's on the middleman to look out for both parties. Relationship/friendship-wise I've come to know that being a middleman is reeeeally difficult to make work from a moral standpoint because picking a side that, let's say, "receives more of your love" is almost inevitable, which is fucking annoying. I've been in this position myself and it sucks major nips. Regardless of whether they were the right decisions, I think I've always tried to back myself up and get out of the cross-airs, and try to make both parties realize that they need to come together without doing so through me, somehow.
Quoting TimeLine
I think I agree on the surface, but my OP really only applies to a three-way moral dilemma. So soldiers - citizens - Jews, or you - me - and the cheater. If it's just me and another person, 1 on 1, I'd probably never lie. But, in the event that I deem it necessary, what I'm trying to get at here is that do so still keeps me an honest and loving person, that a lie for love doesn't rubbish my character.
I do think that the situation that I refer to in the OP and later on here is indeed pretty rare, and would be an outlying, moral predicament. I think Wosret has been worried about me suggesting that "lying honestly", if possible, should be used at all often, which is not what I'm saying. I'd say that lying out of love would essentially be a last resort, a kind of necessary evil, maybe.
One's good intentions must be informed by past, present, and future consequences in order to be most loving, in my opinion. You can't just intend to do the good if you do not first know what the good was, is, or may still be.
It can with self honesty, and self love... but it's to infantilize, and damage anyone else. It's possible to not suffer the physical and mental draw backs... to turn one's back on the holy spirit, as they say, but those are called narcissistic psychopaths.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Lies are what brought them to your door. You further cause, you escalate the problem with more lying.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I know that it was just an example, and super hyperbolic... as I said. You could come up with different examples, but they'd be less and less persuasive the closer they got to reality.
No, that isn't at all my concern... it's that lying to oneself makes one an idiot... lying to others makes them idiots... and further, that people that believe absurdities, will commit atrocities.
I mean... "honest lying" is obvious double speak... and "necessary" means that it's impossible that it couldn't happen. These are just clear misuses of words to maintain absurd beliefs... it's idiocy.
I'm recently recovering from being woven in a narcissists's web, so I probably empathize with you here, but I think self "love" is the wrong wording. Self esteem isn't the same as love, at least how I've defined here (see the OP again.)
Quoting Wosret
I dunno about that. Lying might be a problem in itself, but I'm saying that they might be necessary for the good.
Quoting Wosret
What about TimeLine's? I answered that if you didn't read my reply to her.
I'm not concerning myself with whether someone lies to themselves, only when they lie to another in order to be more loving than not lying would be.
I'm not... I'm recovering more from being a narcissist. So one lies out of a high self-esteem then...?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Then that makes lying good...
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I didn't, you'll have to point it out.
I know that you keep repeating that like a mantra, but you're just using elevating emotive words in order to emotionally manipulate yourself and others... but you're using them wrong. Narcissism is what is concerned with some ideal love.
Well... you're the self-proclaimed bullshitter... out of love though...
He so loved the world that he deceived them all for their own good...
Are you not being dishonest by not saying anything? Inaction is action; witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is just as terrible as committing the crime; one can answer a question by not answering, that dishonesty becomes necessary as you a caught between protecting the trust of a man who unfairly expressed his wrongdoing to you in confidence and her unfairly pressing to inform her of the truth. Moral dilemmas are never fair.
For my part, I would tell her but certainly not before I inform him that I will be if he does not because there are a number of principles that I adhere to that far outweigh his trust, and certainly I admire and wholeheartedly respect the courage one has to stand and face your wrongdoing. As I said, moral dilemmas are never fair and I will deflect that unfairness back to the source or the very root cause of the ethical issue even if it means losing a friend or making an enemy.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I understand this, but it is a blanket morality. It is trying to shield the guilt in some ways for failing to take the right action at a given moment and make yourself believe that an alternative solution can resolve the problem. All this does is prolong the inevitable.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It is not his partner that he loves but what he attains from having such a partner, a social status, a community of people that congratulate his trophy but that emptiness is hidden. What people don't know does not miraculously make a person moral and a coward or a liar is incapable of loving. It is that subjective intent that matters and I am certain that a man who genuinely loves a woman would not be able to cheat on her, which leads to:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I disagree when it comes to 1-1 but when the middleman, indeed, there are circumstances that are just too unfortunate that you are forced to become a part of, and depending on these circumstances (like the cheating issues) does not necessarily change the nature of your character.
As means, I consider human actions to be like tools and tools don't have moral import. It's the ends, the objectives, that have any moral relevance.
Honesty is an end in itself and so can be evaluated as good/bad but lying is a means and is neither good nor bad.
I agree with you here, but the bit you quoted from me was the situation where I had no knowledge of any cheating going on. If I don't know there to be cheating going, I definitely wouldn't gossip, instead telling (her) to ask her partner what the truth is, not me.
Quoting TimeLine
Your example can shoot off in a million different ways. To be honest, I think this cheating example is way too hard to think about in an abstract way, seeing as I think we're both, perhaps, thinking of our own real life circumstances where we've been the middleman (or middlewoman, O:)).
Quoting TimeLine
I'd say that lying does prolong the inevitability of not lying about "it". I just think that such inevitability may be okay if the issue is prolonged for the right reason(s). For what it's worth, I don't see this decision as being routine or commonplace.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm not so sure. I think one's love of another can be separate from his sin. That is, I can love someone as fully as I am able to, but still make mistakes that threaten that love's future. Making those mistakes doesn't mean I don't love my partner, though, or that I don't want such a love to continue. I mean, just because there is a genuine love between two people doesn't negate the possibility of transgression between them.
Dunno if I agree with this. I think lying is always bad, but that it can be necessarily bad if done out of love for love's sake, which is the end.
I think you're equating lying with, say, a firearm - both are amoral means toward potentially moral or immoral ends. Have I got that right?
Yes.
1. In a murder case, the weapon is simply the means to achieve an objective (death) and it isn't judged. The person, his objective to kill, is judged. What are actions but means to achieve ends.
2. Evaluating actions as good/bad leads to confusion because consequences are notoriously difficult to evaluate, and inherent moral attributes, again are very difficult to judge.
Bloody hell, I have this thing about me that people have this urge to tell me their deepest and darkest secrets and I assure you some things are really :-O worthy, thinking that somehow I am experienced to help them.
No.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
You would be surprised.
Ever heard of the term 'whipped' where a person is controlled - whether consciously or not - by their partner? I have seen it a number of times and the condescension is so horrible that rather than the relationship being an amicable, mutual love and respect, it is instead prolonging and surviving by committing soul suicide. It is like you change yourself to mould into your environment and lose your own identity along the way. The lying is really to themselves and while it may appear for the right reasons, no one should ever be in a position to sacrifice themselves for the sake of prolonging something wrong in the first place.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree, but it is really relative both with the transgression and whether the relationship is genuine; there are many men, for instance, that use physical violence against women and say that they did so because they loved them. If love is subjective towards someone that you admire and respect rather than merely dependence and an external show, I would assume that conversely feelings of resentment or no respect for your partner - though not publicly visible - can confirm it is not really genuine.
In the instance where it is genuine love, we are all human. We can say and do stupid things, but it really is about whether the person really feels remorse that can make forgiveness possible.
Solution: don't get involved with people who cheat on each other ;)
Well, you do present yourself as a no-it-all, :B
Quoting TimeLine
I have, and in my experience the "whipper" isn't always aware of what they're doing, which can be a little strange to navigate as a middleman.
Quoting TimeLine
Love is as I defined it in my OP. Beating your wife is not loving, so their claiming that it is is just wrong.
Quoting TimeLine
Remorse requires humility, which is hard to come by.
There is real knowledge about life and sometimes people experience bad things. Indeed, I am righteous by nature and hate injustice and the chosen field of my profession is specifically because of my determination to defend and support disadvantaged children who need a voice they would otherwise not have. But my knowledge does not descend into the bottomless pit of the grotesque. I don't want to hear about the weird shit people willingly do to themselves and each other, neither do I want to hear the whinges of the privileged crying that their plastic surgery hasn't helped secure the affections of their nasty boyfriend. Fuck off.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Your definition is what attracted me to this thread in the first place and while I believe that love is about giving love or having the attributes that care and empathise with others, without moral consciousness and a capacity for honest self-reflection, one can easily deceive themselves. Ring of Gyges. For instance, a person who witnesses a crime but looks the other way, or the narcissist who is a loving person only to those who love him. It could be that one deceives himself into thinking that he is protecting the interests of a loved one, but really he is protecting his own interests and there are a number of people that put on a show - think paedophilia and those Catholic priests that pretend to holiness - so it is about ascertaining that subjective honesty that wills the good. There is a unity in giving love, where people become one in a universal sense and you do not selectively give to one person and not the other, otherwise the love itself remains egotistic. So, it is about calculating the right decision according to this universal moral in a Kantian sense. I have turned my back even on family members because they are not good people, despite the fact that we are related because of my determination to adhere to universal principles like justice and righteousness.
Whether introspection is epistemically possible is another problem entirely though perhaps more a metaphysical question, in the end I am confident that honesty to oneself will assuredly mean that you would be honest to others, even if it means that you will hurt them because that is what being virtuous is; taking responsibility. In the case of ethical dilemmas, though, that is somewhat different relative to the circumstances.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
(Y) I find it the greatest gift being one who herself has experienced remorse. It changed my life entirely, so I respect those who are just as honest and humble to themselves and in turn others.
Oh, that's a bold claim! How'd you come upon this righteous nature, eh? Who did you bully for it? O:)
Quoting TimeLine
You, me, and Agustino have been in a threesome for a few weeks now, I'd say that's some pretty weird shit!
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, I agree to an extent, but the worry I have here is that even for morally conscious, honestly self-reflecting individuals, they aren't always that - they also will screw up and will fail to be good people. In other words, an honest and moral person may still lie to themselves by lying to another even though they might think that they're being honest! I suppose this goes back to whether one should seek to never lie, or to figure out when to lie honestly and when to not lie at all.
Quoting TimeLine
This person wouldn't be honest in the first place, so they wouldn't fit with my "honest liar" figure, as per the OP.
Quoting TimeLine
Hmm, I'm unsure about this characterization of narcissism. I think one can still love the narcissist even when the narcissist stops their reciprocated love. For instance, I've loved a narcissist before, quite recently too, but I didn't stop loving them after our friendship ended. I'd like to think that I still love what was and is good in them, and that that love didn't evaporate merely because (she) stopped loving me.
Quoting TimeLine
Absolutely, but the pedophile's actions are evidently and obviously immoral. Whether or not a lie ought to be said in order to will the good of the lied-to is far murkier a moral dilemma I think. An instance wherein "lying honestly" is a viable option wouldn't be as clear cut a judgement call as saying, "aye, raping a child is unquestionably wrong, I'mma not do dat."
Quoting TimeLine
I'm going out on a limb here and proclaiming it true that calculating the right decision is far and away more complicated than rocket science, :)
Quoting TimeLine
Beautifully put, (Y)
But this must mean that you agree with the OP, and that a lie can be said with an honest heart, right?
It is not about loving a narcissist, it is that the narcissist is incapable of loving others. They are trapped in their own ego and any expression of affection on their part is only due to the pleasure they feel because someone loves them. When they are told that there is something wrong with them, it is impossible and you are suddenly viewed as an enemy, monstrous even. Reality is a negotiation between good and bad and only one capable of seeing both can really understand 'reality' and enjoy lived experience.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What is an 'honest heart'? Is that your way of saying that you seek to protect someone from being hurt, the latter of which you think is 'bad'? That type of hurt is not bad, on the contrary, when you face the consequences and take responsibility for your own actions, it is a necessary hurt that over time produces the greater good. It is not just about the present.
It is like breaking up with a partner you do not love; you care about them and you don't want to see them hurt, but by staying you indirectly form a type of implacable resentment hidden within a numb exterior and a mindless dependence. You lose yourself, your humanity in the process of surviving these confused feelings. But that hurts the person more and if you really cared not just for her but also for yourself, you would be honest because indeed in the long run it will give her a chance to move on and find someone who will care for her better than you as you find what it is you are looking for. You both become happier people.
This is why in the long run such people do all sorts of immoral things such as cheating, because they are capable of lying mostly to themselves, comfortable with the numbness of a dishonest reality. You end up in the long run doing more damage only because you believe that your decision is coming from an 'honest heart' or a loving and caring place. It is, yes, caring, but irrational and cowardly, which is rather selfish of you in what appears to be an outwardly appearing unselfish act.
This is wisdom; a combination of reason and a loving heart, otherwise a loving heart without knowledge is blind and knowledge without love is vicious. You need both to be courageous enough to take responsibility for such decisions and to be Epicurean viz., being honest enough to understand possible outcomes. It is like pouring vinegar over a jellyfish sting; the pain is immeasurable, albeit the pain subsides and the sting eventually dissipates, but in doing so you save a life. This is why I agree with you when you say:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Hence, righteousness. To find the courage to make those difficult decisions despite your emotions. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; for I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother," as I did and though I suffered the 'sting' of loneliness, isolation, poverty and fear because I refused to follow, my happiness is greater then it has ever been. I am honest to myself enough not to sacrifice my soul for anyone. This is a good 'hurt'.
The point being to try and find a way to be virtuous in all situations, even those that are admittedly difficult.... Not to try and find a way to justify lying.
Something else to consider:
I recently read On Virtue by Rosalind Hursthouse. She points out that people sometimes make the mistake of looking for a painless way to be virtuous. She suggests that the goal is to be virtuous, not to avoid pain...
It looks like other respondents are thinking along these same lines.
I don't think it's fair to say that narcissists can't love at all. Surely they can love, just not as fully as others might be able to, no?
Quoting TimeLine
Not bad, but worse. That to lie would be the most loving action to take, to not lie being worse than lying.
Quoting TimeLine
In this case lying wouldn't be the most loving, so the most honest thing to do would be to tell the truth, yes.
Quoting TimeLine
Mmm, I don't think so. I doubt the cheater would look at my argument and think he's being honest by not telling the truth, by cheating, etc.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm not convinced yet that lying can't be poured vinegar on a jellyfish sting. Why can't lying be loving, and therefore be honest, if it is judged earnestly by the lying party that to lie is to bring about the least hurt and the most love?