Truth Norms Based On Relationship Context

Truth Norms Based on Relationship Context

 

      "Honesty is the best policy" -Sir Edwin Sandys was perhaps responsible for the original sentiment, and then Benjamin Franklin transposed it into a more current English form. I agree with this policy as a general policy. However, we don't owe all truths to everyone at all times. What we owe to each other when it comes to truth and information sharing is based on relationship context. The reason I lump truth and information together, is the potential for lying (directly deceiving) or omitting relevant information (deception by omission). If pressed on a fact that you do not have a normative requirement to divulge, one should say “I’m not going to talk about that with you” rather than actively giving information that you know is wrong (lying).

 

      A problem we will run into repeated infinitum in our lives is that we may not share the same norms around truth and information sharing as other people. I would argue that we should talk these things out with people around us, tell them our personal norms and inquire about theirs. Then we can come to some compromise and at least have a basis of expected norms (whether people adhere to these or not is another problem, but we can at least start from a base of agreement). Shared culture results in shared norms. Two Catholics who go to the same church service on Sunday can expect a fair amount of normative overlap. Which is certainly not to imply people should only associate within their own culture. This is just something to be mindful of when getting to know people from different cultures.

 

       There is no requirement to tell other people's truths, except in situations where you are acting as a collective. If someone asks what Joe did, we don't owe others that information, and in fact based on the relationship it would be morally right to conceal that information out of a sense of loyalty. In certain cases, there is, of course, a legal obligation to tell the truth. This one is a normative line you must work out for yourself and discuss within your relationships for mutual understanding and acceptance.

 

      Public figures who are entertainers do not owe you any honesty inherently. The reason I say this is because I put the onus on the listener to understand that entertainers are dishonest brokers by default and not meant to be taken seriously. The problem and hypocrisy come when these entertainers claim to be honest and open with their fans. Some claim to provide "more honest" alternatives to "less honest" forms of entertainment. Those people do owe honesty to their listeners because they claim it. Certain podcasters claim they are more honest than radio or talk show hosts simply based on the format. What are the limits of this? Surely, they are always entitled some amount of private life aside from that which they make public.

 

      Public figures that work for the public owe citizens the truth about what they are doing in their public facing job. However, as evidenced many times over dishonesty in these positions is common. At the worst in common measure there is a completely anti-public sentiment. Cynically, it seems the best we can hope for in most cases is partially acting in the public good. These people (are supposed to) work for the public if not in a universal sense at least for their own constituents.

Some would separate the friend from the family relationship. To me they are one in the same. This is the deepest relationship, and you owe more to these friends that you do people you share other relationships with. I would argue you owe each other criticism (constructive feedback) which is not to be confused with insult (nothing constructive). Friends should help each other get better behind the scenes preparing each other for exposure to the broader world. If we are criticizing, or conveying sensitive information, this should be done privately. Not in public or in a group. We should not "put people on blast" in this way when we have a friendship with them. There is also the concern of "does this information matter?" Is this criticism information for a person to improve their life or job, does it help them get closer to their goals? If yes then we should let them know, if not then what is the point of criticizing, really? We shouldn't just pick their ass for no reason.

 

      You owe a co-worker communication as far as is required for each other to do their job, as it affects them. Nothing more. There are natural restraints on what you can divulge based on your job’s confidentiality rules. There is a moral obligation to follow these rules because it is an established norm. We should apply the categorical imperative to this.

 

Let us say you have an enemy or even someone to whom there is no obligation to tell the truth. It is okay to conceal information from them; you do not owe them anything. Is it right to conceal this from them, or is there a moral imperative to let someone know they are your enemy? If there is an event that makes it clear that there is a conflict then this should be enough to let someone know they are not your friend, and the norms of friendship no longer apply.

 

       What we owe to each other when it comes to truth and information is based on relationship context. This is just addressing the moral side of the argument. Of course, psychology teaches us that people lie and omit relevant truths for many different reasons, and we should have an awareness of this. We should model better behaviour to make whatever culture we are part of a more consistent one.