It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For me, honesty is not a matter of "needs of the many." That rationale can always be used to do injustice.
No, honesty is not always about doing what's good for everybody. "Do I look fat in these jeans?" You can be honest, but tactful. Or you can be dishonest with a perceived notion of "white lie that's good for everybody."
The vaguer ideal posted in this thread, is unworkable, corruptible and entirely subjective.
What I value and respect, is honesty taking a precedent to "common good." Lies can also serve the "common good." Honesty serves the conscience, whiles lies cannot.
And there you have the solution proposed by St. Augustine. Lying is a terrible thing to do. There are only two ethical choices when one is in a position where lying is a possibility.
Thanks for presenting different scenarios in which our honesty may be tested. When it comes to examples like "Where are you hiding your family, we're going to kill them," I think people have the right to remain silent. There is no greater good in allowing harm to come to others.
Originally posted by charles1952
there is one other poster I avoid completely. I will not post in a thread I see he has posted in. Which only shows we can all be unreasonable at times. - C -
Originally posted by charles1952
One of the things I like about Augustine's position is that when I'm weak, sorely tempted, or my love is temporarily wavering, he provides a guide that I can hold on to. It's a principle that I can test my conduct against when I'm uncertain (and that happens more frequently than I'd like to admit) and know that I'm on the right path still.
You are correct. There are a number of people I like, but don't trust their word in the slightest. That's reasonable self-defense.
If someone has a predictable, well-established pattern of lying, do we not learn to protect ourselves from their dishonesty?
Absolutely correct again. A large percentage of posters (Myself included?) rarely have anything of value to say on any subject. They're like dust on the TV set, a minor annoyance, but nothing to worry about.
If someone has a predictable, well-established pattern of making unfavorable posts, should we not learn, adapt, and ignore?
Magnificent question. Because of my emotional involvement, I'm not sure I'm thinking clearly here. Does the offender need to take the first step? Does he know that he's wronged someone? Has the effort for reconciliation been made? What about forgive "seventy times seven."
This is akin to the "boy who cried wolf" moral. Now, by refusing to acknowledge the posts of members we may find unfavorable we are, in effect, standing idly by as they are eaten by the wolf.
How honest can we be if we're not giving someone a chance for redemption? Conversely, where is the line drawn when someone has betrayed our trust in them? Does it take X amount of times before we put an end to the pattern? Is it based on the degree of our emotional response?
Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
It's a brilliant episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation titled "The First Duty." It should be available on Netflix from what I hear.
It's a powerful episode with a powerful message. Picard is one of my role-models, as embarrassing as that is to admit. I later learned about truth and its importance while living life and practicing compassion.