Are you not being dishonest by not saying anything? Inaction is action; witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is just as terrible as committing the crime; one can answer a question by not answering, that dishonesty becomes necessary as you a caught between protecting the trust of a man who unfairly expressed his wrongdoing to you in confidence and her unfairly pressing to inform her of the truth. Moral dilemmas are never fair. — TimeLine

I agree with you here, but the bit you quoted from me was the situation where I had no knowledge of any cheating going on. If I don't know there to be cheating going, I definitely wouldn't gossip, instead telling (her) to ask her partner what the truth is, not me.

For my part, I would tell her but certainly not before I inform him that I will be if he does not because there are a number of principles that I adhere to that far outweigh his trust, and certainly I admire and wholeheartedly respect the courage one has to stand and face your wrongdoing. As I said, moral dilemmas are never fair and I will deflect that unfairness back to the source or the very root cause of the ethical issue even if it means losing a friend or making an enemy. — TimeLine

Your example can shoot off in a million different ways. To be honest, I think this cheating example is way too hard to think about in an abstract way, seeing as I think we're both, perhaps, thinking of our own real life circumstances where we've been the middleman (or middlewoman, O:)).

I understand this, but it is a blanket morality. It is trying to shield the guilt in some ways for failing to take the right action at a given moment and make yourself believe that an alternative solution can resolve the problem. All this does is prolong the inevitable. — TimeLine

I'd say that lying does prolong the inevitability of not lying about "it". I just think that such inevitability may be okay if the issue is prolonged for the right reason(s). For what it's worth, I don't see this decision as being routine or commonplace.

It is not his partner that he loves but what he attains from having such a partner, a social status, a community of people that congratulate his trophy but that emptiness is hidden. What people don't know does not miraculously make a person moral and a coward or a liar is incapable of loving. It is that subjective intent that matters and I am certain that a man who genuinely loves a woman would not be able to cheat on her, which leads to: — TimeLine

I'm not so sure. I think one's love of another can be separate from his sin. That is, I can love someone as fully as I am able to, but still make mistakes that threaten that love's future. Making those mistakes doesn't mean I don't love my partner, though, or that I don't want such a love to continue. I mean, just because there is a genuine love between two people doesn't negate the possibility of transgression between them.

Honesty is an end in itself and so can be evaluated as good/bad but lying is a means and is neither good nor bad. — TheMadFool

Dunno if I agree with this. I think lying is always bad, but that it can be necessarily bad if done out of love for love's sake, which is the end.

I think you're equating lying with, say, a firearm - both are amoral means toward potentially moral or immoral ends. Have I got that right?

I think you're equating lying with, say, a firearm - both are amoral means toward potentially moral or immoral ends. Have I got that right? — Heister Eggcart

Yes.

1. In a murder case, the weapon is simply the means to achieve an objective (death) and it isn't judged. The person, his objective to kill, is judged. What are actions but means to achieve ends.

2. Evaluating actions as good/bad leads to confusion because consequences are notoriously difficult to evaluate, and inherent moral attributes, again are very difficult to judge.

Your example can shoot off in a million different ways. To be honest, I think this cheating example is way too hard to think about in an abstract way, seeing as I think we're both, perhaps, thinking of our own real life circumstances where we've been the middleman (or middlewoman, O:)). — Heister Eggcart

Bloody hell, I have this thing about me that people have this urge to tell me their deepest and darkest secrets and I assure you some things are really :-O worthy, thinking that somehow I am experienced to help them.

No.

I'd say that lying does prolong the inevitability of not lying about "it". I just think that such inevitability may be okay if the issue is prolonged for the right reason(s). For what it's worth, I don't see this decision as being routine or commonplace. — Heister Eggcart

You would be surprised.

Ever heard of the term 'whipped' where a person is controlled - whether consciously or not - by their partner? I have seen it a number of times and the condescension is so horrible that rather than the relationship being an amicable, mutual love and respect, it is instead prolonging and surviving by committing soul suicide. It is like you change yourself to mould into your environment and lose your own identity along the way. The lying is really to themselves and while it may appear for the right reasons, no one should ever be in a position to sacrifice themselves for the sake of prolonging something wrong in the first place.

I mean, just because there is a genuine love between two people doesn't negate the possibility of transgression between them. — Heister Eggcart

I agree, but it is really relative both with the transgression and whether the relationship is genuine; there are many men, for instance, that use physical violence against women and say that they did so because they loved them. If love is subjective towards someone that you admire and respect rather than merely dependence and an external show, I would assume that conversely feelings of resentment or no respect for your partner - though not publicly visible - can confirm it is not really genuine.

In the instance where it is genuine love, we are all human. We can say and do stupid things, but it really is about whether the person really feels remorse that can make forgiveness possible.

Solution: don't get involved with people who cheat on each other ;)

Bloody hell, I have this thing about me that people have this urge to tell me their deepest and darkest secrets and I assure you some things are really :-O worthy, thinking that somehow I am experienced to help them. — TimeLine

Well, you do present yourself as a no-it-all, :B

Ever heard of the term 'whipped' where a person is controlled - whether consciously or not - by their partner? I have seen it a number of times and the condescension is so horrible that rather than the relationship being an amicable, mutual love and respect, it is instead prolonging and surviving by committing soul suicide. It is like you change yourself to mould into your environment and lose your own identity along the way. The lying is really to themselves and while it may appear for the right reasons, no one should ever be in a position to sacrifice themselves for the sake of prolonging something wrong in the first place. — TimeLine

I have, and in my experience the "whipper" isn't always aware of what they're doing, which can be a little strange to navigate as a middleman.

I agree, but it is really relative both with the transgression and whether the relationship is genuine; there are many men, for instance, that use physical violence against women and say that they did so because they loved them. If love is subjective towards someone that you admire and respect rather than merely dependence and an external show, I would assume that conversely feelings of resentment or no respect for your partner - though not publicly visible - can confirm it is not really genuine. — TimeLine

Love is as I defined it in my OP. Beating your wife is not loving, so their claiming that it is is just wrong.

In the instance where it is genuine love, we are all human. We can say and do stupid things, but it really is about whether the person really feels remorse that can make forgiveness possible. — TimeLine

Remorse requires humility, which is hard to come by.

Well, you do present yourself as a no-it-all, :B — Heister Eggcart

There is real knowledge about life and sometimes people experience bad things. Indeed, I am righteous by nature and hate injustice and the chosen field of my profession is specifically because of my determination to defend and support disadvantaged children who need a voice they would otherwise not have. But my knowledge does not descend into the bottomless pit of the grotesque. I don't want to hear about the weird shit people willingly do to themselves and each other, neither do I want to hear the whinges of the privileged crying that their plastic surgery hasn't helped secure the affections of their nasty boyfriend. Fuck off.

Love is as I defined it in my OP. Beating your wife is not loving, so their claiming that it is is just wrong. — Heister Eggcart

Your definition is what attracted me to this thread in the first place and while I believe that love is about giving love or having the attributes that care and empathise with others, without moral consciousness and a capacity for honest self-reflection, one can easily deceive themselves. Ring of Gyges. For instance, a person who witnesses a crime but looks the other way, or the narcissist who is a loving person only to those who love him. It could be that one deceives himself into thinking that he is protecting the interests of a loved one, but really he is protecting his own interests and there are a number of people that put on a show - think paedophilia and those Catholic priests that pretend to holiness - so it is about ascertaining that subjective honesty that wills the good. There is a unity in giving love, where people become one in a universal sense and you do not selectively give to one person and not the other, otherwise the love itself remains egotistic. So, it is about calculating the right decision according to this universal moral in a Kantian sense. I have turned my back even on family members because they are not good people, despite the fact that we are related because of my determination to adhere to universal principles like justice and righteousness.

Whether introspection is epistemically possible is another problem entirely though perhaps more a metaphysical question, in the end I am confident that honesty to oneself will assuredly mean that you would be honest to others, even if it means that you will hurt them because that is what being virtuous is; taking responsibility. In the case of ethical dilemmas, though, that is somewhat different relative to the circumstances.

Remorse requires humility, which is hard to come by. — Heister Eggcart

(Y) I find it the greatest gift being one who herself has experienced remorse. It changed my life entirely, so I respect those who are just as honest and humble to themselves and in turn others.

Indeed, I am righteous by nature — TimeLine

Oh, that's a bold claim! How'd you come upon this righteous nature, eh? Who did you bully for it? O:)

But my knowledge does not descend into the bottomless pit of the grotesque. I don't want to hear about the weird shit people willingly do to themselves and each other, neither do I want to hear the whinges of the privileged crying that their plastic surgery hasn't helped secure the affections of their nasty boyfriend. Fuck off. — TimeLine

You, me, and Agustino have been in a threesome for a few weeks now, I'd say that's some pretty weird shit!

without moral consciousness and a capacity for honest self-reflection, one can easily deceive themselves. — TimeLine

Okay, I agree to an extent, but the worry I have here is that even for morally conscious, honestly self-reflecting individuals, they aren't always that - they also will screw up and will fail to be good people. In other words, an honest and moral person may still lie to themselves by lying to another even though they might think that they're being honest! I suppose this goes back to whether one should seek to never lie, or to figure out when to lie honestly and when to not lie at all.

For instance, a person who witnesses a crime but looks the other way — TimeLine

This person wouldn't be honest in the first place, so they wouldn't fit with my "honest liar" figure, as per the OP.

or the narcissist who is a loving person only to those who love him. — TimeLine

Hmm, I'm unsure about this characterization of narcissism. I think one can still love the narcissist even when the narcissist stops their reciprocated love. For instance, I've loved a narcissist before, quite recently too, but I didn't stop loving them after our friendship ended. I'd like to think that I still love what was and is good in them, and that that love didn't evaporate merely because (she) stopped loving me.

It could be that one deceives himself into thinking that he is protecting the interests of a loved one, but really he is protecting his own interests and there are a number of people that put on a show - think paedophilia and those Catholic priests that pretend to holiness - so it is about ascertaining that subjective honesty that wills the good. — TimeLine

Absolutely, but the pedophile's actions are evidently and obviously immoral. Whether or not a lie ought to be said in order to will the good of the lied-to is far murkier a moral dilemma I think. An instance wherein "lying honestly" is a viable option wouldn't be as clear cut a judgement call as saying, "aye, raping a child is unquestionably wrong, I'mma not do dat."

There is a unity in giving love, where people become one in a universal sense and you do not selectively give to one person and not the other, otherwise the love itself remains egotistic. So, it is about calculating the right decision according to this universal moral in a Kantian sense. I have turned my back even on family members because they are not good people, despite the fact that we are related because of my determination to adhere to universal principles like justice and righteousness. — TimeLine

I'm going out on a limb here and proclaiming it true that calculating the right decision is far and away more complicated than rocket science, :)

in the end I am confident that honesty to oneself will assuredly mean that you would be honest to others, even if it means that you will hurt them because that is what being virtuous is; taking responsibility. — TimeLine

Beautifully put, (Y)

But this must mean that you agree with the OP, and that a lie can be said with an honest heart, right?

Hmm, I'm unsure about this characterization of narcissism. I think one can still love the narcissist even when the narcissist stops their reciprocated love. For instance, I've loved a narcissist before, quite recently too, but I didn't stop loving them after our friendship ended. I'd like to think that I still love what was and is good in them, and that that love didn't evaporate merely because (she) stopped loving me. — Heister Eggcart

It is not about loving a narcissist, it is that the narcissist is incapable of loving others. They are trapped in their own ego and any expression of affection on their part is only due to the pleasure they feel because someone loves them. When they are told that there is something wrong with them, it is impossible and you are suddenly viewed as an enemy, monstrous even. Reality is a negotiation between good and bad and only one capable of seeing both can really understand 'reality' and enjoy lived experience.

But this must mean that you agree with the OP, and that a lie can be said with an honest heart, right? — Heister Eggcart

What is an 'honest heart'? Is that your way of saying that you seek to protect someone from being hurt, the latter of which you think is 'bad'? That type of hurt is not bad, on the contrary, when you face the consequences and take responsibility for your own actions, it is a necessary hurt that over time produces the greater good. It is not just about the present.

It is like breaking up with a partner you do not love; you care about them and you don't want to see them hurt, but by staying you indirectly form a type of implacable resentment hidden within a numb exterior and a mindless dependence. You lose yourself, your humanity in the process of surviving these confused feelings. But that hurts the person more and if you really cared not just for her but also for yourself, you would be honest because indeed in the long run it will give her a chance to move on and find someone who will care for her better than you as you find what it is you are looking for. You both become happier people.

This is why in the long run such people do all sorts of immoral things such as cheating, because they are capable of lying mostly to themselves, comfortable with the numbness of a dishonest reality. You end up in the long run doing more damage only because you believe that your decision is coming from an 'honest heart' or a loving and caring place. It is, yes, caring, but irrational and cowardly, which is rather selfish of you in what appears to be an outwardly appearing unselfish act.

This is wisdom; a combination of reason and a loving heart, otherwise a loving heart without knowledge is blind and knowledge without love is vicious. You need both to be courageous enough to take responsibility for such decisions and to be Epicurean viz., being honest enough to understand possible outcomes. It is like pouring vinegar over a jellyfish sting; the pain is immeasurable, albeit the pain subsides and the sting eventually dissipates, but in doing so you save a life. This is why I agree with you when you say:

I'm going out on a limb here and proclaiming it true that calculating the right decision is far and away more complicated than rocket science — Heister Eggcart

Hence, righteousness. To find the courage to make those difficult decisions despite your emotions. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; for I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother," as I did and though I suffered the 'sting' of loneliness, isolation, poverty and fear because I refused to follow, my happiness is greater then it has ever been. I am honest to myself enough not to sacrifice my soul for anyone. This is a good 'hurt'.

I suspect there is always a way to be virtuous. Traditionally the virtues include honesty. To try and find a way to justify lying kinda misses the point, IMHO.

The point being to try and find a way to be virtuous in all situations, even those that are admittedly difficult.... Not to try and find a way to justify lying.

Something else to consider:
I recently read On Virtue by Rosalind Hursthouse. She points out that people sometimes make the mistake of looking for a painless way to be virtuous. She suggests that the goal is to be virtuous, not to avoid pain...

It looks like other respondents are thinking along these same lines.

It is not about loving a narcissist, it is that the narcissist is incapable of loving others. They are trapped in their own ego and any expression of affection on their part is only due to the pleasure they feel because someone loves them. When they are told that there is something wrong with them, it is impossible and you are suddenly viewed as an enemy, monstrous even. Reality is a negotiation between good and bad and only one capable of seeing both can really understand 'reality' and enjoy lived experience. — TimeLine

I don't think it's fair to say that narcissists can't love at all. Surely they can love, just not as fully as others might be able to, no?

What is an 'honest heart'? Is that your way of saying that you seek to protect someone from being hurt, the latter of which you think is 'bad'? — TimeLine

Not bad, but worse. That to lie would be the most loving action to take, to not lie being worse than lying.

It is like breaking up with a partner you do not love; you care about them and you don't want to see them hurt, but by staying you indirectly form a type of implacable resentment hidden within a numb exterior and a mindless dependence. You lose yourself, your humanity in the process of surviving these confused feelings. But that hurts the person more and if you really cared not just for her but also for yourself, you would be honest because indeed in the long run it will give her a chance to move on and find someone who will care for her better than you as you find what it is you are looking for. You both become happier people. — TimeLine

In this case lying wouldn't be the most loving, so the most honest thing to do would be to tell the truth, yes.

This is why in the long run such people do all sorts of immoral things such as cheating, because they are capable of lying mostly to themselves, comfortable with the numbness of a dishonest reality. You end up in the long run doing more damage only because you believe that your decision is coming from an 'honest heart' or a loving and caring place. It is, yes, caring, but irrational and cowardly, which is rather selfish of you in what appears to be an outwardly appearing unselfish act. — TimeLine

Mmm, I don't think so. I doubt the cheater would look at my argument and think he's being honest by not telling the truth, by cheating, etc.

This is wisdom; a combination of reason and a loving heart, otherwise a loving heart without knowledge is blind and knowledge without love is vicious. You need both to be courageous enough to take responsibility for such decisions and to be Epicurean viz., being honest enough to understand possible outcomes. It is like pouring vinegar over a jellyfish sting; the pain is immeasurable, albeit the pain subsides and the sting eventually dissipates, but in doing so you save a life. This is why I agree with you when you say: — TimeLine

I'm not convinced yet that lying can't be poured vinegar on a jellyfish sting. Why can't lying be loving, and therefore be honest, if it is judged earnestly by the lying party that to lie is to bring about the least hurt and the most love?