April 9 - Minimizing harm and ethical lying

This coming Wednesday we will be discussing the balance between minimizing harm and ethical dishonesty.

Let's face it, lying is a fact of human life. even Kant, who became famous as a philosopher partly due to his believe that one should never lie, evaded the truth when being questioned by his emperor about on loyalty.

In a previous discussion elsewhere when discussing honesty, Shula had proposed that rather than the principle to never lie, that it is better to minimize harm.

Human existence is too complicated for a simple principle to be honest without exception. 

If there is a murderer at your door wanting to know if you are harboring his intended victim, your honesty about the victim's existence in your home will do more harm than the benefit of protecting your principle.

As Andrew also said at the discussion then that he will never trust his secrets with anyone who never lies as this person will have to expose the secrets when asked.

Even scientific research with the "love drug" oxytocin show people lie more when they are under the influence of this drug.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26771703

Then there are the social situation where the unpleasant truth is avoided, covered, or whitewashed over.

So it is logical to say minimizing harm is a more practical principle than sticking to honesty whatever the circumstance. 

But minimizing harm itself is a complicated concept.

How do we measure harm?

How do we sum up the overall harm to various parties?

How do we weigh this sum total of harm against our reputation as an honest person? the need to uphold integrity and social stability?

We need to know that most of us are honest most of the time to maintain social order. 

Without honesty there is no trust.  Without trust, there is no collaboration; we are back to everyone for oneself and the law of the jungle.

Modern social structures like paper money, democratic government, and commerce simply cannot exist if we don't think that the systems are largely honest with occasional lapses that we agree as acceptable exceptions.

Perhaps minimizing harm comes down to being dishonest in situations that others will also be dishonest in similar situations.  It is a value judgment that most others will sympathize and agree with.

I maintain my trust with someone who is dishonest because I understand the circumstance around his being dishonest and I may make that same choice to be dishonest but it is a rare exception to us being dishonest.


If so, does minimizing harm depend on group consensus?  A person of principle may be quite alone and his exception to the principle of being honest may be too restrictive by popular standards.

Is this principled person leading us to a more honest society or is he just impractical?

How do we minimize harm? to the people involved in the immediate circumstances or also to the trust relationship we have with others?  What about the overall level of trust that is being eroded when dishonesty is disclosed?

How do we deal with future possibilities of dishonesty now that we allow that ethical lying is necessary and even beneficial?