Is Honesty a Moral Imperative or a Personal Value?

[jwoodie]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance. What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate? That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions. This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind. Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

 

[DGS49]

One must always be truthful. Not only is it the best personal policy, but to do otherwise destroys your perceived character.

When someone lies to me, I write them off. You can NEVER regain someone's trust once you have lied to them.

This is not to say that you have to tell everything you know to everybody, but once you open your mouth, it had better be the truth.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance. What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate? That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions. This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind. Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

I believe I am honest, often to a fault. I'd only be willing to lie to save someones life or protect someone from the abuses of a nefarious person or organization. It is moral imperative because it is covered in the Torah a commandment from G-d.

Once you live long enough you learn the great wisdom that character is important and I don't ever want to be a fraud to myself or G-d when it comes to my regular interactions in life. Be a man, speak the truth as best you can, flaws and all, and then don't live with regrets you created yourself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance. What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate? That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions. This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind. Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

Ignore the Crooks Who Preach Morality

Think of the truth as your personal property, which no individual has the right to demand that you hand it over to him. People have to earn the right to be told the truth. Few do.

 

[Crepitus]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance. What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate? That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions. This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind. Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

Morals are a product of the society you live in. "extrinsic", as you said.

Values likewise, as they have more to do with what others think than what you do.

 

[1srelluc]

If you ask me something I might not tell you everything I know but what I tell you will be the truth.

Often times people don't know when to quit asking questions and those that can't find it in themselves to cut them off often stray into fibbing.

I don't suffer from that.

 

[d0gbreath]

Most people will lie to keep themselves out of trouble.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

The Lie said to the Truth, "Let's take a bath together, the well water is very nice. The Truth, still suspicious, tested the water and found out it really was nice. So they got naked and bathed. But suddenly, the Lie leapt out of the water and fled, wearing the clothes of the Truth. The Truth, furious, climbed out of the well to get her clothes back. But the World, upon seeing the naked Truth, looked away, with anger and contempt. Poor Truth returned to the well and disappeared forever, hiding her shame. Since then, the Lie runs around the world, dressed as the Truth, and society is very happy... Because the world has no desire to know the naked Truth.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Telling the truth is good for the other person, but bad for you.

This is what I have learned. Meh.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance.

Exactly. To lie is no sin. In the opposite making a false accusation or giving false testimony is not only a sin but also a crime.

What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate?

That's normal. And you are in the opposite also able to lie and to say unintentionally the truth with this lie.

That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Yes and no. The real problem is that our brain is a kind of reality simulator while all around us is reality. You see for example a blue sky. And your best friend sees a blue sky. You learned to call this what you see "blue". All other blue things have more or less the same blue color spectrum. And this seems to be the same for your best friend - but (experiment by thoughts now!): indeed he sees the sky with your green and all other "blue" thing in the way how you see them in your green spectrum. But ... and this is a very big "but" now, so BUT he learned to call this blue!!! So he calls the same things blue as you call blue while indeed your 'green' is his blue. The realities of your simulation of the reality could be different - but you both see always the same color - which you both call "blue". But no one of you is able to know what the other one is really seeing. Your green could be his blue and his red could be your blue for example. But you both learned to call all blue things blue, all green things green and all red things red. Nevertheless the quality of this what you see could be totally different. So: “You can't argue about taste!”

This process is influencing everything what has to do with psychology.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

To be honest is normally no "small talk".

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions.

This is "plausibility". Now you leave the spectrum of psychology and enter the spectrum of sociology - or with other words: We are not only an "I" we are also a "we". When you learn mathematics for example then you have many "I's" in this mathematics and this "I's" are proven from many other "I's". All this plausibilities together we are able to call "intersubjective truth". And this is the highest form of "truth" we are able to know. Nevertheless exists also an objective truth. In pyhsics for example the objective truth is represented from experiments. But in history - and other subjects - exist no experiments.

This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind.

Not really: We have always opinions about everything - even in case we know nothing. For example we had the opinion that the
world had been created a long time ago. Then someone had the brilliant idea to like to know how many years exactly this had been. He quantified this by counting in the bible the number of years since the world had been created. 6000 years; This was the first approximation. The last approximation was made in Cern with 13.8 billion years. So the first opinion was right: the world had been created a long time ago. Modern is it today to call the man who made the first approximation a stupid idiot. But no one argues why.

Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

I? I say what I think. And sometimes I hate it to be right.

 

[jwoodie]

We have always opinions about everything - even in case we know nothing.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't have opinions on things I have never encountered, such as food I have never tasted or people I have never met. Perhaps a distinction should be made between honest opinions (based on personal conclusions) and dishonest opinions (based on other factors).

Ironically, an opinion that the Earth is 6000 years old could be considered more honest (if the Bible is accepted as an definitive source) than a mere repetition of someone else's opinion about an otherwise incomprehensible number.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm not sure I agree. I don't have opinions on things I have never encountered, such as food I have never tasted

Let me tell you a story of the Prussian king "Der alte Fritz" ("The old Fred"). When he had been young he made a lot of bullshit and wars but when he was older he became a very wise tolerant man. So the people hated the young Fred - but loved "den alten Fritz" - "the old Fred". He's a legend.
On reason to fight hunger he tried to introduce a new agricultural crop. Maybe you heard from it. In German it is called "Kartoffel". The word comes from the Italian word "tartuffo" (="truffle") what came from Latin "terrae tufer" (=earth truffle), Any idea what I speak about now? I hope you did not make the mistake to think it is a "terra tuber" - an "Alpenveilchen" (=Alpine violet). "Tartoffel" - ahm sorry: "Kartoffel" - means in German "Earth tuber" - so the same agricultural crop is also called "Erdapfel" (Earth apple). The problem: The herb of this crop is poisonous. When the people heard this they avoided to use this poisonous herb. Do you still listen? Ah sorry: Do you still read? Do you have any opinions now? Let me tell you: If you had been a German farmer of this time you had had the same opinion as all the other Greman farmers: "King Fred who made always only nonsense (still he was "the young Fred") calls this herb "worthful truffle". Indeed it is poisouness".
How changed the man - who will soon be called "the old Fred" - this opinion of his people? Very easy: He planted ‘Kartoffeln’ in the royal fields and had them guarded by his soldiers. So the people became suspicious. Which crop is so damn valuable that it has to be guarded by soldiers? ... Result: A short time later all over Prussia people planted and harvested potatoes. The war on hunger of "der alte Fritz" ended successful. (His real wars - better to say unreal wars when he had been young - had been a disaster.)

or people I have never met. Perhaps a distinction should be made between honest opinions (based on personal conclusions) and dishonest opinions (based on other factors).

People are honest or dishonest. Opinions not. Opinions are perhaps sometimes "criminal" - no real opinions but manipulating opinions, "propaganda", lies. This makes it difficult to communicate. I think the key word is "education" - also spiritual education. Because of Donald Trump - a man who became only old but not wise - I saw suddenly very clear that we nearly forgot an essential backbone of democracy: the owl of Athens. We miss wisdom! My opinion, my five pence: If someone likes to become old and wise he should never forget the word "Sapere aude" (="Dare to be wise") which became famous by Immanual Kant ("Habe den Mut Dich Deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen" = "Have the courage to use your own mind") who referred to the nearly forgotten words of Horace: Dímidiúm factí, qui coépit, habét: saper(e) aúde, / íncipe = "Once begun is already done. Resolve to understand! / Only begin!"

Ironically, an opinion that the Earth is 6000 years old could be considered more honest (if the Bible is accepted as an definitive source) than a mere repetition of someone else's opinion about an otherwise incomprehensible number.

The "simple" idea was to quantify the problem. That's why the first "approximator" was so damn important. He started a process to approximate from the most reliable source he knew. He was a natural scientist - perhaps without to know it on his own. He was a first cell from this egg of the hen natural philosophy.

It is by the way possible that 13.8 billion years is totally wrong. Under special conditions it could also only be 10 billion years for example. We don't measure time - we measure "red shift" in this what we call "opus dei" or "creation" or "universe". The time do we calculate.

 

[Moonglow]

One must always be truthful. Not only is it the best personal policy, but to do otherwise destroys your perceived character.

When someone lies to me, I write them off. You can NEVER regain someone's trust once you have lied to them.

This is not to say that you have to tell everything you know to everybody, but once you open your mouth, it had better be the truth.

Trump lied to you yet you failed to write him off.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I don't have opinions on things I have never encountered, such as food I have never tasted ... .

The strange thing: Everyone has "prejudices" - perhaps better to say pre-prepositions - in case of unknown food. Let me take the fruit which is called in the languages Tupi, Guaraní and in the Caribean "nana" and "anana" so we Germans call it "Ananas". Since ever - really since ever - up to a little more than 500 years ago never any ancestor of us Germans ate an "Ananas". Then the first German ate such a fruit which has a totally original taste which is not comparable with anything else and said - because he was nearly the same idiot as I am: "Aha - wonderful - this is the taste of an Ananas. An own quality. Comparable with nothing else."

The question(s) now in this context: Eh? How is this able to work? Who knows babies knows we learn really everything - not only our languages but also the color of our languages. But this we don't learn. Since ever - really since ever - was the recognition of the taste of an Ananas in our brain - in our "reality simulator" how I often call the brain. But how came it in? And is the quality I taste when I eat an Ananas the same quality as you have when you eat a simple pineapple - which has nothing to do with pines and nothing to do with apples?

For sure you have an opinion about pineapples - and I guess you needed about 0.7 seconds to build this opinion about pineapples. I for example like it - and the people who hate it most lie in their graves together with their pineapple allergy. Exists a pineapple allergy?

By the way: Never anyone "believed" in pineapples here - suddenly they existed. But many atheists are totally sure that wonders do not exist. But if a pineapple is no wonder - whatelse for heaven sake could he a wonder - including the fact to love it to eat [a little part] of a pineapple? A delicate delight.

 

[sparky]

Truth comes with a price......

example>>

You respond to a car wreck with a badly injured woman who is unaware her child has died .........she asks you 'how's my little boy?'

what is your response to her??

~S~

 

[DGS49]

Trump lied to you yet you failed to write him off.

Name a substantive Trump lie...something on the order of "If you like your doctor.." or "The Southern border is closed."

Just one. Substantive. I'll wait.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Honesty, keeping your word, is a moral value, yes.

To deny it is another demonstration of lack of empathy.

 

[MarathonMike]

I think that morals are extrinsic rules that are learned from others, whereas values derive from personal application of those rules. The Ninth Commandment says that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (i.e., harm someone else), but it doesn't seem to require truth in every utterance. What if you say some thing that you believe to be true but turns out to be inaccurate? That is where the value of honesty comes into play.

Honesty can be further broken down in two ways. The first way is simply saying whatever you are thinking at the time. This can be a personal feeling or a reaction to some event. This does not require factual or logical accuracy, but only the lack of intent to deceive someone. It is sometimes referred to as "small talk" which may be sincere, but is not generally accepted as authoritative.

The second way to evaluate honesty is whether it represents a considered opinion that is based on established facts and logical conclusions. This involves harder work than small talk, both on the parts of the speaker and of the listener. An honest person hesitates to express an opinion that has not been examined in his own mind. Correspondingly, the listener has an obligation to verify the facts presented and apply the rules of logic to them. Otherwise, there is no meaningful communication between them.

What do you think? Are you an honest person?

I don't disagree, but I also think honesty encompasses how someone conducts him or herself i.e. your actions. Some simple examples are the golfer that kicks his ball out from behind a tree without telling his playing partners, cheating on your wife or embezzling money from your company.