That honesty is a noble virtue is indisputable. But an unwavering devotion to its employ demonstrates at best, a child’s innocence, and at worst, a blatant naiveté.
From Cain’s “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?” to Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” the lie has been a stain omnipresent in the human experience. Today, our skill for deception has become so sophisticated that the truth often seems less convincing than the lie devised to mask it. Consequently, those who lie effectively have gained power in the most important of social institutions (e.g. religion, government).
As a hypothetical example of the way in which the dishonest gain power, let us envisage a race between two candidates: one an honest man with an explicitly defined platform, and the other less honest, with a more indefinite platform. The first, in his campaigning, would encounter either total support or total opposition; the second, however, would encounter more indifference than either support or opposition. Since the first candidate has an inflexible stance on political issues, there is little he can do to gain additional support. Conversely, the second candidate does not have a well-defined stance on political issues, so he can progressively adjust his platform to reflect the views of the various factions whose backing he is trying to secure. While not necessarily promising as much as the first candidate, he can, through his general neutrality and occasional duplicity, gain a more diverse array of constituents than his opponent, and, thus, win the election.
In a perfect world, no candidate would lie to gain power. But, alas, we do not live in such a world, and, at least in politics, in order for an honest man to generate the same sort of appeal as his more devious counterpart, he, himself, must learn to effectively use lies. And although many might consider such a departure from integrity unethical, is it not justified if it ultimately allows for the ascension of an honest man to political power and prevents the monopolization of government by those whose treachery is innate?
Talk of power and politics aside, in a discussion of honesty, we cannot avoid the most common and, seemingly, most innocuous lie of them all: the white lie. But it is not as simple a topic as we would like. The white lie is damningly paradoxical- on the one hand, it is by nature a means of deception, and thus unethical; on the other hand, it usually harms no one, and thus is not necessarily wrong. So should it be employed? Well… yes, and no.
The yes is for situations in which another person’s feelings would be unduly hurt if it were not for a lie. As an example, let us imagine the following scenario: I am at the home of a lonely, elderly lady for dinner. After eating a particularly disagreeable course of cod smeared with braunschweiger and a side of pinto beans, she asks me if I would like a second helping. In order not to hurt her feelings, I smile and lie through my teeth that although it was quite a delicious meal, I am too full to have anymore.
The yes is also for situations when telling the truth would be so “blatantly naive” that it would cause conflict where none was formerly present. To clarify this somewhat vague statement with an example, let us say I am going out with a girl who, although almost perfect, has one small flaw: her affinity for ugly pantsuits. One day, she asks me for an opinion on the furry brown one she is wearing. Although I want to reply, “It makes you look like a Neanderthal,” I do not, for I know that if I do she will inflict upon me severe physical injury and end our hitherto happy relationship.
In scenarios which do not fall into the two aforementioned categories, white lies should not be employed, as there is no need to pollute virtue even more than modern society already has. Perhaps, dear reader, such a statement may seem hypocritical to you, as I, just paragraphs earlier, defended the use of infinitely more severe lies. However, although deception in the pursuit of power is, in and of itself, much more depraved than deception through the use of a white lie, in the context that I have presented, the very opposite is true. Why? The ultimate result of an honest politician stretching the truth to gain constituents is his victory over an innately dishonest opponent; the ultimate result of answering your boss that you didn’t see the stapler is that Sheila now has to pay $40 for the apparently limited-edition Bostitch you crushed with your office chair.
From Cain’s “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?” to Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” the lie has been a stain omnipresent in the human experience. Today, our skill for deception has become so sophisticated that the truth often seems less convincing than the lie devised to mask it. Consequently, those who lie effectively have gained power in the most important of social institutions (e.g. religion, government).
As a hypothetical example of the way in which the dishonest gain power, let us envisage a race between two candidates: one an honest man with an explicitly defined platform, and the other less honest, with a more indefinite platform. The first, in his campaigning, would encounter either total support or total opposition; the second, however, would encounter more indifference than either support or opposition. Since the first candidate has an inflexible stance on political issues, there is little he can do to gain additional support. Conversely, the second candidate does not have a well-defined stance on political issues, so he can progressively adjust his platform to reflect the views of the various factions whose backing he is trying to secure. While not necessarily promising as much as the first candidate, he can, through his general neutrality and occasional duplicity, gain a more diverse array of constituents than his opponent, and, thus, win the election.
In a perfect world, no candidate would lie to gain power. But, alas, we do not live in such a world, and, at least in politics, in order for an honest man to generate the same sort of appeal as his more devious counterpart, he, himself, must learn to effectively use lies. And although many might consider such a departure from integrity unethical, is it not justified if it ultimately allows for the ascension of an honest man to political power and prevents the monopolization of government by those whose treachery is innate?
Talk of power and politics aside, in a discussion of honesty, we cannot avoid the most common and, seemingly, most innocuous lie of them all: the white lie. But it is not as simple a topic as we would like. The white lie is damningly paradoxical- on the one hand, it is by nature a means of deception, and thus unethical; on the other hand, it usually harms no one, and thus is not necessarily wrong. So should it be employed? Well… yes, and no.
The yes is for situations in which another person’s feelings would be unduly hurt if it were not for a lie. As an example, let us imagine the following scenario: I am at the home of a lonely, elderly lady for dinner. After eating a particularly disagreeable course of cod smeared with braunschweiger and a side of pinto beans, she asks me if I would like a second helping. In order not to hurt her feelings, I smile and lie through my teeth that although it was quite a delicious meal, I am too full to have anymore.
The yes is also for situations when telling the truth would be so “blatantly naive” that it would cause conflict where none was formerly present. To clarify this somewhat vague statement with an example, let us say I am going out with a girl who, although almost perfect, has one small flaw: her affinity for ugly pantsuits. One day, she asks me for an opinion on the furry brown one she is wearing. Although I want to reply, “It makes you look like a Neanderthal,” I do not, for I know that if I do she will inflict upon me severe physical injury and end our hitherto happy relationship.
In scenarios which do not fall into the two aforementioned categories, white lies should not be employed, as there is no need to pollute virtue even more than modern society already has. Perhaps, dear reader, such a statement may seem hypocritical to you, as I, just paragraphs earlier, defended the use of infinitely more severe lies. However, although deception in the pursuit of power is, in and of itself, much more depraved than deception through the use of a white lie, in the context that I have presented, the very opposite is true. Why? The ultimate result of an honest politician stretching the truth to gain constituents is his victory over an innately dishonest opponent; the ultimate result of answering your boss that you didn’t see the stapler is that Sheila now has to pay $40 for the apparently limited-edition Bostitch you crushed with your office chair.