Honesty. Is it a gift that people may give? Or is it a burden that one must endure over time? What is the cost of Honesty? It can make you happy, or ruin your life. Is it circumstance? Or just another demon created by the humen race.

Honesty, at what cost???



-Guyute

We have to assume that other people are honest, because otherwise their statements become unreliable and we have no basis for our actions regarding them. Honesty is provably necessary to some degree, but beyond that it is still desirable in my opinion.

Endemic dishonesty (if your family lied to you all your life, for instance) can be very damaging, whether or not you discover it. Usually you discover it anyway...

Cause and effect.

It matters on what it is you are being honest about and the effect of it. There's no general effect.

Guyute: Does honesty ruin your life? Or are you transferring the effects of another action to honesty on the basis that "if no one knew it wouldn't be a problem"?

Well we wouldnt know it if we didnt have concious or emotions....

But, Honesty at the cost of the concenquense. I concluded that it is all circumstance like everything in this world.

Agree BlueHead???

-Guyute

And yes, the question....

Does Honesty Ruin your Life???

(Good one BigBlue)

-Guyute

The most important thing is to be honest with yourself. At any cost.

Honesty can wrap itself around your brain like an squid made of iron and glass. It can open doors. It can shut doors. It can do anything it wants, because it is what it is.

Honesty can be damaging in the aspect that modern society has molded people not to expect it. People can despise the truth because they are not geared up to accept it. However, the short term negative consequences are far outweighed by long term credibility and perhaps a reciprecated openness.

And yes, the question....

Does Honesty Ruin your Life???

(Good one BigBlue)

-Guyute
Yes, yes it does.

It takes experience to know when to tell the truth or not and it depends on the individual and his/her intentions.

It is better to say nothing rather than lie about it.

That's just not always true, friend.

Speaking from personal experience, the burden of honesty is having to embrace the fact that truth is a matter of perspective. But sometimes it is easy to get lost when exploring the labyrinth of perspective. You can lose yourself rather easily there. And sometimes, when a mirror is passed, you may glimpse the shadow of a Minotaur.

Cosmic: Is there really that big a difference between omitting and lying?

If it's someone you love, do you think "You never asked" is gonna cut it?

My experience,
I used to have a motto '"You may lie to others but never lie to yourself"
Easier said than done you may think.

To learn and grow towards your own truth requires self honesty even brutal self honesty. At least know when you are lying.

I make it a point to try and be completely honest all the time to anyone.
I make some exceptions from time to time.

Such as when someone asks me something that I feel is none of that person's business and they will make an assumption of my answer by the reply, "That is none of your business." Such as if my boss asks me if I smoke weed.

I will also lie to protect someone I care for. Not lie TO THEM, mind you, but lie FOR them. (but that is few and far-between and will take a helluva consequence aimed at that person for me to lie to them.

Other than that, I really can't think of any circumstance that justifies me lying.

I have learned that it really is SO much easier to simply tell the truth than lie.
If someone doesn't like the truth they hear, they should learn not to ask the wrong questions.

I like what Dr Seuss said...
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

too right, it takes a hell of alot of energy to support a lie. Much less energy needed to support your truth.

less lying equals less stress

Scenario,

Say GW Bush needs to go into Iraq because of reasons that he can't publish. Say the truth is just too scarey that the public would go into a state of panic big time and worse he can't be absolutely sure of the reason because it is based on incomplete information about the personality involved. In his mind itis a question of 'Will he or Wont he do as he fears. Say for instance he knows that Saddam has a virus that is secreted into the USA and is the subject of extortion by Saddam.

He can't tell the public that the risk of invading Iraq includes the possibility of a virus release as this would create an impossible situation becasue he isn't absolutely sure.

So he lies to the public and says that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction but avoids saying where those weapons are by suggesting that they exist in Iraqi soil.

He knows the weapons exist but is not sure whether the threat to use them will be carried out. He can't allow extrortion and black mail. So he does the only thing he can and decides to play the bluff....

So as it has turned out the bluff has been called ( so far) but the most inportant thing is that the American public and the world in general are able to have an illusional degree of certaintly, can sleep at night etc. Thus allowing for the best possible response to the threat.

Honesty can certainly have a price especially if the truth diminishes the ability to act on what is being lied about or hidden.

Of course one has to assume that Bush's motivation is altruistic and of course this is a precarious asumption.

Scenario...

Just off the top of my head...

1.) I personally would sleep much better at night if I knew the truth rather than not knowing anything since his lies are far too obvious and shoddy.
2.) He is not just lying to us, he is lying to the rest of the world, and that reflects poorly on us.
3.) I would prefer to know the truth and prepare for it an whichever way I feel free to prepare.
4.) I would never assume any politician, especially Bush, was being altruistic in his intentions period, and the fact that he is lying (even if with noble intentions) makes it that much harder for me to accept.
5.) Invading ANY country should NEVER be done "for reasons that he can't publish"! We do not live in an autocracy. We have a right and a responsibility to not only know what our government is doing ob behalf of us but have a say in the actions taken.
6.) How would saying, "Saddam has a virus, has snuck into the country and is planning on using it" cause more widespread panic than saying, "Saddam has WMD and is planning on using them, and we should be very wary about terrorist attacks on US soil, such as Anthrax letters."?
7.) If Saddam had a bio-weapon HERE, what good would it do to blow up his soldiers and cities THERE? All he would have to do is send a message to release it any time he wants to.

I could go on, but I am sure this is boring enough to read already, plus I think I made my point.