I don't really think there is a question of obligation or 'owe' at play.

I think if you brought this down to a specific issue, liek telling a child their parent is dying, you could come to those concepts. But on your version above, I think either you decide to, or your decide not to, and this reflects on you not others. I don't think 'not knowing' carries any right. You fail to 'not knowing' millions of things every day. You don't have a choice, anyway.

Deontologically:

If the truth shall kill them, let them die. — Immanuel Kant

What a Kant!

↪180 Proof What a Kant! — Tom Storm

:lol: :up:

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? — Benj96

Truth can be overrated. There could be numerous reasons not to share truth. Where it might cause undue suffering or panic or create other dire reactions. Of course as humans we have to assess the potential impacts of unleashing truths indiscriminately. In life one might have small tastes of this - do we always tell people who are dying that they are dying? The ugly that they are ugly? The unintelligent that they are dim?

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them?

Can one truly have a choice in remaining ignorant as the very state is a state of not knowing what they ate avoiding?

In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96

What do you mean by "truth"? What exactly is your "integrity" or "honesty"? Or "autonomy" or "ignorance"? I ask because I think you might actually have meant facts for truth and some self-serving sense of propriety or correctness for integrity and honesty. And so forth. And knowledge as a sine qua non of autonomy? Whenever were there people who were not ignorant?

An interesting subject to dissect, but you need sharper tools lest it all become a mess.

Can one truly have a choice in remaining ignorant as the very state is a state of not knowing what they ate avoiding? — Benj96

Hu?


(Edit: Oh, "Are". OK. )

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them? — Benj96

This is an ethics question. The obligation to inform the community. Not all information fall into the category of culpability. So, the question should include 'what harm will it cause the community if they were not informed of this truth'.

In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96

Neither. The ethics of information includes the deliberation of whether there is a need to disclose or not.
Sex offenders must register that they are a sex offender as a public record. If they are living in a community whose residents are not informed of this fact, then the residents are denied the information regarding the history of this person. It's your task to weigh the sides of the affected parties.
On the other hand, white collar criminals do not have a required registration, neither do thieves. So, there is that.

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? Ie "a tough pill tonl swallow". Couldn't they declare that their autonomy in not knowing/ (their choice to remain ignorant) was taken away from them?

Can one truly have a choice in remaining ignorant as the very state is a state of not knowing what they ate avoiding?

In this case which is more important? The integrity of the truth or integrity of free will? — Benj96

I can't think of many contexts in which this particular dichotomy would apply.


One such context is those religious/spiritual apologists who think this way, who preach "at all costs" and who are willing to die for "the truth". It's from them that I've heard this almost exact same formulation of this dichotomy. These are also the type of street preachers who rattle down the message of the Gospel in 20 seconds and then tell you that you now have no excuse anymore, for you have heard the Gospel, and if you reject it, you will burn in hell, and won't be able to claim innocence on the grounds of ignorance.
It's basically an effort to unilaterally incriminate the other person.

Another example of such a dichotomy underlies the thinking of people who refuse to be citizens. In the view of such people, ignorance of the law should constitute innocence of breaking it.


But beyond that, truth and free will cannot be at odds. Free will is merely about choosing between options, but it has nothing to do with the range of those options.