Truth-telling and its pendant, lying, provide a telling vignette to illustrate the vagaries of ethics and rules. The default position is that the truth is told for the sake of the coherence of language and community. Not a few thinkers (including Kant) have held that one should always tell the truth, no matter what; or at least that lying should be reserved for only very extreme cases. Most people have recourse to the device of the white lie: whereas one should always tell the truth, a white lie is not only allowed, but imperative (to avoid an insult, a betrayal, or misleading with a subtlety the listener is ill-equipped to comprehend). But when is a potential lie indeed white? The habitual or occasional liar will be adept at the art of whitewash.One might, for illustrative purposes, develop a list of examples, perhaps broken down by category, of seriously white lies. I propose a different approach. Focussing on the literal truthfulness or falsity of what is said directs our attention fatally away from the wider context, most importantly, from the recipient of the truth or the falsehood. (Advocates of resolute truth-telling, by contrast, like to focus not on the recipient, but on the integrity of the speaker, and any supposed harm to the speaker's character or reputation.) The issue, I submit, is what claim a person may have to receive a truth. A distinction may be drawn between whether they are being presented with an unsolicited untruth or whether they have posed (explicitly or implicitly) a question in expectation of a truthful answer.
The default position must be that a person should not be led astray by novel disinformation. The situation is already quite different when someone demands to know something. In the world of diplomacy and public relations, one response to an indiscreet question is of the sort "We never comment on this sort of matter." More commonly, the responses to an indiscreet question are a lie, a half-truth, an evasion or a redescription of the matter being enquired about. "Three questions, and give me a straight answer, if you will. Have you finally stopped masturbating? Is it true that your bank is in financial difficulties? And what do you really think of me anyway?" (The best weapon in polemics remains satire.)
I propose two principles for judging whether or the extent to which the truth should be told in a given situation.
1. Does the recipient of the truth or the untruth have a claim to be truthfully informed?
2. What respect does the speaker owe the specific person or group being addressed?
The historic pattern of dealing with miscarriages of justice is one that seems to indicate that there is no hurry to attend to the possibility of people being incarcerated on inadequate or uncertain evidence. The path to resolution seems to be laden with obstacles to overcome and, meanwhile, the clock is ticking. It is all so much more difficult when there is more than a good helping of obfuscation( and worse ). no problems with your piece but I have yet to read the links. Meanwhile, well done Sir David Davis - his recent statement brightened my day enormously when I read it this morning .
I have not yet found your video but I will continue to search. Meanwhile, I would like to add that in ,my opinion , Sir David Davis has demonstrated a truly honourable and brave stance in respect of Lucy's case and the law and one that has not been taken even by the party that I would normally support. He is to be applauded.
On when to tell the truth, and when not
900 words, 2007 https://www.thinking-for-clarity.de/Sundry.html
Truth-telling and its pendant, lying, provide a telling vignette to illustrate the vagaries of ethics and rules. The default position is that the truth is told for the sake of the coherence of language and community. Not a few thinkers (including Kant) have held that one should always tell the truth, no matter what; or at least that lying should be reserved for only very extreme cases. Most people have recourse to the device of the white lie: whereas one should always tell the truth, a white lie is not only allowed, but imperative (to avoid an insult, a betrayal, or misleading with a subtlety the listener is ill-equipped to comprehend). But when is a potential lie indeed white? The habitual or occasional liar will be adept at the art of whitewash.One might, for illustrative purposes, develop a list of examples, perhaps broken down by category, of seriously white lies. I propose a different approach. Focussing on the literal truthfulness or falsity of what is said directs our attention fatally away from the wider context, most importantly, from the recipient of the truth or the falsehood. (Advocates of resolute truth-telling, by contrast, like to focus not on the recipient, but on the integrity of the speaker, and any supposed harm to the speaker's character or reputation.) The issue, I submit, is what claim a person may have to receive a truth. A distinction may be drawn between whether they are being presented with an unsolicited untruth or whether they have posed (explicitly or implicitly) a question in expectation of a truthful answer.
The default position must be that a person should not be led astray by novel disinformation. The situation is already quite different when someone demands to know something. In the world of diplomacy and public relations, one response to an indiscreet question is of the sort "We never comment on this sort of matter." More commonly, the responses to an indiscreet question are a lie, a half-truth, an evasion or a redescription of the matter being enquired about. "Three questions, and give me a straight answer, if you will. Have you finally stopped masturbating? Is it true that your bank is in financial difficulties? And what do you really think of me anyway?" (The best weapon in polemics remains satire.)
I propose two principles for judging whether or the extent to which the truth should be told in a given situation.
1. Does the recipient of the truth or the untruth have a claim to be truthfully informed?
2. What respect does the speaker owe the specific person or group being addressed?
.....
My post focussed on the function of lying (survival) , rather than judging whether people should lie or not lie in any given situation
We agree. I was just changing the subject slightly.
The historic pattern of dealing with miscarriages of justice is one that seems to indicate that there is no hurry to attend to the possibility of people being incarcerated on inadequate or uncertain evidence. The path to resolution seems to be laden with obstacles to overcome and, meanwhile, the clock is ticking. It is all so much more difficult when there is more than a good helping of obfuscation( and worse ). no problems with your piece but I have yet to read the links. Meanwhile, well done Sir David Davis - his recent statement brightened my day enormously when I read it this morning .
Yes I put a video about David davis move on my you tube this morning - great news
I have not yet found your video but I will continue to search. Meanwhile, I would like to add that in ,my opinion , Sir David Davis has demonstrated a truly honourable and brave stance in respect of Lucy's case and the law and one that has not been taken even by the party that I would normally support. He is to be applauded.
The video was just a short msg to link to the LBC article on David David letter to chief constable info you already know